How Facebook's advertising algorithm allowed the Trump campaign (And the Russians) reach far more people, for far less money.

Courtesy of Wired: 

Like many things at Facebook, the ads auction is a version of something Google built first. As on Google, Facebook has a piece of ad real estate that it’s auctioning off, and potential advertisers submit a piece of ad creative, a targeting spec for their ideal user, and a bid for what they’re willing to pay to obtain a desired response (such as a click, a like, or a comment). Rather than simply reward that ad position to the highest bidder, though, Facebook uses a complex model that considers both the dollar value of each bid as well as how good a piece of clickbait (or view-bait, or comment-bait) the corresponding ad is. If Facebook’s model thinks your ad is 10 times more likely to engage a user than another company’s ad, then your effective bid at auction is considered 10 times higher than a company willing to pay the same dollar amount. 

A canny marketer with really engaging (or outraging) content can goose their effective purchasing power at the ads auction, piggybacking on Facebook’s estimation of their clickbaitiness to win many more auctions (for the same or less money) than an unengaging competitor. That’s why, if you’ve noticed a News Feed ad that’s pulling out all the stops (via provocative stock photography or other gimcrackery) to get you to click on it, it’s partly because the advertiser is aiming to pump up their engagement levels and increase their exposure, all without paying any more money. 

During the run-up to the election, the Trump and Clinton campaigns bid ruthlessly for the same online real estate in front of the same swing-state voters. But because Trump used provocative content to stoke social media buzz, and he was better able to drive likes, comments, and shares than Clinton, his bids received a boost from Facebook’s click model, effectively winning him more media for less money. In essence, Clinton was paying Manhattan prices for the square footage on your smartphone’s screen, while Trump was paying Detroit prices. Facebook users in swing states who felt Trump had taken over their news feeds may not have been hallucinating.

The article goes on to explain that it was actually more costly for the Clinton campaign to target Facebook users in urban areas, where her demographics were better, than the Trump campaign's attempt to reach voters in rural areas.

To be fair many of these same tools were also available to the Clinton campaign, however you also need to keep in mind that Facebook sent folks to the Trump campaign to specifically teach them how to better use the platform.

Courtesy of WaPo: 

Fleshed out, Parscale is the man behind the Trump campaign’s digital media efforts in 2016. He was hired to create a website for $1,500 (as he explained in that “60 Minutes” interview) and then his role expanded until he was managing tens of millions of dollars intended to promote the presidential candidate online. 

The point of the interview was, in part, to serve as a profile of Parscale but, more broadly, to explain the primary way in which those millions were spent. Per Parscale’s accounting, that was largely on Facebook advertising. Trump’s team advertised on other platforms, too, but “Facebook was the 500-pound gorilla, 80 percent of the budget kind of thing,” Parscale said. 

He also revealed that Facebook even sent staff — whose political persuasion had been cleared by the company — to aid in that effort, to help Parscale “know every, single secret button, click, technology [they] have,” as he said in the interview. The campaign poured money into Facebook, sending thousands of versions of tweaked ads to maximize response. Then it won the presidency by a margin narrow enough that Parscale (and Facebook) can justifiably take credit.

That's right Facebook worked hand in orange tinted hand to help the Trump campaign beat Hillary Clinton.

 And that is without even taking into consideration how they allowed the Russians to weaponize their site to attack Clinton voters and spread misinformation to Trump supporters.

So when they say that Facebook was a neutral participant, or that they are simply a social gathering place with no agenda, they are full of shit. 

The White House is pushing the idea that the Russian interference had no impact on the outcome of the 2016 election. But that is false.

Deputy A.G. Rod Rosenstein stated at the News Conference: “There is no allegation in the indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 17, 2018

That tweet is actually part of a longer campaign by the Trump White House to dismiss the impact of the Russian interference by claiming that even if it happened it did not have any effect.

But that is NOT what the intelligence agencies determined.

Courtesy of Politico:  

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper on Thursday rebuffed a claim by Vice President Mike Pence that intelligence officials concluded that Russian meddling didn't have "any impact on the outcome of the 2016 election," saying it "stretches credulity" to say Moscow's interference didn't affect any voters' decisions.

"The intelligence community has neither the authority nor the capability to make such a judgment as to whether there was or was not impact on the election," Clapper said. "And we did not say that." 

Clapper added that it was "absolutely" possible that foreign influence campaigns had swayed voters, even though authorities had not made a definitive ruling on the matter. 

“I will say now that I’m not in an official position that it stretches credulity, given the magnitude, scope and depth of the Russian efforts, that they didn’t have impact on individual voter decisions," Clapper said. "But again, the intelligence community did not and could not gauge the impact on individual voter decisions.”

And keep in mind that just because these most recent indictments make no allegations that the meddling changed the outcome of the election, does not mean that is the conclusion of the intelligence agencies, or that it will be Mueller's ultimate conclusion.

Wired Magazine certainly disagrees that the Russians did not alter the outcome of the election in an article entitled DID RUSSIA AFFECT THE 2016 ELECTION? IT’S NOW UNDENIABLE: 

The groups and narratives identified in the indictment were integral parts of the frenzied election circus that built momentum, shaped perceptions, and activated a core base of support for now-President Trump—just as they helped disgust and dismay other groups, making them less likely to vote (or to vote for marginal candidates in protest). 

In the indictment, Trump campaign officials are referred to as “unwitting” participants in Russian information warfare. This gives the White House an out—and a chance to finally act against what the Kremlin did. But the evidence presented in the indictment makes it increasingly hard to say Russian efforts to influence the American mind were a failure.

In my mind there has never really been a question of whether the Russians altered the outcome of the election.

Of course they did.

But they also had help from James Comey, the House Republicans with their constant investigations, and the American media.

I am not sure that the Russians could have pulled this off without that extra help, but I do know that with this victory they are only going to amplify their efforts in the elections to come.

Putting in place strong sanctions, and protections, might head that off.

But with Putin's puppet in the White House, we know that will likely not happen.

Pro-Kremlin Twittter trolls are coming after Robert Mueller with a vengeance.

Courtesy of Wired:

THE DENSE NETWORK of pro-Kremlin Twitter accounts tracked by the group Alliance for Securing Democracy has spent the last year spreading chaos and discord about topics as diverse as NFL players refusing to stand during the national anthem and Al Franken's alleged sexual misconduct. It was only a matter of time, then, before the troll army set its sights on special counsel Robert Mueller. 

On the website Hamilton68, the Alliance tracks some 600 Twitter accounts it says are associated with a Russia-linked influence network. According to newly released figures, in the month of December, by far the most popular articles shared by the trolls aimed to undermine Mueller and the Department of Justice's investigation into Russian interference. 

In fact, 16 percent of the articles shared by those accounts between December 9 and December 31 were related in some way to the so-called deep state, the bulk of which aimed to discredit Mueller. That's a lot of tweets, considering the site analyzes some 20,000 tweets a day. It's a volume of conversation that, in late November, was reserved for the right's favorite punching bag, Hillary Clinton. The Hamilton68 team keeps its list of suspected Kremlin trolls secret, but it consists of a balance between openly pro-Russia accounts, like Sputnik and RT, as well as bot accounts run by troll factories, and other accounts that consistently amplify pro-Russia themes.

Of course the interesting thing about this is that it coincides with attacks on the Mueller instigation that are coming from Trump supporters and the Washington Republicans.

Odd how the Americans in the GOP are working in concert with the Russian trolls to impede a legal investigation in this country don't you think?

It almost seems that Vladimir Putin is pulling everybody's strings these days.

Perhaps that helps to explain this bullshit.

Senators @ChuckGrassley and @LindseyGrahamSC have referred Christopher Steele to @TheJusticeDept for investigation after information reviewed by committee investigators revealed significant inconsistencies in statements provided to authorities pic.twitter.com/MKhJlscdKP

— Senate Judiciary (@senjudiciary) January 5, 2018