Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Advertising Facebook Businesses Communications Government Social Networks The Internet United States Technology

Facebook Fought Rules That Could Have Exposed Fake Russian Ads (bloomberg.com) 193

Posted by BeauHD from the election-related dept.
According to Bloomberg, Facebook has for years fought to avoid being transparent about who's behind election-related ads online. "Since 2011, Facebook has asked the Federal Election Commission for blanket exemptions from political advertising disclosure rules -- transparency that could have helped it avoid the current crisis over Russia ad spending ahead of the 2016 U.S. election," reports Bloomberg. From the report: Communications law requires traditional media like TV and radio to track and disclose political ad buyers. The rule doesn't apply online, an exemption that's helped Facebook's self-serve advertising business generate hundreds of millions of dollars in political campaign spots. When the company was smaller, the issue was debated in some policy corners of Washington. Now that the social network is such a powerful political tool, with more than 2 billion users, the topic is at the center of a debate about the future of American democracy. Back in 2011, Facebook argued for the exemption for the same reasons as internet search giant Google: its ads are too small and have a character limit, leaving no room for language saying who paid for a campaign, according to documents on the FEC's website. Some FEC commissioners agreed, while others argued that Facebook could provide a clickable web link to get more information about the ad.

Facebook wouldn't budge. It warned that FEC proposals for more political ad disclosure could hinder free speech in a 2011 opinion written by Marc Elias, a high-powered Democratic lawyer who later became general counsel for Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. Colin Stretch, a top Facebook lawyer, said the agency "should not stand in the way of innovation," and warned that such rules would quickly become obsolete. When it came time for the FEC to decide in June 2011, the agency's six commissioners split on a 3-3 vote. Facebook didn't get its exemption, so an advertiser using its platform was still subject to a 2006 ruling by the FEC requiring disclosure. But the company allowed ads to run without those disclaimers, leaving it up to ad buyers to comply.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Fought Rules That Could Have Exposed Fake Russian Ads More

Facebook Fought Rules That Could Have Exposed Fake Russian Ads

Comments Filter:

  • Wait a minute. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mark_reh ( 2015546 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2017 @08:53PM (#55312403) Journal

    Every time I follow a link to a news story, the web site puts a popup on my browser that says I should turn off my ad blocker. Are you going to tell me that Facebook can't generate a popup that shows the source of an ad when you simply move you mouse or pointer or finger over the ad? I have a hard time believing that.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 )

      Are you going to tell me that Facebook can't generate a popup

      Of course they can, but that isn't the point. Their objection is not that it is difficult, but that it is wrong. The law does not require them to disclose the source. Nor should it. Here is the 1st Amendment:

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

      Please explain where in the

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Well then, please speak to the congresscritters & the courts to have such laws removed as they apply to print & TV media. If it's wrong then its wrong for all media. But that's not what FB & Google argued. They could have gone to court to fight it under the 1st amendment, they didn't, they just don't want the laws to apply to them while they apply to others thus giving them a competitive advantage. Sorry, that doesn't cut it. Media is media, if a law is constitutional it should apply to all, if

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        "The law does not require them to disclose the source. Nor should it. Here is the 1st Amendment:"
        Nonsense. Political campaigns are required to disclose the source of any campaign donations they receive. The TV and Radio media outlets are required to disclose the source for any political advertisements they publish. In no way is any of these requirements a violation of 1st Amendment protections. You can buy as many political ads you want but you cannot do it anonymously. Companies like Facebook, Twitter, and

        • In no way is any of these requirements a violation of 1st Amendment protections.

          This law does what the Constitution says "no law" can do. So how is that not a violation?

          Companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google are not bound by the 1st Amendment

          They are not bound by the 1st Amendment, but they are protected by it.

          If TV and Radio media channels fall under the FCC why not the companies who dominate the online communication channels?

          TV and radio use limited broadcast spectrum that is licensed to them in return for restrictions on what they can use if for. Facebook, and cable TV, do not use licensed RF spectrum, and the government has no right to regulate what they say.

          • Re:Wait a minute. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05, 2017 @12:00AM (#55312995)

            This law does what the Constitution says "no law" can do. So how is that not a violation?

            The text of the 1st amendment does not run "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of foreign intelligence services to undermine this Constitution." It provides no constitutional guarantee of anonymity such as you appear to claim nor does it prohibit laws requiring disclosure in regard to political advertising.

            Indeed, as the distinction between prohibiting certain US persons from publishing political ads (clearly unconstitutional) and the requirement of those persons to disclose themselves (not unconstitutional) was made clear in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 558 U.S. 310 (2010), your position would appear difficult to sustain.

            • It provides no constitutional guarantee of anonymity

              Anonymity is not "guaranteed" but laws prohibiting anonymity clearly violate the "no laws" clause.

              nor does it prohibit laws requiring disclosure in regard to political advertising.

              How do those laws fit in the "no laws" requirement?

              • It's not "no law". It's "no law [...] abridging".

                • It's not "no law". It's "no law [...] abridging".

                  If you try to speak, and the government stops you and threatens to arrest you if you speak without identifying yourself, then that is an abridgment of your right to free speech.

                  • Re:Wait a minute. (Score:4, Insightful)

                    by mrclevesque ( 1413593 ) on Thursday October 05, 2017 @09:22AM (#55314331)

                    It's not "no law". It's "no law [...] abridging".

                    If you try to speak, and the government stops you and threatens to arrest you if you speak without identifying yourself, then that is an abridgment of your right to free speech.

                    "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

                    I don't see how political add disclosure curtails or reduces a corporations' ability to speak.

                    • Re:Wait a minute. (Score:5, Interesting)

                      by jbengt ( 874751 ) on Thursday October 05, 2017 @09:50AM (#55314507)
                      The right to anonymity is considered by many to be essential to the right to freedom of speech. It's a contentious issue of debate, and I lean towards that opinion. But the courts almost never consider any single right to be absolute, and will weigh one right against other rights and against potential consequences; e.g. conspiracy to commit a crime is not protected speech. As pointed out above, courts have ruled that your right to know who is supporting a political candidate is greater than the right of that person, corporation, or political entity to be anonymous. The same does not hold for paid speech advocating a policy rather than a candidate, so there's a lot of grey area in the law.
                      IANAL, YMMV, etc.

                    • I don't see how political add disclosure curtails or reduces a corporations' ability to speak.

                      The laws on disclosure do not contain the word "corporation" and apply to individuals as well as companies.

                      If disclosure is not an abridgment of speech, then please post your real name and address.

                    • Wish I had.mod points. An excellent and thoughtful analysis. There are too many people who suffer from a sort of absolutist binary thinking on matters of constitutional rights.

                    • I'd argue disclosure is a condition imposed on freedom of speech not an abridgement of speech.

                    • I'd argue disclosure is a condition imposed on freedom of speech not an abridgement of speech.

                      I'd argue that "a condition imposed on" and "an abridgment" are the exact same thing.

                    • Judges and lawyers have decided there is a difference.

                      I'm guessing they argued that asking for disclosure after a speech is not the same as abridging that speech (in the legal sense of curtailing). And as others have mentioned, competing rights need to be balanced.

                    • And the rights of corporated individuals are not identical to the rights of individuals.

                  • It's not like that. It's more like this: I can speak all I like, but not if I'm wearing a paper bag over my head.

          • You would be right if the law prevented them from running the ad at all.

            It doesn't, so you're wrong. Again.

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Political Advertisements are not examples of "Free Speech." The FEC wants the same accountability and disclosure from Facebook that is already required for Political Ads on other mediums (i.e. TV, Radio, et al)

        A Facebook user's post is "Free Speech" and is not in the crosshairs of regulators.

      • Of course they can, but that isn't the point. Their objection is not that it is difficult, but that it is wrong.

        You are confused.

        The 1st Amendment applies between the government and it's citizens, not between Facebook and their ad-purchasing clients. It says "Congress shall make no law". What does Facebook requiring disclosure of / showing the source of an ad to users got to do with congress making a law? Facebook can require their clients submit a GIF of them dancing around in a dress if they want.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      This whole story is a crock of shit. Can Facebook block foreign ads, no, abso-fucking-lutely impossible. Why, seriously how stupid are people buying into US government propaganda and click bait of the worst order. Foreign ad, pay a person at the locale of choice to place the ads for you, no skill, no, ability, just a citizen who is absolutely legally contracting out labour. Not that I would mind a global ban on Ads and corporate propaganda coming out of the US. Think of all the movies and TV series that cou

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by tsqr ( 808554 )

        Foreign ad, pay a person at the locale of choice to place the ads for you, no skill, no, ability, just a citizen who is absolutely legally contracting out labour.

        "Absolutely legally"? No. "Participating in a conspiracy to violate Federal law"? Yes.

    • Re: Wait a minute. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I don't give a fuck who bought the ads. If people are fucking stupid enough to let it sway their opinion then they deserve Trump-Clinton for PotUS.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Maybe ads should have a country of origin label, like goods do. At the very least, every ad should be accompanied by the name of the organization paying for it. Not sure how to deal with shell companies and the inevitable ad anonymization services though, except perhaps that sites could elect to ban them as a show of good faith to readers.

  • "current crisis over Russia ad spending" (Score:4, Informative)

    by turkeydance ( 1266624 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2017 @08:54PM (#55312411)
    nope. no crisis.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Don't you know what the crisis is? Trump got elected. That has to be someone's fault, and it can't possibly be the Democratic Party.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ClickOnThis ( 137803 )

      It is against the law for foreign nationals to spend money to try to influence US elections. Russia did this en masse in 2016. So yes, crisis.

      • I have yet to hear how we expect the US to enforce this law, or why we can make laws concerning what foreign nationals can do while solely within the borders of foreign countries. Shanghai Bill points to the First Amendment as a reason that all campaign finance laws are unconstitutional, so I will point out, besides being an unconstitutional limit on free speech, it is a law created to control someone who has no representation within our system of government. We fought a war over taxation like that, so why

      • It is against the law for foreign nationals to spend money to try to influence US elections. Russia did this en masse in 2016. So yes, crisis.

        It may have been a crime, but it is ridiculous to call it a "crisis". A lost puppy is a crisis. Last year's ads are not.

      • Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending" (Score:5, Insightful)

        by HermMunster ( 972336 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2017 @09:53PM (#55312639)

        Including having the UK Parliament publicly make statements about Trump's mental health and or fitness for office before the election? How about that? How about the US media that aired those abusive statements and comments? How on Earth do you enforce any of it?

        What law, BTW? What law says that they can't post political ads?

        What about Hillary's campaign working with Ukraine on getting the dirt on Trump? How about the Hillary campaign using a business that paid for the dirty dossier generated by an ex member of the UK intelligence agencies? How about once an intelligence agent then always an intelligence agent?

        At what point do you cease allowing the political party a say on when and what will be enforced?

        • Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending" (Score:5, Informative)

          by ClickOnThis ( 137803 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2017 @10:53PM (#55312835) Journal

          Including having the UK Parliament publicly make statements about Trump's mental health and or fitness for office before the election? How about that? How about the US media that aired those abusive statements and comments?

          If the UK parliament were to comment on a candidate's mental health, and the media (US or otherwise) reports on it, that's perfectly fine.

          But if the UK parliament were to pay money to run political ads on US media about a candidate's mental health, then yes, that's illegal.

          • If the UK parliament were to comment on a candidate's mental health, and the media (US or otherwise) reports on it, that's perfectly fine.

            But if the UK parliament were to pay money to run political ads on US media about a candidate's mental health, then yes, that's illegal.

            So foreign "influence" is fine as long as nobody pays for it?

            What if Russia uses a free Google adwords coupon?

          • So if we finally find proof Obama wasn't a US citizen, do we get to put him in prison for running his campaign ads?

            • So if we finally find proof Obama wasn't a US citizen, do we get to put him in prison for running his campaign ads?

              I suppose. But here's the problem with your plan:

              1. The US Constitution stipulates that the individual states are responsible for keeping birth records.
              2. The state of Hawaii says that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.
              3. THE END.

        • Trump the victim? (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Waaa waaaa waaaa..... Ukraine tried to stop Trump getting elected..... it's all a plot of Ukraine, in cooperation with the UK..... and the NFL..... and Mexico... and the deep state..... McCain, rogue Republicans....waaaaa waaaa waaa.

          It's pathetic to hear yet another whining excuse.

          Yeh, Trump is such a victim, we get it. And he's endlessly bleeting about how America is a victim.

        • Including having the UK Parliament publicly make statements about Trump's mental health and or fitness for office before the election?..... How about that? How about the US media that aired those abusive statements and comments?

          [Added the bold]. Abusive? Sounds more like "fair comment".

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

          If we're talking about Trump, his subsequent words and deeds should have confirmed to all that he's obviously neither of sound mind nor fit to hold the office of POTUS.

          But of course, these days right, left and all love to instantly demonise their opponents - or just anybody that disagrees with them on a random topic - by labelling them as "abusive" or whatever.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Including having the UK Parliament publicly make statements about Trump's mental health and or fitness for office before the election?

          It was important for our MPs to discuss those issues, given that there was a very real possibility of someone with possible mental health issues and a volatile temperament and finger hovering over the tweet button might win.

          It's actually worked out really badly for us. The EU is on the rise again as people look to it for strength and leadership as America declines, and our hope of getting a good trade deal post-Brexit from Mr. America First fucked-over-everyone-he-ever-did-business-with is looking pretty re

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by hublan ( 197388 )

          How about the Hillary campaign using a business that paid for the dirty dossier generated by an ex member of the UK intelligence agencies?

          FYI. The dossier was initiated and originally funded by a rich donor to the "Never Trump" arm of the Republican party [wikipedia.org].

      • Re:"current crisis over Russia ad spending" (Score:4, Informative)

        by davide marney ( 231845 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2017 @11:56PM (#55312985) Journal

        Here's a summary of the FEC regs: https://www.fec.gov/updates/fo... [fec.gov]

        "In a decision that was later affirmed by the Supreme Court, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the foreign national ban “does not restrain foreign nationals from speaking out about issues or spending money to advocate their views about issues. It restrains them only from a certain form of expressive activity closely tied to the voting process—providing money for a candidate or political party or spending money in order to expressly advocate for or against the election of a candidate.” Bluman v. FEC, 800 F. Supp. 2d 281, 290 (D.D.C. 2011), aff’d 132 S. Ct. 1087 (2012)."

        So, depends on the nature of the advertisement. If it's issues-oriented, it's probably fine.

      • Prove to me that those ads had any effect at all, even assuming that they really were russian, and were political. Until then, your crisis is bullshit.
    • nope. no crisis.

      ..And therein lies the crisis!

  • Sounds familiar (Score:5, Insightful)

    by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2017 @09:10PM (#55312459)

    This is exactly what the banks and Wall Street firms did from 2005 - 2007. Every time a bill came up which would require them to be more transparent, to have greater oversight applied, to hold more cash on hand, they fought it tooth and nail. Their claim was all those "rules" would defeat their competitive nature in the financial markets. Don't worry. They knew what they're doing. It was different this time.

    We saw how that worked out.

    Now here we are, with Facebook having done the same thing and having to face up to the reality of why those rules were necessary. It will be interesting to hear the excuses Zuck throws out. He's already given his faux apology and faux promise to make things better. All that's left is for him to flip us the middle finger like Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein have done and the circle will be complete.

    At least the Senate investigation into Russian collusion is still going strong and expanding [cbsnews.com].

    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      At least the Senate investigation into Russian collusion is still going strong and expanding [cbsnews.com].

      You mean the investigation that's yet to turn up a shred of evidence in the nearly a year it's been running? That one? It's "expanding" because it's a wild goose chase. It's "expanding" because they still haven't found anything.

      If the Republican party had a spine, they'd terminate this complete waste of money. Imagine how much money being wasted on this Democratic witch hunt could instead have been spent on helping Puerto Rico.

    • Exactly, and if you were one of those financial companies, or now facebook - it's be far more news-worthy if you *didn't* fight those laws/rules, or indeed actually lobbied for them.

      Of course Facebook fought any and all rules or laws that might impede their ability to operate without any oversight. Why would anyone think they'd do differently?

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Ads (Score:3)

    by Neuronwelder ( 990842 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2017 @09:19PM (#55312493)
    I don't give a dam if they track me. Many times, when they just put ads on the sides, I have clicked on one to find something that actually interests me. I know that it takes money that I don't have to run all kinds of sites that I watch. And they can keep advertising.. I just hate it when the screen goes dark and an ad gets pushed in your face forcing you to find the hard to find "x".

  • Podesta's leaked emails proved Facebook... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 04, 2017 @09:30PM (#55312543)

    colluded with Hillary's campaign:

    http://truepundit.com/wikileaks-bombshell-podesta-emails-prove-facebook-colluded-with-hillary-clinton-during-election/ [truepundit.com]

    So now we're supposed to believe that about $50k worth of Facebook ads tilted the election to Trump despite the fact Hillary spent over $1.2 billion during her campaign?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The alternative is to believe that Hillary and her team made bad decisions and also did not spend all that money effectively.

      • Re:Podesta's leaked emails proved Facebook... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Mashiki ( 184564 ) <mashiki&gmail,com> on Thursday October 05, 2017 @06:25AM (#55313721) Homepage

        The alternative is to believe that Hillary and her team made bad decisions and also did not spend all that money effectively.

        You mean besides being an unlikable candidate, pissing off core democrat voters, rigging their own primary? That even when Donna Brazile leaked debate questions to Clinton she still lost the debate? Nah, none of that is her fault we know that. She keeps screeching and saying so, it was all that Russia's fault. And she would have gotten away with it too if it hadn't been those pesky kids from 4chan and their cartoon frog.

        The most hilarious thing was pepe. Even the hillary loving pundits in Canada went on and on about how stupid she was trying to make it into something.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by cyn1c77 ( 928549 )

          You mean besides being an unlikable candidate, pissing off core democrat voters, rigging their own primary?

          Wait, are you talking about Clinton or Trump?!?!

          I get a kick out of the comments that Clinton was unlikable and thus not electable. Is she actually more "unlikable" than someone who believes that he can literally grab you by the crotch?

          Also, why do you have to LIKE your president? They're not going to be your friend or significant other. You're never going to even see them in person during their tenure. They just need to be effective, not likable, but effective at their job.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Mashiki ( 184564 )

            Wait, are you talking about Clinton or Trump?!?!

            That one should be obvious. Trump didn't rig the primary, and didn't turn around when caught give the person a very cushy job inside of their campaign did he.

            I get a kick out of the comments that Clinton was unlikable and thus not electable. Is she actually more "unlikable" than someone who believes that he can literally grab you by the crotch?

            She was very unlikable. Really what was her selling point? Female? That's all she really ran on, she pushed identity politics, political correctness, and other garbage that mainstream has already had enough of. Why do you think when Trump went politically incorrect then doubled down on it he soared with people. Oh and "literally grab you by the cro

    • There's a proverb concerning a nail, a horseshoe, and a kingdom.

    • Truepundit is a conspiracy-pseudoscience site (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      https://mediabiasfactcheck.com... [mediabiasfactcheck.com]

      CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE

      Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.

      Factual Reporting: MIXED

      Notes: Though they do occasionally publish a legitimate story, some are conspiracies. This source also currently delivers news straight from the Daily Caller which has a strong right-wing bias. Most articles from True Pundit have anonymous authors. This source has also been flagged for false information and has an unproven claim. Simply not trustworthy.

      It's the kind of site that dreams up "Pizzagate" [buzzfeed.com] conspiracies [truepundit.com] when it's not too busy reposting other conspiracy loons' vague "new world order" conspiracies. [truepundit.com]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Mashiki ( 184564 )

        Thing is...those emails are all real.

        You can read Sandberg's emails in the podesta chain right here. [wikileaks.org] You can read Zuckerburg coming right out to bat for Hillary and the DNC to boot, right here. [wikileaks.org] You can try screeching over the source all you want, but those emails are cold hard facts. Facebook came right out to bat for her.

      • To be fair if you actually look into the emails there are valid questions to be raised, the fact that police refused to even acknowledge that is a big driving point of Pizzagate. It's fake? Ok well why don't you investigate the legitimate questions and show us, just saying "nothing to see here move along" raises more suspicion. Police should have investigated to make sure it was fake, they never did. "conspiracy theories" While usually BS HAVE come out to be true (usually much much later) so if there is e

    • The worst thing is that her own lawyer argued against Facebook disclosing or blocking ads from the âoeevilâ Russians. Something tells me the collusion with the Russians backfired on her.

    • So now we're supposed to believe that about $50k worth of Facebook ads tilted the election to Trump

      No. No one (reasonable) is pointing to this specific $50,000 ad buy as the reason Hilary lost. This is evidence see that a foreign power attempted to influence an American election by exploiting racial divides. The natural follow-up question, then, is did that foreign power do so in collusion with the candidate they were assisting?

      • ... This is evidence see that a foreign power attempted to influence an American election by exploiting racial divides. ...

        You've made two errors, first attempted should be conducting an ongoing campaign and American election should be American Society.

      • If our own politicians hadn't made their careers and reinforced their power and control for the last 100 years by exploiting racial divides this wouldn't be a problem...

  • Nothing is illegal about Russians buying ads, even ones considered manipulative. Agreeing to rules without fighting means they are allowing the authorities to determine what we see and hear. Fighting those rules is the only right thing to do.

    Besides, every bit of this Facebook outrage means that the left doesn't believe Americans have brains enough to make a proper adult decisions. Hell with that attitude why even allow Americans to vote at all?

    • I am sure that they would welcome that, if they though they could get away with it.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      >Nothing is illegal about Russians buying ads

      That is not true. Political advertising is heavily regulated and the rules are strict regarding foreign countries trying to influence US elections.

  • Shocked (Score:4, Funny)

    by Bodhammer ( 559311 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2017 @09:53PM (#55312635)
    Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?
    Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
    [a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
    Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
    Captain Renault: Oh, thank you very much.
  • There is no "current crisis" over $100,000 worth of across-the-spectrum noise-generating BS ads run by Russia in an election season when the Clinton machine spent or exercised on her behalf over $2 billion. It's only a "crisis" in the sense that it's one of the only absurd little threads that Clinton and her followers can still cling to as a reason she lost, short of having to finally confront the fact that she's an awful person and a worse candidate into which to invest $2 billion dollars and the phony hop
  • $100,00 spent over 3 years in a presidential campaign that cost $2.4 billion. That's some bang for your buck!

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday October 05, 2017 @10:22AM (#55314643)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Fake Russian ads, rather than fake Democrat and fake Republican ads?

    I'm not sure there's anything to get excited about.

    Did I miss something?

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't be irreplaceable, if you can't be replaced, you can't be promoted.

Close