Almost All of Facebook’s Top Christian Pages in 2019 Run by Foreign Troll Farms(relevantmagazine.com)
relevantmagazine.com
Almost All of Facebook’s Top Christian Pages in 2019 Run by Foreign Troll Farms
https://www.relevantmagazine.com/culture/tech-gaming/almost-all-of-facebooks-top-christian-pages-are-run-by-foreign-troll-farms/
301 コメント
> Why wouldn’t this article mention the Black American content as well?
Relevant Magazine isn't a news outlet. It's a Christian culture magazine. So the point of the article is "Hey, our culture is being hijacked", not to give a full picture of what's happening in the news.
Relevant Magazine isn't a news outlet. It's a Christian culture magazine. So the point of the article is "Hey, our culture is being hijacked", not to give a full picture of what's happening in the news.
Its not just a Christian culture magazine, it is one whose backers have a BLM slant as well.
so, for them, to skip Black American content - pardon the pun, it should be relevant to them too?
so, for them, to skip Black American content - pardon the pun, it should be relevant to them too?
The RELEVANT Story
RELEVANT is a multimedia company whose purpose is to impact culture and give voice to what God is doing in and through our generation.......Our Mission
We’re twenty- and thirtysomething Christians seeking God and striving to impact the world around us.
Did I miss your point? Are you saying that Black American issues are not of concern to the editors of this magazine?
Or they don't view it as a concern to their readers
[deleted]
In general, I prefer when people posting on HN post the URL to the original reporting, rather than one of the many summaries different venues write riding their coat-tails.
In this case, the first sentence ends in "internal documents leaked to MIT Technology Review reveal", with a link -- why not just post the MIT Technology Review article in the first place?
[Also, just as an aside, don't forget that obviously many Christians are Black people].
[And also, as far as your original question, if you scroll down in the MIT Tech Review article to the charts from which the headline of this re-report come from, you'll see that the troll farms were particularly successful in their "Christian" positioning, with 19 of the top 20 pages. The other groups targetted, they didn't achieve that level of penetration. This is notable, but I agree the other groups they were targetting is also notable!]
In this case, the first sentence ends in "internal documents leaked to MIT Technology Review reveal", with a link -- why not just post the MIT Technology Review article in the first place?
[Also, just as an aside, don't forget that obviously many Christians are Black people].
[And also, as far as your original question, if you scroll down in the MIT Tech Review article to the charts from which the headline of this re-report come from, you'll see that the troll farms were particularly successful in their "Christian" positioning, with 19 of the top 20 pages. The other groups targetted, they didn't achieve that level of penetration. This is notable, but I agree the other groups they were targetting is also notable!]
To me, seeing a Christian media outlet cover the story is interesting in itself, so I think this is sufficiently different from the MIT Technology Review article to merit its own post. However, since I don't know what kind of reach Relevant Magazine has among American Christians (and I suspect it's very little) I'm surprised to see it on the front page.
jtdev(3)
It seems like the original reporting was posted two weeks ago, and generated little to no discussion.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28565121
>Troll farms reached 140M Americans a month on FB before 2020 elections
I can imagine most of HN sees a headline that boils down to "lots of stuff on facebook is fake" and not care. A headline with a clear subject that people can love/hate is much better clickbait.
I can imagine most of HN sees a headline that boils down to "lots of stuff on facebook is fake" and not care. A headline with a clear subject that people can love/hate is much better clickbait.
A little late here but just want to add, the original MIT article is paywalled if you’ve read more than your 2 free monthly stories there. The Relevant magazine story is not.
Also it is of interest that a Christian culture magazine is reporting on this, as that’s the kind of thing that needs to happen en masse to fix this problem. It needs to become a main topic of discussion in the communities being targeted by troll farms, and not just in tech circles.
That this article shows that is happening is newsworthy in and of itself.
Also it is of interest that a Christian culture magazine is reporting on this, as that’s the kind of thing that needs to happen en masse to fix this problem. It needs to become a main topic of discussion in the communities being targeted by troll farms, and not just in tech circles.
That this article shows that is happening is newsworthy in and of itself.
Crucially, though, the report concludes that the farms’ motivations seem to be monetary. It points out that their content did not focus solely on divisive content, but on whatever generates clicks. Outrage bait is naturally a part of it, but the controversial content seems to be a means rather than the end goal.
If i remember correctly, the first thing I've heard about fake news were the farms over in Macedonia. Those guys realized in 2016 that you can make a pretty penny feeding Americans shit they wanted to hear, regardless of the truth.
Sometime in all of this, Russia must have taken notice (or was quietly in the picture the entire time) and started spreading misinformation for the purpose of division rather than clicks.
I have a few thoughts on all of this. First off in a way I sympathize with all the folks running content farms abroad. You have to respect the hustle and ingenuity. I also think that much of this fake news is on Americans for eating the shit up.
One thing that has always bugged me about the narrative of "fake news" and "disinformation" or "misinformation" online is that it always made the readers/consumers seem like helpless victims. It's always "we have to stop misinformation", "we have to stop these troll farms", never "we have to educate ourselves to be more savvy". The narrative seems to be that the readers of this crap have zero agency, and we have to go out of our way to protect them from his harmful information.
Sometime in all of this, Russia must have taken notice (or was quietly in the picture the entire time) and started spreading misinformation for the purpose of division rather than clicks.
I have a few thoughts on all of this. First off in a way I sympathize with all the folks running content farms abroad. You have to respect the hustle and ingenuity. I also think that much of this fake news is on Americans for eating the shit up.
One thing that has always bugged me about the narrative of "fake news" and "disinformation" or "misinformation" online is that it always made the readers/consumers seem like helpless victims. It's always "we have to stop misinformation", "we have to stop these troll farms", never "we have to educate ourselves to be more savvy". The narrative seems to be that the readers of this crap have zero agency, and we have to go out of our way to protect them from his harmful information.
> we have to educate ourselves to be more savvy
I see your point but I don't necessarily agree. A major aspect of a healthy society is trust. We need to be able to trust most of the informations that are fed to us in order to get information. Navigating a trustless information landscape is incredibly time consuming as looking for sources and invalidating information is much more time consuming than producing it.
Requiring people to stop acting on their "outrage" feeling is also extraordinary damageing to society as it also stops people from reacting to actual issues.
Finally, if you look at the savvy people do you really believe that they are actually better at detecting fakes? It seems that they are better at identifying information sources that can be trusted, but once trust is established I'm pretty sure they don't spend all their cognitive resources trying to disprove everything they read (well some probably are).
So a bit like with malware being more abundant on more popular OS, even if everyone moved to reputable sources, the trolls would move as well.
I see your point but I don't necessarily agree. A major aspect of a healthy society is trust. We need to be able to trust most of the informations that are fed to us in order to get information. Navigating a trustless information landscape is incredibly time consuming as looking for sources and invalidating information is much more time consuming than producing it.
Requiring people to stop acting on their "outrage" feeling is also extraordinary damageing to society as it also stops people from reacting to actual issues.
Finally, if you look at the savvy people do you really believe that they are actually better at detecting fakes? It seems that they are better at identifying information sources that can be trusted, but once trust is established I'm pretty sure they don't spend all their cognitive resources trying to disprove everything they read (well some probably are).
So a bit like with malware being more abundant on more popular OS, even if everyone moved to reputable sources, the trolls would move as well.
Censorship with little justification, all on top of sneering mockery of everything you may believe in, doesn't exactly strike me as the best way to promote trust.
My post don't offer a solution as I haven't really found one unfortunately.
I don't believe in censorship either but we need to find a way to disincentivise behaviors that lower trust.
I don't believe in censorship either but we need to find a way to disincentivise behaviors that lower trust.
> A major aspect of a healthy society is trust. We need to be able to trust most of the informations that are fed to us in order to get information.
Another major aspect of a healthy society is distrust. People trusting anything they see written down is a major issue for a healthy society. This was rarely discussed when everything that was written down was controlled by the large media conglomerates, but it is becoming a huge point of contention today. Traditional media are furious that they are losing their unique ability to shape publish discourse, and are desperately lashing (there was a NYT article outraged that some site was permitting the creation of private rooms with no control of what is being discussed).
Another major aspect of a healthy society is distrust. People trusting anything they see written down is a major issue for a healthy society. This was rarely discussed when everything that was written down was controlled by the large media conglomerates, but it is becoming a huge point of contention today. Traditional media are furious that they are losing their unique ability to shape publish discourse, and are desperately lashing (there was a NYT article outraged that some site was permitting the creation of private rooms with no control of what is being discussed).
>A major aspect of a healthy society is trust. We need to be able to trust most of the informations that are fed to us in order to get information.
You missed the root cause. The mainstream media lost the trust of the people with their biased reporting. This leads people to look for alternate resources, which are being manipulated like this.
You missed the root cause. The mainstream media lost the trust of the people with their biased reporting. This leads people to look for alternate resources, which are being manipulated like this.
> "we have to stop misinformation", "we have to stop these troll farms", never "we have to educate ourselves to be more savvy"
Well, it's both:
* For misinformation spread through centralized media (TV, radio, newspapers, etc), we do need to stop it, because the privilege of running a media company comes with responsibility to not spread misinformation. The same applies to any official government channels.
* For misinformation that spreads person-to-person, we do need to address people's lack of ability to think critically and search for truth. This is a long-term goal that can be achieved by teaching critical thinking classes (like philosophy) in K12. Finland is taking this approach already[1].
Social media like Facebook falls somewhere in between. To the extent that Facebook can act as a media company (e.g. by providing a platform for groups with membership in tens of thousands), it should have the same responsibilities as TV stations and newspapers of comparable reach (in my personal, biased opinion).
While it doesn't make sense to stop people telling things to each other, it does make sense to go after the hubs where misinformation originates and spreads to many people at once (in my biased opinion).
When it comes to individuals, well, that's why we need educational reforms.
Side note: the entire point of Russian propaganda/misinformation campaigns is not to spread any particular viewpoint, it's to destroy people's ability to search for truth (everything is fake, might as well pick what resonates the most!), reason critically (bad faith reasoning 101), and hold a civil discussion to find common ground (any disagreement can be won by making the other person angry).
It is self-sustaining; affected people start coming up with their own alternative realities which spread like wildfire. Tribalism and fake news are the result.
[1]https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/05/how-finland-is-fighti...
Well, it's both:
* For misinformation spread through centralized media (TV, radio, newspapers, etc), we do need to stop it, because the privilege of running a media company comes with responsibility to not spread misinformation. The same applies to any official government channels.
* For misinformation that spreads person-to-person, we do need to address people's lack of ability to think critically and search for truth. This is a long-term goal that can be achieved by teaching critical thinking classes (like philosophy) in K12. Finland is taking this approach already[1].
Social media like Facebook falls somewhere in between. To the extent that Facebook can act as a media company (e.g. by providing a platform for groups with membership in tens of thousands), it should have the same responsibilities as TV stations and newspapers of comparable reach (in my personal, biased opinion).
While it doesn't make sense to stop people telling things to each other, it does make sense to go after the hubs where misinformation originates and spreads to many people at once (in my biased opinion).
When it comes to individuals, well, that's why we need educational reforms.
Side note: the entire point of Russian propaganda/misinformation campaigns is not to spread any particular viewpoint, it's to destroy people's ability to search for truth (everything is fake, might as well pick what resonates the most!), reason critically (bad faith reasoning 101), and hold a civil discussion to find common ground (any disagreement can be won by making the other person angry).
It is self-sustaining; affected people start coming up with their own alternative realities which spread like wildfire. Tribalism and fake news are the result.
[1]https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/05/how-finland-is-fighti...
> One thing that has always bugged me about the narrative of "fake news" and "disinformation" or "misinformation" online is that it always made the readers/consumers seem like helpless victims. It's always "we have to stop misinformation", "we have to stop these troll farms", never "we have to educate ourselves to be more savvy". The narrative seems to be that the readers of this crap have zero agency, and we have to go out of our way to protect them from his harmful information.
I agree with the "ought" here, but don't think it's practical.
I think it's more likely that "democratizing" misinformation/lies/propaganda, combined with online anon- or pseudo-nymity, is simply a (strong) net-negative for, especially, democratic states, as much as we really really want it to be net-beneficial, and as much as we can imagine a world in our heads where it's net-beneficial. I think it may simply not be what we hoped, and not be practically able to ever be that.
I agree with the "ought" here, but don't think it's practical.
I think it's more likely that "democratizing" misinformation/lies/propaganda, combined with online anon- or pseudo-nymity, is simply a (strong) net-negative for, especially, democratic states, as much as we really really want it to be net-beneficial, and as much as we can imagine a world in our heads where it's net-beneficial. I think it may simply not be what we hoped, and not be practically able to ever be that.
I wonder if this is a problem that fixes itself naturally generation by generation. There is a propaganda / propaganda immunity arms race that seems to always eventually favor the skeptic. I think advertising is a good example - when you look at advertisements in, say, the 1980s is would be immediately rejected by any young person today who has a natural 'inoculation' to blatant advertising like that. Instead we have more subtle paid product placements from influencers and the like. I feel like maybe the same is true of outrage pornography clickbait farms like this. I suspect the primary customers of this sort of content skew older and as those generations die off a more subtle form of divisive propaganda might emerge, or it might just become less effective over time.
> If i remember correctly, the first thing I've heard about fake news were the farms over in Macedonia. Those guys realized in 2016 that you can make a pretty penny feeding Americans shit they wanted to hear, regardless of the truth.
> Sometime in all of this, Russia must have taken notice (or was quietly in the picture the entire time) and started spreading misinformation for the purpose of division rather than clicks.
Not even. Russians noticed it and did the exact same thing, but everything that happens in Russia or is done by someone of a Russian ethnicity is connected to the Russian government when reported on in the US/UK.
> Sometime in all of this, Russia must have taken notice (or was quietly in the picture the entire time) and started spreading misinformation for the purpose of division rather than clicks.
Not even. Russians noticed it and did the exact same thing, but everything that happens in Russia or is done by someone of a Russian ethnicity is connected to the Russian government when reported on in the US/UK.
Agreed. Everyone, regardless of their political leanings, tends to be ignoring the elephant in the room: why is there such an insatiable demand in America for conspiracy theories and white supremacy? It would serve all of us better to look at the root cause instead of getting hung up on the symptoms of the disease.
> You have to respect the hustle and ingenuity.
I don't think you do. They're parasites, scarcely better than email spammers or petty criminals.
I don't think you do. They're parasites, scarcely better than email spammers or petty criminals.
Well. Given their circumstances. There are relatively few resources where these folks are and little opportunity. If it's either work in the farm or factory and make $1/day or work online generating fake content and make $5/day, I totally get why those guys are flocking to the latter. For them it's a pretty simple choice. Work here and struggle to feed your family, or work there and don't struggle to feed your family.
I don't know if this is actually the case everywhere, but I would assume it's the case in many places.
I don't know if this is actually the case everywhere, but I would assume it's the case in many places.
> Sometime in all of this, Russia must have taken notice (or was quietly in the picture the entire time) and started spreading misinformation for the purpose of division rather than clicks.
Whenever they started doing that specifically through false-front Facebook groups, Russia has been doing that to the West nonstop, through most media that it could conceivably be done, since it became an independent country, taking over from the USSR which had been doing it for generations previously.
Whenever they started doing that specifically through false-front Facebook groups, Russia has been doing that to the West nonstop, through most media that it could conceivably be done, since it became an independent country, taking over from the USSR which had been doing it for generations previously.
You are presenting this as if this is somehow unique to Russia. This is true of every large country against all of its rivals. Anything Russia is doing on this front is dwarfed by what the US, UK, France, Germany etc. are doing.
Somehow things like Russia Today are presented as blatant propaganda, while Radio Free Europe is neutral reality. Both are propaganda.
Somehow things like Russia Today are presented as blatant propaganda, while Radio Free Europe is neutral reality. Both are propaganda.
> You are presenting this as if this is somehow unique to Russia.
No, I’m presenting it as if Russia was the topic of discussion when I joined.
> Anything Russia is doing on this front is dwarfed by what the US, UK, France, Germany etc. are doing.
Now you are falsely presenting it as Russia being uniquely moderate in this regard.
> Somehow things like Russia Today are presented as blatant propaganda, while Radio Free Europe is neutral reality.
RT and RFE are both propaganda, the latter more openly so, not less.
But the discussion here is about false-flag propaganda, not things like RT and RFE.
No, I’m presenting it as if Russia was the topic of discussion when I joined.
> Anything Russia is doing on this front is dwarfed by what the US, UK, France, Germany etc. are doing.
Now you are falsely presenting it as Russia being uniquely moderate in this regard.
> Somehow things like Russia Today are presented as blatant propaganda, while Radio Free Europe is neutral reality.
RT and RFE are both propaganda, the latter more openly so, not less.
But the discussion here is about false-flag propaganda, not things like RT and RFE.
One way or the other, Facebook now seems to be a pipeline for spreading propaganda: for ad clicks (marketing), ideological reasons, or worse.
It’s social utility seems to have dwindled to almost zero, while its negative effects are worse than ever.
> It’s social utility seems to have dwindled to almost zero
Unless you live entirely in their Messenger app, which I do. The timeline is full of contraganda, spam, and things like `Tell me your favorite color without saying it` bullshit
Unless you live entirely in their Messenger app, which I do. The timeline is full of contraganda, spam, and things like `Tell me your favorite color without saying it` bullshit
Just hide every content farm I find, and my feed is my old school friends day to day lives, local marketplace ads, and DnD Mini-painting groups. The worst thing I see are ads that are irrelevant, or my uncles deranged rants about his local politics.
Took me about 2 weeks of hitting hide from content farms to train the algo to steer me away from that junk.
Took me about 2 weeks of hitting hide from content farms to train the algo to steer me away from that junk.
Hmm, I wonder if Facebook could do that automatically? Like, write an algorithm to detect content farms and automatically hide them from your newsfeed.
I wonder why they’ve never done that…
I wonder why they’ve never done that…
Just like the spam filter, “algorithm” won’t be 100% effective.
Unlike spam, the content farm spreads organically.
Unlike spam, the content farm spreads organically.
They have that kind of algorithm, but most people want, or at least behave as though they want, outrage bait, and cute content farm affirmations. The moment you take a moment to be proactive and have ownership over your experience the algorithm happily shows you less crap and more people.
They optimise for engagement. I engage with content farms.
I've been doing this for a few days and things are getting better. However I still spend a lot of time hitting hide all from...
This is 99% of my Facebook use too.
I'd argue that the only meaningful benefit (to me at least) of Facebook is as a contact list and finder. I would delete my Facebook instantly if I felt fairly confident that I wouldn't lose out on any outreach from less-than-weekly acquaintances.
I'd argue that the only meaningful benefit (to me at least) of Facebook is as a contact list and finder. I would delete my Facebook instantly if I felt fairly confident that I wouldn't lose out on any outreach from less-than-weekly acquaintances.
"Reply to this post" things only exist because if lots of people reply, the algorithm thinks you're popular, and thus will show your posts more often without you having to pay.
I’d argue that’s not really Facebook anymore than Instagram or WhatsApp are.
Yeah Messenger is OK. Another WhatsApp. But really, these are small, self-contained apps. They don't need the rest of Facebook attached to them.
> social utility seems to have dwindled to almost zero
That's not true. It's actually the most effective grassroots-politics tool out there, for "regular people". Everyone has an account already, so signing up to this or that group takes seconds and you can get down to the business of actually organising.
I saw it recently in my neighbourhood: local authority wanted to push a stupid change in road layout, a couple of guys set up a FB group, and in less than a month it had hundreds of members - the road change was protested so vigorously that it had to be scrapped, something rare around this town.
Am I annoyed by this state of things? Heck yeah, I hate FB, but realistically, it's often a force for good for "normal people".
That's not true. It's actually the most effective grassroots-politics tool out there, for "regular people". Everyone has an account already, so signing up to this or that group takes seconds and you can get down to the business of actually organising.
I saw it recently in my neighbourhood: local authority wanted to push a stupid change in road layout, a couple of guys set up a FB group, and in less than a month it had hundreds of members - the road change was protested so vigorously that it had to be scrapped, something rare around this town.
Am I annoyed by this state of things? Heck yeah, I hate FB, but realistically, it's often a force for good for "normal people".
Oh, no argument there. And the report does point out potential relationships with political actors. I’m just amused by the irony of these types of articles making exaggerations and unfounded conclusions.
> One way or the other, Facebook now seems to be a pipeline for spreading propaganda:
Facebook's overt business model is to be a platform for advertising (not just via overt ads, but also through paid reach of what looks like organic content). “Advertising” is just another word for “propaganda”.
So, you've noticed that Facebook “now seems to be” exactly what Facebook overtly is.
Facebook's overt business model is to be a platform for advertising (not just via overt ads, but also through paid reach of what looks like organic content). “Advertising” is just another word for “propaganda”.
So, you've noticed that Facebook “now seems to be” exactly what Facebook overtly is.
I don't mind ads interspersed with content. Like, I google something, I get some outright ads, and some higher-placed, paid-for links. But it's still a useful service for finding things.
Facebook appears to be nothing but clickbaity ads, which if I'm lucky, is trying to get me to buy something I don't need. If I'm unlucky, it's ideological poison for hire fueling culture wars or foreign agents meddling in elections.
I basically never use Facebook now, except if a friend asks me to post something, but whenever I do, and scroll through the timeline, I always end up depressed. Oh and yes, bombarded with all the weird stuff discussed in this thread.
Facebook appears to be nothing but clickbaity ads, which if I'm lucky, is trying to get me to buy something I don't need. If I'm unlucky, it's ideological poison for hire fueling culture wars or foreign agents meddling in elections.
I basically never use Facebook now, except if a friend asks me to post something, but whenever I do, and scroll through the timeline, I always end up depressed. Oh and yes, bombarded with all the weird stuff discussed in this thread.
This is pretty interesting. We should all know this by now, but it's a nice reminder. Outrage sells, and when sites must increase clicks and "engagement," they will necessarily be generating outrage.
This really does show something though, namely how financial motives drive outrage and polarization as much if not more than political ones.
On the YouTuber front there were more than one who jumped on the alt-right shock jock bandwagon back then for the same reason. It brought clicks both from the people attracted to that stuff and from the people outraged by it or just gawking at it.
On the YouTuber front there were more than one who jumped on the alt-right shock jock bandwagon back then for the same reason. It brought clicks both from the people attracted to that stuff and from the people outraged by it or just gawking at it.
So Facebook paid these troll farms and these payments went on to fund operation of these troll farms (I assume).
It's a never-ending cycle that benefits both parties.
It's a never-ending cycle that benefits both parties.
Unfortunately I don't find that FB is in decline. I've found that groups organized on FB on any particular hobby topic are much more successful and active than on other platforms. Recently formed a group for discussion of DIY electric farm equipment. 70 members joined in 1 day.
FB feels like it should be a public utility. It is clearly filling a niche that people feel is needed. The barrier to entry to use is very low. I've encountered so many people who simply don't use other parts of the Internet much at all, and expect almost all content to be mediated through Facebook.
FB feels like it should be a public utility. It is clearly filling a niche that people feel is needed. The barrier to entry to use is very low. I've encountered so many people who simply don't use other parts of the Internet much at all, and expect almost all content to be mediated through Facebook.
The thing is, because of Facebook's algorithm, even a hobby DIY group doesn't get treated as a completely-neutral public utility space.
FB will still prioritize things that generate interactions. So if little bits of controversy slip into the DIY discussions, that's still what bubbles to the top of everyone's feed.
It hasn't necessarily happened to your group, it may not necessarily happen, but the point is that this is what the algorithm was optimized to do.
FB will still prioritize things that generate interactions. So if little bits of controversy slip into the DIY discussions, that's still what bubbles to the top of everyone's feed.
It hasn't necessarily happened to your group, it may not necessarily happen, but the point is that this is what the algorithm was optimized to do.
That is why I left all facebook hobby groups - the algorithm makes it hard to find interesting content.
I seem to recall the FSB making extensive use of financially-motivated troll farms. I’ll try to dig up a ref when I get home.
I missed that on my read, thanks! Did you get that from the MIT Tech Review article, or the original Facebook report, or what? Can you post a quote?
I looked at the original report. Here are some quotes:
“The content isn't violating or borderline. It does skew very hard towards clickbait and engagement bait, however.”
“The religious pages tend to be a mixture of the heavy engagement bait like the meme from “Light of the World” and sensational click bait stories about children, animals, and police officers.”
“Why Do They Do It? Money is definitely a big reason. There are a few ways to monetize an FB page.
1. Link to a domain where you show ads
2. Enter into our partnership programs
4. Sell the Page after it reaches a large size.”
“Mostly, they seem to want to skim a quick buck off of their audience. But there are signs they have been in contact with the IRA... If the Troll Farms are reaching 30M US users with content targeted to African Americans, we should not at all be surprised if we discover the IRA also currently has large audiences there.”
The last quote is the one talking about potential political links. There are some serious concerns, but not as concrete as the claims made by the article.
“The content isn't violating or borderline. It does skew very hard towards clickbait and engagement bait, however.”
“The religious pages tend to be a mixture of the heavy engagement bait like the meme from “Light of the World” and sensational click bait stories about children, animals, and police officers.”
“Why Do They Do It? Money is definitely a big reason. There are a few ways to monetize an FB page.
1. Link to a domain where you show ads
2. Enter into our partnership programs
1. Instant Articles
2. Ad Breaks
4. Sell the Page after it reaches a large size.”
“Mostly, they seem to want to skim a quick buck off of their audience. But there are signs they have been in contact with the IRA... If the Troll Farms are reaching 30M US users with content targeted to African Americans, we should not at all be surprised if we discover the IRA also currently has large audiences there.”
The last quote is the one talking about potential political links. There are some serious concerns, but not as concrete as the claims made by the article.
Thanks! Seems like that report mostly just has speculation without much evidence about their motives, either way.
I appreciate your caution about jumping to assume the motives are political, when financial motives on the internet are of course so common.
I appreciate your caution about jumping to assume the motives are political, when financial motives on the internet are of course so common.
True, I guess my interpretation also erred in favor of the other explanation, but the political motivations as interpreted by the article are far from clear-cut.
How do they make money?
Ads, links, and page sales.
Produce content for idiots who'll believe ads and click on them
> Crucially, though, the report concludes that the farms’ motivations seem to be monetary. It points out that their content did not focus solely on divisive content, but on whatever generates clicks.
And who would be behind it if they followed the money? My money is on parties like the Heritage Foundation, which is a quite open front for rich conservatives to pump money into certain goals, and I'm sure there's plenty more that have escaped the spotlight for now.
I mean yeah it's a conspiracy, but since it's in broad daylight nobody cares - it's not shady if it's out in the open.
And who would be behind it if they followed the money? My money is on parties like the Heritage Foundation, which is a quite open front for rich conservatives to pump money into certain goals, and I'm sure there's plenty more that have escaped the spotlight for now.
I mean yeah it's a conspiracy, but since it's in broad daylight nobody cares - it's not shady if it's out in the open.
> And who would be behind it if they followed the money?
Advertisers, probably. I worked in adtech doing fraud detection back in ~2013 and “fake news” sites were already prevalent, but their business model was usually boring old advertising. They were also big on ad fraud (e.g. serving ads in hidden iframes).
That’s not to say that the Kremlin/IRA were not behind some of it, but Occam’s razor is that most fake news is just a result of sites with no incentive to do honest journalism trying to drive clicks.
Advertisers, probably. I worked in adtech doing fraud detection back in ~2013 and “fake news” sites were already prevalent, but their business model was usually boring old advertising. They were also big on ad fraud (e.g. serving ads in hidden iframes).
That’s not to say that the Kremlin/IRA were not behind some of it, but Occam’s razor is that most fake news is just a result of sites with no incentive to do honest journalism trying to drive clicks.
I don’t think Heritage Foundation is nearly hip enough or digitally savvy enough to make money this way. Their business model is to spend money on digital platforms like Facebook, fundraise from rich conservatives to enable that, and take a cut to pay for staff and overhead.
This is more likely Eastern European scammers who are just looking to build an audience any way they can.
This is more likely Eastern European scammers who are just looking to build an audience any way they can.
Because Relevant is a Christian magazine.
Have you ever heard of the Vault 7 WikiLeaks release? You should look into it. In sum: You can't make any assumptions about where anything is emanating from because all of it can be spoofed.
A surprising number of Black Americans are Christians, too. Maybe they just got conflated.
> A surprising number of Black Americans are Christians, too.
Why's does that surprise you? Christianity is most popular in poor black southern regions. Black people are more likely to be Christians than white people.
Christianity is also much stronger in Africa than in the West.
I think it's possible in the near future Christianity will become a predominantly black 'thing' worldwide.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/23/black-ameri...
Why's does that surprise you? Christianity is most popular in poor black southern regions. Black people are more likely to be Christians than white people.
Christianity is also much stronger in Africa than in the West.
I think it's possible in the near future Christianity will become a predominantly black 'thing' worldwide.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/23/black-ameri...
Yes! One interesting phenomenon is that the churches originally set up by British missionaries in Africa are now establishing African missions in Britain.
OMG it's like a virus.
If it is, then possibly Brittain has developed anti bodies now, and the African missions will be less successful.
>> A surprising number of Black Americans are Christians, too.
>Why's does that surprise you?
To add my POV, the phrase "A surprising number of..." doesn't always mean "I'm surprised". I use that phrase to highlight note worthy facts:
E.g. The Tacos are surprisingly tasty (note: Tacos are ALWAYS tasty to me)
To add my POV, the phrase "A surprising number of..." doesn't always mean "I'm surprised". I use that phrase to highlight note worthy facts:
E.g. The Tacos are surprisingly tasty (note: Tacos are ALWAYS tasty to me)
It’s not exactly “surprising” but the New York City stereotype of a Christian anti-abortion voter is a rural white guy in Alabama but the statistical reality is that it’s a rural black guy in Alabama.
They don't appear much in mainstream media, though. You're more likely to hear about the Nation Of Islam or the Black Hebrew Israelites.
> They don't appear much in mainstream media, though.
Not sure if you're joking?
The black evangelical Christian church is a media trope. It's a huge part of many black communities in the US, especially in the south.
Not sure if you're joking?
The black evangelical Christian church is a media trope. It's a huge part of many black communities in the US, especially in the south.
[deleted]
Citation needed; you seem to be presenting an anecdotal observation as fact.
Ah yes the evil foreigners! If it wasn't for them the US would be a harmonious society of love peace and mutual understanding.
I always joked to friends that Trump was the Manchurian candidate but I fear the truth was much darker.
I always joked to friends that Trump was the Manchurian candidate but I fear the truth was much darker.
> From the linked MIT article…
Just a reminder that that magazine has no connection to MIT. It simply licenses the name from the alumni association (which is how the association funds itself).
Just a reminder that that magazine has no connection to MIT. It simply licenses the name from the alumni association (which is how the association funds itself).
Isn’t MIT Technology Review published by a company owned by MIT?
http://web.mit.edu/fnl/MITPublications/ lists Technology Review as a publication of MIT.
http://web.mit.edu/fnl/MITPublications/ lists Technology Review as a publication of MIT.
I think that may be outdated information.
The terms of service states that it is independent of but owned by MIT.
https://www.technologyreview.com/terms-of-service/
From what I gather, there was a relaunch in 1998, and MIT has owned it since 2001. In general, I’d be extremely surprised if MIT ever just licensed its name out.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Technology_Review
The terms of service states that it is independent of but owned by MIT.
https://www.technologyreview.com/terms-of-service/
From what I gather, there was a relaunch in 1998, and MIT has owned it since 2001. In general, I’d be extremely surprised if MIT ever just licensed its name out.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Technology_Review
> In the run-up to the 2020 election, the most highly contested in US history, Facebook’s most popular pages for Christian and Black American content were being run by Eastern European troll farms.
It's also interesting that these are the groups that have been identified as the best targets for a propaganda campaign. (Edit: You would think this would be successful for a wide variety of groups across the political and social spectrum.)
It's also interesting that these are the groups that have been identified as the best targets for a propaganda campaign. (Edit: You would think this would be successful for a wide variety of groups across the political and social spectrum.)
Do you think it's a coincidence that this article is getting clicks on HN specifically?
It is implausible that people have noticed that serving "Christians" and "African Americans" content they want to click on is profitable, but nobody has put the data together to realize that they can do the same thing to "Liberals" and other favored groups here on HN.
It's just, those articles won't get upvoted and clicked on here. Nobody wants to talk about themselves or their favored groups getting targeted like this.
There's plenty of people here reading this and congratulating themselves on how they aren't stupid like those groups, and then rolling straight over to their own content-farmed, clickbaited news solely posted for ad revenue that fits their own ideology one browser tab over.
"Those groups are the stupids! Not like imtelligent youse!" is one of the perennial clickbait stories. It's part of the reason why clickbait is so dangerous; a certain amount of division is inevitable, but people deliberately deepening the divisions just to make .0001 cents per view is not!
It is implausible that people have noticed that serving "Christians" and "African Americans" content they want to click on is profitable, but nobody has put the data together to realize that they can do the same thing to "Liberals" and other favored groups here on HN.
It's just, those articles won't get upvoted and clicked on here. Nobody wants to talk about themselves or their favored groups getting targeted like this.
There's plenty of people here reading this and congratulating themselves on how they aren't stupid like those groups, and then rolling straight over to their own content-farmed, clickbaited news solely posted for ad revenue that fits their own ideology one browser tab over.
"Those groups are the stupids! Not like imtelligent youse!" is one of the perennial clickbait stories. It's part of the reason why clickbait is so dangerous; a certain amount of division is inevitable, but people deliberately deepening the divisions just to make .0001 cents per view is not!
It is implausible that people have noticed that serving "Christians" and "African Americans" content they want to click on is profitable, but nobody has put the data together to realize that they can do the same thing to "Liberals" and other favored groups here on HN.
Touché.
Touché.
> Why wouldn’t this article mention the Black American content as well? Certainly this is newsworthy, given the crucial implication here:
I can think of a few reasons.
1. The linked website is focused on issues related to religion.
2. The number of people who identify as Christian in the US is likely far greater than the number of people who identify as black activists.
3. Only one of those groups helped elect a Russian asset as president of the US.
I can think of a few reasons.
1. The linked website is focused on issues related to religion.
2. The number of people who identify as Christian in the US is likely far greater than the number of people who identify as black activists.
3. Only one of those groups helped elect a Russian asset as president of the US.
> 3 Only one of those groups helped elect a Russian asset
I dont usually care for politics but nobody has given me any convincing arguments on the matter. I have seen Russia gain more with Biden shutting down the pipeline. If someone is colluding with you what have they gained thus far? I just don’t see it at all.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ex-lawyer-clinton-campaign-...
I dont usually care for politics but nobody has given me any convincing arguments on the matter. I have seen Russia gain more with Biden shutting down the pipeline. If someone is colluding with you what have they gained thus far? I just don’t see it at all.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ex-lawyer-clinton-campaign-...
Off the top of my head:
Weakening of the US's power in the world.
Weaker NATO and EU.
Weak/delayed sanctions as a result of Crimea and no other action.
Worsening of US/Iran relations, keeping Iran close to Russia.
Left Syria to Russia.
Ongoing influence in the Republican party, which is now pretty much officially pro-Russia.
Edit: this seems like a pretty good list: https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/17/politics/trump-soft-on-russia...
Weakening of the US's power in the world.
Weaker NATO and EU.
Weak/delayed sanctions as a result of Crimea and no other action.
Worsening of US/Iran relations, keeping Iran close to Russia.
Left Syria to Russia.
Ongoing influence in the Republican party, which is now pretty much officially pro-Russia.
Edit: this seems like a pretty good list: https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/17/politics/trump-soft-on-russia...
Withdrew US from the Treaty on Open Skies [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Open_Skies
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Open_Skies
I don't think our power is any weaker if you're talking about military power. Is the perception around the world about America different? Sure, but we're definitely nowhere near weaker, although now the Taliban has some high tech equipment, let's hope they don't figure out how to maintain and recreate any of it.
I was mainly talking about soft power and our alliances.
I'd say we are worse off militarily though, in a relative sense as other powers are rising, eg NK has nukes, China is flexing its muscle _much_ more, Russia's position is better, Iran is largely unchecked.
Our military and weapons development strategy is showing its weaknesses as well though. When exactly is the last thing we actually "won" ? How many places did we spend years/decades with our thumb up our ass, while bleeding lives and money?
I'd say we are worse off militarily though, in a relative sense as other powers are rising, eg NK has nukes, China is flexing its muscle _much_ more, Russia's position is better, Iran is largely unchecked.
Our military and weapons development strategy is showing its weaknesses as well though. When exactly is the last thing we actually "won" ? How many places did we spend years/decades with our thumb up our ass, while bleeding lives and money?
Exactly. It is quite evident at this point that "Russia Russia Russia" was a bought and paid for disinformation campaign
Other articles have mentioned this before, but in reference to the second half of the entire decade.
Almost all "Black Lives Matter"[1][2] and anti-police[3] brutality, and pro-police status quo pages[3] on Facebook were run by foreigners residing in other countries. Some foreigners are firms and keeping score on how many in person protests and counterprotests they can accomplish.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2018/04...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/business/facebook-black-l...
[3] https://www.texastribune.org/2017/11/01/russian-facebook-pag...
Almost all "Black Lives Matter"[1][2] and anti-police[3] brutality, and pro-police status quo pages[3] on Facebook were run by foreigners residing in other countries. Some foreigners are firms and keeping score on how many in person protests and counterprotests they can accomplish.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2018/04...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/business/facebook-black-l...
[3] https://www.texastribune.org/2017/11/01/russian-facebook-pag...
That wouldn’t feed the narrative of conservative Christians being idiot rubes controlled by Russian disinformation and those on the left as being highly educated purveyors of truth.
> That wouldn’t feed the narrative of conservative Christians being idiot rubes
Yeah, I don’t think that is Relevant’s goal here:
https://www.relevantmagazine.com/about/
Our Mission
We’re twenty- and thirtysomething Christians seeking God and striving to impact the world around us. We are people who want to live well—outwardly, creatively and intentionally. We are pro-Church and want to love our neighbors as ourselves. We serve the Creator, so we love great art—whether that be redemptive music, movies, books or design. We are daily seeking to show how God is at work in the world and in our generation.
Yeah, I don’t think that is Relevant’s goal here:
https://www.relevantmagazine.com/about/
Our Mission
We’re twenty- and thirtysomething Christians seeking God and striving to impact the world around us. We are people who want to live well—outwardly, creatively and intentionally. We are pro-Church and want to love our neighbors as ourselves. We serve the Creator, so we love great art—whether that be redemptive music, movies, books or design. We are daily seeking to show how God is at work in the world and in our generation.
jtdev(1)
Or because it’s not the focus of this website. Either way, you showed your true colors by using a biased assumption to accuse others of using biased assumptions.
> https://www.relevantmagazine.com/culture/tech-gaming/almost-...
Why not link instead to the article this article links to and is based on, which is far more informative:
Troll farms reached 140 million Americans a month on Facebook before 2020 election, internal report shows
https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/09/16/1035851/facebook...
Why not link instead to the article this article links to and is based on, which is far more informative:
Troll farms reached 140 million Americans a month on Facebook before 2020 election, internal report shows
https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/09/16/1035851/facebook...
I find that number so shocking that I question the methodology behind it. 140 million is nearly half of all Americans.
I can see nearly half of all Americans regularly engaging with SOME Facebook property, if you include Instagram and WhatsApp, etc. But the original old Facebook itself? In the 2020’s? I don’t know a single person who still uses that.
I can see nearly half of all Americans regularly engaging with SOME Facebook property, if you include Instagram and WhatsApp, etc. But the original old Facebook itself? In the 2020’s? I don’t know a single person who still uses that.
Perhaps your perspective is based on your demographics or location? In my anecdotal experience I know vanishingly few people who are not on “original old Facebook”. Male, 30s, southeast US.
There's a difference between "having an account" (I do too), versus "being any kind of active user".
I am responding to a quote claiming that troll fake news "reached 140 million on Facebook". Clearly, this is speaking to the latter.
You would have to be a fairly active user to run across deliberate misinformation, generated by offshore troll farms. That's not "I login once in a blue moon to spy on my ex", or "I have Messenger on my phone because a group that I'm in uses it to announce events". That is "I actively choose to consume angry and dumb political content on a regular basis". Perhaps I overestimate people, but 140 million seems high.
I am responding to a quote claiming that troll fake news "reached 140 million on Facebook". Clearly, this is speaking to the latter.
You would have to be a fairly active user to run across deliberate misinformation, generated by offshore troll farms. That's not "I login once in a blue moon to spy on my ex", or "I have Messenger on my phone because a group that I'm in uses it to announce events". That is "I actively choose to consume angry and dumb political content on a regular basis". Perhaps I overestimate people, but 140 million seems high.
> You would have to be a fairly active user to run across deliberate misinformation, generated by offshore troll farms.
I think you are missing the point of this research. The entire point is that 19 of the top 20 Christian pages, for example, are produced by offshore troll farms, and until recently, this was generally not known.
So no, you do not need to be a fairly active user, not at all. Many, many casual users came across this because it was incredibly widely shared, and because Facebook's algorithms push such content far and wide.
I think you are missing the point of this research. The entire point is that 19 of the top 20 Christian pages, for example, are produced by offshore troll farms, and until recently, this was generally not known.
So no, you do not need to be a fairly active user, not at all. Many, many casual users came across this because it was incredibly widely shared, and because Facebook's algorithms push such content far and wide.
> Many, many casual users came across this because it was incredibly widely shared, and because Facebook's algorithms push such content far and wide.
That's my take, too. I know exactly the sort of mass-produced garbage content they're talking about, since I see things that my friends interacted with in my Feed. Therefore I am part of the 140 million people who was exposed to the media produced by these operations.
That's my take, too. I know exactly the sort of mass-produced garbage content they're talking about, since I see things that my friends interacted with in my Feed. Therefore I am part of the 140 million people who was exposed to the media produced by these operations.
300M Americans are on FB[0]
7/10 Americans are Christian[1]
So, there are around 210M American Christians on FB.
So, these posts reached roughly 60% of Christians. Sounds feasible to me. Top brands in a niche like Christians can get broad reach.
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/408971/number-of-us-face...
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_United_S...
7/10 Americans are Christian[1]
So, there are around 210M American Christians on FB.
So, these posts reached roughly 60% of Christians. Sounds feasible to me. Top brands in a niche like Christians can get broad reach.
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/408971/number-of-us-face...
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_United_S...
I've heard that some online accounts don't actually represent real human beings. Perhaps they counted some of those "fake" accounts?
It's a simple thing, but many who write about propaganda don't seem to get it:
Propaganda can be divided into positioning and payload. Positioning is what is written to attract an audience. Payload is what the propagandist actually cares about.
There's very little payload. These farms aren't trying to "spread chaos" for its own sake. It's just a side effect of trying to gain an audience; clickbait media at its height was exactly the same.
Don't think the payload has anything to do with cultural issues. It's either narrow political stuff (I.e. getting people to believe Syrian rebels staged deadly attacks on themselves) or simply profit.
Propaganda can be divided into positioning and payload. Positioning is what is written to attract an audience. Payload is what the propagandist actually cares about.
There's very little payload. These farms aren't trying to "spread chaos" for its own sake. It's just a side effect of trying to gain an audience; clickbait media at its height was exactly the same.
Don't think the payload has anything to do with cultural issues. It's either narrow political stuff (I.e. getting people to believe Syrian rebels staged deadly attacks on themselves) or simply profit.
> These farms aren't trying to "spread chaos" for its own sake.
It's not their only goal, but it is definitely among them.
From Dugin's 1997 Foundations of Geopolitics, to this day required reading in Russian military schools:
> Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics".
It's not their only goal, but it is definitely among them.
From Dugin's 1997 Foundations of Geopolitics, to this day required reading in Russian military schools:
> Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics".
For me the disappointment is Facebook. It seems to be all propaganda, possibly for clicks not payload, but very little actual content. Or really anything organic. Just a weird mish-mash of gamed blah.
Very true but the reason for it is that it is insanely profitable. This is the real ends for everything on FB. I always say "ain't no one convincing nobody about nothing" on FB. It is faux outrage for profit and until we start taxing digital advertising revenue, this will continue to be the world we live in.
“Start taxing digital advertising revenue”
That’s it. Not profits (too many games possible), but the revenue itself. Call your senators and representatives.
That’s it. Not profits (too many games possible), but the revenue itself. Call your senators and representatives.
"Oh Senator, this isn't advertising, nor revenue. This Elbonian Troll Farm is investing in Facebook by buying Class Adv-ERT shares, and owns a fraction of out Timeline business, and is entitled to post on it. In fact, I think we qualify for a tax cut."
I would argue that not having a payload makes it even more dangerous. At least, when there is a payload you know what you're dealing with. When there usually is no payload, it may suddenly appear and be very surprising in its reach and effect.
>Don't think the payload has anything to do with cultural issues.
Careful getting stuck in a frame where only a single antipattern exists. First, profit and narrow political stuff is a pretty broad area. Second, religion or culture has the potential to be a force in its own right... whether or not that's been the case here, so far.
Online religious movement exist, and some are big... but none have hit historic proportions yets. That doesn't mean none will. Christianity, or some other religious culture could easily have an arab spring, Trump or Brexit moment. Easily.
The existence of these pages can and might be of historical interest, depending on what happens to happen over the next 5-10 years. Christianity is a lot of people, don't underestimate the significance of religion.
Careful getting stuck in a frame where only a single antipattern exists. First, profit and narrow political stuff is a pretty broad area. Second, religion or culture has the potential to be a force in its own right... whether or not that's been the case here, so far.
Online religious movement exist, and some are big... but none have hit historic proportions yets. That doesn't mean none will. Christianity, or some other religious culture could easily have an arab spring, Trump or Brexit moment. Easily.
The existence of these pages can and might be of historical interest, depending on what happens to happen over the next 5-10 years. Christianity is a lot of people, don't underestimate the significance of religion.
This is an outrage. They should be run by American troll farms.
(Joking, but a huge part of the reformation wars that consumed Europe for at least a hundred years was the question of foreign influence through the pulpit vs. domestic political loyalty/propaganda; you can still occasionally hear people denouncing "papism")
(Joking, but a huge part of the reformation wars that consumed Europe for at least a hundred years was the question of foreign influence through the pulpit vs. domestic political loyalty/propaganda; you can still occasionally hear people denouncing "papism")
American Christianity has deeply influenced the remnants of Christianity that are left in Western Europe, the Evangelical movement first crossed the Atlantic all the way back in the 1920s.
And we so easily forget that countries like Poland and Hungary are deeply Christian conservative countries with links to American republicans. Yes the foreign American influence is real.
And we so easily forget that countries like Poland and Hungary are deeply Christian conservative countries with links to American republicans. Yes the foreign American influence is real.
European Christians are either catholic (Poland comes to mind), Orthodox (maybe Hingary, not sure. Russia definetly is) or Protestant (which have nothing whatsoever to do with US Evangelicals). That these groups have some overlap regarding abortion, LGBTQ rights, feminism or Islam doesn't change the fact they disagree on a lot of other things.
I have not heard this, and certainly not as a major cause, but don’t forget the greed of the princes who supported the Reformation. The lust for church property and unchecked power. In England this is especially visible where the trigger was not a theological dispute and the looting of church property was widespread.
I don't think that should be a joke.
The publication conflates being foreign with trolling. It seems they care more about the speaker than the content.
At this point, trolling as a term has lost all meaning. It basically means anything that isn't standard left-wing-lite inclusivity.
The publication conflates being foreign with trolling. It seems they care more about the speaker than the content.
At this point, trolling as a term has lost all meaning. It basically means anything that isn't standard left-wing-lite inclusivity.
It’s interesting that the accounts would be originating from Kosovo and (north) Macedonia. I assume these are just Russians routing thru Kosovar IPs for more deniability, or alternatively this could be tacitly sanctioned by Serbian govt. Anyhow, Kosovo relies heavily on the US, exists only because of a US bombing campaign, and is one of the only places in the world to have a 10ft statue of Bill Clinton in the capitol. I know less about (North) Macedonia, but it is a NATO member and also another state resulting from the dissolution of Yugoslavia; not sure if it is seen as a US puppet state in the same way as Kosovo is but there is some similarity. The origins of the accounts appear to be making a statement about American hegemony...
No, not really, they developed business in Macedonia mostly and now clearly Albanian gangs are joining in. It is quite lucrative to post about anything controversial and they specialize in that kind of business.
Albanians do care about US, but as much as they can extract favors.
For example, Hillary was very popular (kind of not what you would expect) and they were able to make a lot on posting things about her for a long time, elections and after.
For example, Hillary was very popular (kind of not what you would expect) and they were able to make a lot on posting things about her for a long time, elections and after.
This is more like ice crem joke …
Question: Do you know why near every ice cream shop in Croatia is run by Albanians?
Answer: money
Question: Do you know why near every ice cream shop in Croatia is run by Albanians?
Answer: money
They do that well :) And you know, maybe if you get on their turf you disappear. So there is that part as well.
Oh man. I was just there, so true :) - Albanians are industrious af.
Simplifying down the history of the Balkans to a "US bombing campaign" is not only cynical but bad history.
Sorry, did not mean to be insensitive but just pointing out that Kosovo’s existence in it’s current form has a lot to do with the actions of the US in the 90s, hence the statues and streets named after Bill Clinton. Not trying to minimize all of the history preceding that, but just saying that I think it is viewed as a US puppet state by Russia and Serbia. Definitely not trying to reduce all of the balkans to that set of conflicts - just commenting on Kosovo.
Albanians are quite entrepreneurial and this is the poorest part of the Europe. By far. And 30% of people living in Macedonia are Albanians. And in general they speak English very well.
It might be the some foreign government involved I this but I doubt they are running this. This is all about money. And this article validates these assumptions.
It might be the some foreign government involved I this but I doubt they are running this. This is all about money. And this article validates these assumptions.
True, that theory seems plausible too. Though there are obviously many other places w/ high Albanian populations, such as Albania.
> It’s interesting that the accounts would be originating from Kosovo and (north) Macedonia.
As someone whose spent a bit of time in the Balkans can I just say that you can buy a Macedonian sim card with no ID for a few dollars and get perfect 4G signal from close to the border in 5 different countries without ever stepping foot in the place?
Not trying to defend what's happening here, but just saying, not all this stuff is as clearcut as it seems. Blaming these places seems a bit premature without understanding the region.
As someone whose spent a bit of time in the Balkans can I just say that you can buy a Macedonian sim card with no ID for a few dollars and get perfect 4G signal from close to the border in 5 different countries without ever stepping foot in the place?
Not trying to defend what's happening here, but just saying, not all this stuff is as clearcut as it seems. Blaming these places seems a bit premature without understanding the region.
I’m not blaming those places. I’m suggesting they are being chosen deliberately by the actual perpetrators, (which is really just speculation I admit).
Macedonian here. Its true what you said about Kosovo being a puppet state, and yes Macedonia being an EU and US puppet too, but not to such extent. The troll farms in this case are not government supported, theyre basically run by digital marketers, the govt probably cant even track them down without the help of some foreign intelligence agency.
In the 2016 election there was a lot of fake news sites originating from Macedonia, and this is because since late 2000s there has been lots of digital marketers making quick bucks with black hat methods. I used to be a part of the forums, lots and lots of people did this full time, which was way more lucrative than the average 300 USD salary. Heck, high schoolers were dropping out of school to do this full time.
So this has nothing to do with the government of Kosovo or Macedonia or Serbia. And it could be russians routing IPs but I would doubt it, its just digital marketers trying to make a buck
In the 2016 election there was a lot of fake news sites originating from Macedonia, and this is because since late 2000s there has been lots of digital marketers making quick bucks with black hat methods. I used to be a part of the forums, lots and lots of people did this full time, which was way more lucrative than the average 300 USD salary. Heck, high schoolers were dropping out of school to do this full time.
So this has nothing to do with the government of Kosovo or Macedonia or Serbia. And it could be russians routing IPs but I would doubt it, its just digital marketers trying to make a buck
Thanks for this. Definitely wasn’t saying they were sanctioned by Kosovo or Macedonian gvt. This gives me a better perspective either way though. I still think at the very least Putin (and Serbian hard liners) sees this favorably and would like it to continue.
>The report found that troll farms were reaching the same demographic groups singled out by the Kremlin-backed Internet Research Agency (IRA) during the 2016 election, which had targeted Christians, Black Americans, and Native Americans. A 2018 BuzzFeed News investigation found that at least one member of the Russian IRA, indicted for alleged interference in the 2016 US election, had also visited Macedonia around the emergence of its first troll farms, though it didn’t find concrete evidence of a connection. (Facebook said its investigations hadn’t turned up a connection between the IRA and Macedonian troll farms either.)
https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/09/16/1035851/facebook...
https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/09/16/1035851/facebook...
There were a number of Bud Light jets:
https://robdebie.home.xs4all.nl/models/bd5j-census.htm
https://robdebie.home.xs4all.nl/models/bd5j-census.htm
Also remember despite Kosovo being a US puppet state, it was a top 10 source of sending fighters to ISIS and other terrorist groups
The original report doesn’t actually mention misinformation campaigns as the linked article claims. The motivation seems to be exclusively monetary (ads, links, selling pages etc.).
Nation states hostile to the U.S. might hypothetically have been involved, but I’ve seen no such conclusions made in the report.
Nation states hostile to the U.S. might hypothetically have been involved, but I’ve seen no such conclusions made in the report.
It would be interesting if your information campaign against another nation had a net negative cost.
It would be interesting to see the motivations. But the effect is the same: spreading discontent, fake news and extremism is bad whether people do it for profit or geopolitical advantages...
I'd very much like to see the same research with regards to the top alternative health / anti-vax pages.
"Prayer Warriors Unite"
Even more interesting would be Christian anti-vax since this would seem to involve many of the already existing networks discussed here. I've been following the Herman Cain Awards for some time now and you notice a consistency in the memes among particular groups of users. Same with phrasing and messaging. How much discourse is actually affected by these troll farms would be very interesting indeed as it has real life impact, such as huge numbers of needless deaths.
Even more interesting would be Christian anti-vax since this would seem to involve many of the already existing networks discussed here. I've been following the Herman Cain Awards for some time now and you notice a consistency in the memes among particular groups of users. Same with phrasing and messaging. How much discourse is actually affected by these troll farms would be very interesting indeed as it has real life impact, such as huge numbers of needless deaths.
Quite likely that troll farms are active there. Most likely on identity and environmental issues, too.
I still have some hope that Zuckerberg will come out soon and say that it was all a big practical joke to see how much people are willing to put up with, after which he pulls the plug. Well, one can dream.
I still have some hope that Zuckerberg will come out soon and say that it was all a big practical joke to see how much people are willing to put up with, after which he pulls the plug. Well, one can dream.
You don't need to. There are troll farms everywhere there is a critical density sufficient to pay for them to exist through ads. That condition is sufficient.
It's not even just about politics. There are multiple large troll farms unbelievably dedicated to producing completely bullshit "life hack" videos that blatantly don't work as posted. This is non-trivially expensive content to produce (not Hollywood-level expensive, of course, but the video content is beyond "point an iPhone at it" level by quite a ways), and it is produced by the bucketload, because the ad viewership is there.
These are parasites that attack any sufficiently-sized interest group of any kind.
It's not even just about politics. There are multiple large troll farms unbelievably dedicated to producing completely bullshit "life hack" videos that blatantly don't work as posted. This is non-trivially expensive content to produce (not Hollywood-level expensive, of course, but the video content is beyond "point an iPhone at it" level by quite a ways), and it is produced by the bucketload, because the ad viewership is there.
These are parasites that attack any sufficiently-sized interest group of any kind.
Outrage is hugely profitable.
Of course, the media eventually converged on this method after their golden goose of classified ads got pulled from under their feet by craigslist Facebook eBay etc.
I wonder how future historians will view this; in hindsight, will we be able to say it was an accident of economics that drove the outrage of today?
It’s no surprise that economically disadvantaged countries would have some subset of people taking advantage of the situation. It is no different than how the mafia takes advantage of gambling, etc.
Of course, the media eventually converged on this method after their golden goose of classified ads got pulled from under their feet by craigslist Facebook eBay etc.
I wonder how future historians will view this; in hindsight, will we be able to say it was an accident of economics that drove the outrage of today?
It’s no surprise that economically disadvantaged countries would have some subset of people taking advantage of the situation. It is no different than how the mafia takes advantage of gambling, etc.
I have a few questions that may have some reasonable answers, but would hopefully spur some thoughtful discussion.
1) What is a "troll farm" and what is the criteria used for a distinction between a troll farm and merely some points of view one might disagree with? Maybe this is mentioned somewhere, but I don't see it clearly defined in the link.
2) What is the proof that these are indeed foreigners? It would be trivial for a social media company to label domestic users they find distasteful as foreigners to more easily silence certain points of view, especially given the media's unwillingness/inability to understand nuanced technology issues.
3) Heck, where is the proof that these pages are even moderately operated by actual people and are not mostly bot-generated content?
4) We live in a global, connected world that embraces diverse points of view, right? Are eastern Europeans or others, many of whom still embrace a traditional Christian heritage, expected to not post about their point of view because somebody in San Francisco claims its a troll?
5) How can a data scientist make a definitive claim that the people running these sites have "never been to church"? Maybe these social media firms are making big assumptions about people and are entirely wrong. Maybe they have entirely far too much information about people.
1) What is a "troll farm" and what is the criteria used for a distinction between a troll farm and merely some points of view one might disagree with? Maybe this is mentioned somewhere, but I don't see it clearly defined in the link.
2) What is the proof that these are indeed foreigners? It would be trivial for a social media company to label domestic users they find distasteful as foreigners to more easily silence certain points of view, especially given the media's unwillingness/inability to understand nuanced technology issues.
3) Heck, where is the proof that these pages are even moderately operated by actual people and are not mostly bot-generated content?
4) We live in a global, connected world that embraces diverse points of view, right? Are eastern Europeans or others, many of whom still embrace a traditional Christian heritage, expected to not post about their point of view because somebody in San Francisco claims its a troll?
5) How can a data scientist make a definitive claim that the people running these sites have "never been to church"? Maybe these social media firms are making big assumptions about people and are entirely wrong. Maybe they have entirely far too much information about people.
From the study:
1) Troll farm = Professionalized groups that work in a coordinated fashion to post provocative content
2) Through internal Facebook research in which documentation was leaked to journalists.
3) That's irrelevant to the story. The point is that the claimed motives behind the operators of the page are inauthentic and dishonest, and those claims could apply to either/both human and bot-generated content.
4) This question just makes your entire post sound like disingenuous trolling, but people of course expect honesty, and a page called "Kosovo engages with American Christians for profit" would not be criticized in the same way.
5) That's an obvious strawman - the people running the pages have shown to be dishonest in every way that their honesty can reasonably be measured.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21063547/oct-2019-fac...
1) Troll farm = Professionalized groups that work in a coordinated fashion to post provocative content
2) Through internal Facebook research in which documentation was leaked to journalists.
3) That's irrelevant to the story. The point is that the claimed motives behind the operators of the page are inauthentic and dishonest, and those claims could apply to either/both human and bot-generated content.
4) This question just makes your entire post sound like disingenuous trolling, but people of course expect honesty, and a page called "Kosovo engages with American Christians for profit" would not be criticized in the same way.
5) That's an obvious strawman - the people running the pages have shown to be dishonest in every way that their honesty can reasonably be measured.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21063547/oct-2019-fac...
> 1) provocative content
You know, defining "provocative content" is a subjective endeavor. What is viewed as normal conversation in the real world by most people might be viewed as extremely problematic, unmitigated, obvious hate-speech by some in a Silicon Valley thought-bubble. How do we really clarify this?
> 2) internal Facebook research in which documentation was leaked to journalists.
a) How do we know that some Facebook employees are not using their own biases to give incorrect subjective labels to some content based on their own activist viewpoints? Maybe, maybe not, but I would stress that we're relying on subjective interpretations here and just have to trust them.
b) How do we know that the journalists who are interpreting this data and reporting on it are both willing and able to really do anything other than take the face-value interpretation of the data they were handed? I can count the number of journalists I've seen in my life who tried to dig into the nuanced details behind stories on one hand.
> 3) the claimed motives behind the operators of the page are inauthentic and dishonest
This is a hypothesis which may be (or likely is) reasonably supportable, but I would clarify that mind-reading has never been a thing.
> 4) a page called "Kosovo engages with American Christians for profit" would not be criticized in the same way.
Maybe. My goal isn't to necessarily defend these website operators. They might be, or even most likely are, creating random content to achieve fame and/or profit through social media. Ok, does that separate them from 99.9% of people/businesses/organizations on social media?
> 5) the people running the pages have shown to be dishonest in every way that their honesty can reasonably be measured.
My main goal in this set of comments isn't to necessarily defend the honor of these website operators. Maybe they're pure, manipulative scum?
My main goal is to point out that Facebook (and the media) has shown to be dishonest in every way that their honesty can reasonably be measured. I do not understand how anybody can trust this interpretation of the facts at face value for many, many reasons here.
You know, defining "provocative content" is a subjective endeavor. What is viewed as normal conversation in the real world by most people might be viewed as extremely problematic, unmitigated, obvious hate-speech by some in a Silicon Valley thought-bubble. How do we really clarify this?
> 2) internal Facebook research in which documentation was leaked to journalists.
a) How do we know that some Facebook employees are not using their own biases to give incorrect subjective labels to some content based on their own activist viewpoints? Maybe, maybe not, but I would stress that we're relying on subjective interpretations here and just have to trust them.
b) How do we know that the journalists who are interpreting this data and reporting on it are both willing and able to really do anything other than take the face-value interpretation of the data they were handed? I can count the number of journalists I've seen in my life who tried to dig into the nuanced details behind stories on one hand.
> 3) the claimed motives behind the operators of the page are inauthentic and dishonest
This is a hypothesis which may be (or likely is) reasonably supportable, but I would clarify that mind-reading has never been a thing.
> 4) a page called "Kosovo engages with American Christians for profit" would not be criticized in the same way.
Maybe. My goal isn't to necessarily defend these website operators. They might be, or even most likely are, creating random content to achieve fame and/or profit through social media. Ok, does that separate them from 99.9% of people/businesses/organizations on social media?
> 5) the people running the pages have shown to be dishonest in every way that their honesty can reasonably be measured.
My main goal in this set of comments isn't to necessarily defend the honor of these website operators. Maybe they're pure, manipulative scum?
My main goal is to point out that Facebook (and the media) has shown to be dishonest in every way that their honesty can reasonably be measured. I do not understand how anybody can trust this interpretation of the facts at face value for many, many reasons here.
> I can count the number of journalists I've seen in my life who tried to dig into the nuanced details behind stories on one hand.
Is that supposed to say something about journalism or your knowledge of journalism?
482b03a57155b5a44d80243383f9a22f
Is that supposed to say something about journalism or your knowledge of journalism?
482b03a57155b5a44d80243383f9a22f
Content that is inauthentic and/or misrepresenting the origin / source is definitely troll material
> 1) What is a "troll farm" and what is the criteria used for a distinction between a troll farm and merely some points of view one might disagree with? Maybe this is mentioned somewhere, but I don't see it clearly defined in the link.
> 3) Heck, where is the proof that these pages are even moderately operated by actual people and are not mostly bot-generated content?
Bot generated content would definitely qualify as a troll farm.
> 3) Heck, where is the proof that these pages are even moderately operated by actual people and are not mostly bot-generated content?
Bot generated content would definitely qualify as a troll farm.
I would just note that an 'advertising agency' is rather indistinguishable from a 'troll farm' - using provocative content to get eyeballs on their product is basically the whole game.
My question is whether the location could be spoofed using a VPN or something like this...could it not?
Why would 19 of the top 20 Christian pages be run by Americans who specifically only connect to VPNs in Kosovo and Macedonia when they manage their pages? I think at some point common sense comes into play here.
Pretty sure FB doesn't rely on just IP address to locate its users.
I am interested in the means by which they DO identify user location, and whether the ones they use can be spoofed.
And for those who cannot help but ask "But why would....", while that is an interesting and valid question, it is orthogonal to this specific question.
And for those who cannot help but ask "But why would....", while that is an interesting and valid question, it is orthogonal to this specific question.
Well, if the app is installed, then there's a gajillion methods (GPS, Wifi, etc)
For conventional browsers in a desktop environment I'd suspect all the normal methods of fingerprinting browsers would reveal a lot. And Netflix et al can detect VPNs from a browser, so clearly that's not impossible. I notice that Google Maps on my browser knows where I am despite me using a VPN, but then I'm also logged in to Google on my phone, so maybe it's just tracking my phone location rather than my browser location.
Interesting question - anyone know anything definite?
For conventional browsers in a desktop environment I'd suspect all the normal methods of fingerprinting browsers would reveal a lot. And Netflix et al can detect VPNs from a browser, so clearly that's not impossible. I notice that Google Maps on my browser knows where I am despite me using a VPN, but then I'm also logged in to Google on my phone, so maybe it's just tracking my phone location rather than my browser location.
Interesting question - anyone know anything definite?
I'm no expert, but I'll take a shot at some answers...
> 1) What is a "troll farm" and what is the criteria used for a distinction between a troll farm and merely some points of view one might disagree with? Maybe this is mentioned somewhere, but I don't see it clearly defined in the link.
It's down to intent. I'd define it as: "A troll farm is intended to manipulate opinion in some manner for political goals by (mis)representing itself as a genuine member of the community it intends to manipulate."
> 2) What is the proof that these are indeed foreigners? It would be trivial for a social media company to label domestic users they find distasteful as foreigners to more easily silence certain points of view, especially given the media's unwillingness/inability to understand nuanced technology issues.
I don't think TFA provides any proof of its claims, but points to a MIT Technology Review article [0] that claims a report "obtained by MIT Technology Review from a former Facebook employee not involved in researching it" as its source. It would be entirely reasonable to dismiss the entire article as "fake news" based on this attribution.
> 3) Heck, where is the proof that these pages are even moderately operated by actual people and are not mostly bot-generated content?
Again, no proof provided. Does that make a difference to the intent of the page, though?
> 4) We live in a global, connected world that embraces diverse points of view, right? Are eastern Europeans or others, many of whom still embrace a traditional Christian heritage, expected to not post about their point of view because somebody in San Francisco claims its a troll?
That's not what these pages do (post content in Eastern European languages intended for Eastern European audiences addressing issues faced by Eastern European christians). They're posting in English about things that are contentious for American readers.
> 5) How can a data scientist make a definitive claim that the people running these sites have "never been to church"? Maybe these social media firms are making big assumptions about people and are entirely wrong. Maybe they have entirely far too much information about people.
I didn't read that as a definitive claim, but more as an opinion expressed by one person.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20210917012652/https://www.techn...
> 1) What is a "troll farm" and what is the criteria used for a distinction between a troll farm and merely some points of view one might disagree with? Maybe this is mentioned somewhere, but I don't see it clearly defined in the link.
It's down to intent. I'd define it as: "A troll farm is intended to manipulate opinion in some manner for political goals by (mis)representing itself as a genuine member of the community it intends to manipulate."
> 2) What is the proof that these are indeed foreigners? It would be trivial for a social media company to label domestic users they find distasteful as foreigners to more easily silence certain points of view, especially given the media's unwillingness/inability to understand nuanced technology issues.
I don't think TFA provides any proof of its claims, but points to a MIT Technology Review article [0] that claims a report "obtained by MIT Technology Review from a former Facebook employee not involved in researching it" as its source. It would be entirely reasonable to dismiss the entire article as "fake news" based on this attribution.
> 3) Heck, where is the proof that these pages are even moderately operated by actual people and are not mostly bot-generated content?
Again, no proof provided. Does that make a difference to the intent of the page, though?
> 4) We live in a global, connected world that embraces diverse points of view, right? Are eastern Europeans or others, many of whom still embrace a traditional Christian heritage, expected to not post about their point of view because somebody in San Francisco claims its a troll?
That's not what these pages do (post content in Eastern European languages intended for Eastern European audiences addressing issues faced by Eastern European christians). They're posting in English about things that are contentious for American readers.
> 5) How can a data scientist make a definitive claim that the people running these sites have "never been to church"? Maybe these social media firms are making big assumptions about people and are entirely wrong. Maybe they have entirely far too much information about people.
I didn't read that as a definitive claim, but more as an opinion expressed by one person.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20210917012652/https://www.techn...
I think this is an interesting part "For the most part, the people who see and engage with these posts don’t actually “like” the pages they’re coming from. Facebook’s engagement-hungry algorithm is simply shipping them what it thinks they want to see."
Correct me if I'm wrong but this seems like the issue is that content farms are able to successfully target Facebook's algorithm. (At least for certain topics)
Correct me if I'm wrong but this seems like the issue is that content farms are able to successfully target Facebook's algorithm. (At least for certain topics)
All of these posts are feeding off the FB's "share" functionality. Almost no one is engaging with these posts on the page. These posts spread like wildfire because someone will be scrolling through FB, see a meme they get a chuckle out of or agree with, then hit the share button, never taking into account the source of that material.
With this sharing, the post spreads like wildfire from timeline to timeline.
With this sharing, the post spreads like wildfire from timeline to timeline.
That's just how recommendations work on social media platforms these days... If you only saw posts from people/pages you've explicitly followed then discoverability becomes a challenge
> Troll farms—professionalized groups that work in a coordinated fashion to post provocative content, often propaganda, to social networks
How is this any different than what BuzzFeed or Upworthy were doing ten years ago to build their audiences?
It's frustrating that we're not shown content from these groups. Hard to imagine that stuff from "Happiness Is In Your Mind" or "Positive Quotes" lines up with the kind of stuff you'd imagine when you see the words "troll farm".
How is this any different than what BuzzFeed or Upworthy were doing ten years ago to build their audiences?
It's frustrating that we're not shown content from these groups. Hard to imagine that stuff from "Happiness Is In Your Mind" or "Positive Quotes" lines up with the kind of stuff you'd imagine when you see the words "troll farm".
Apparently, foreign state actors have been actively building competence and skills how to attract and manipulate large audiences on social networks. If you think you're smarter that those followers of Christian groups and you can't be manipulated, well, I have bad news for you.
This would be such a relief to me, as it would suggest that many of the trivial, shallow, grossly unchristian things that circulate from those groups don't reflect what Christians think and believe, but instead follow what games Facebook and serves foreign interests. I understand it's not good news in general, but it's reassuring to people who expect more of Christianity.
> This would be such a relief to me, as it would suggest that much of the trivial, shallow, grossly unchristian things that circulate from those groups doesn't reflect what Christians think and believe, but instead what games Facebook and serves foreign interests. I understand it's not good news in general, but it's reassuring to people who expect more of Christianity.
Its not reassuring, IMO, because the reason it effectively games Facebook and serves foreign interest in is because American Christians lap it up and relay it.
Its not reassuring, IMO, because the reason it effectively games Facebook and serves foreign interest in is because American Christians lap it up and relay it.
That's true, but I'd still rather American Christians be susceptible to the same manipulation as everyone else than that they originate such drivel.
What's the difference? My family members who repost these things don't feel manipulated at all, by any of this. They agree with it, passionately.
It's a little odd that the article focuses on "american" christianity. Don't these pages have global audiences?
A lot of the "truth crisis" of online media relates to online media usage of the "invisible half."
Facebook went orbital around the same time that the internet went universal. Smartphones made the internet available to all those people who hadn't been using it in the 1990s & 2000s.
Around 2010, your uncle Dave got his first smartphone and started blasting hourly messages from mafia wars achievements. The average Angela & Gabriel from Manilla got connected to free, Facebook-only internet.
No one pays much attention to the laggards directly. I mean, they are noticeable in FBs DAUs, amazon's gross sales and such. They're just rarely noticed as disaggregated people. Facebook, or any distant tech company, has no idea what kind of impact they are have on this vast sea of people. Billions of people go from non computer users to using their smartphones for their media and communications, and no one close to Zuck speaks the language or has any idea what's going on.
We learn in retrospect. For most of the arab spring, social media was the official headquarters of dozens of active rebels, revolutionaries, political movements and everything in between. They had recruited armies on social media before the companies paid much attention to it.
Trump, Brexit, most political events of the last decade have been heavily tied to this phenomenon. It will keep happening.
Consider this. The current religious makeup of the world is the legacy of various religious explosions where a belief system "went viral," one way or another. From now on, this happens online.
The next vatican will be built in Zuck's front yard. From his perspective, he'll just discover one day that facebook now hosts the world's largest religion.
A lot of the "truth crisis" of online media relates to online media usage of the "invisible half."
Facebook went orbital around the same time that the internet went universal. Smartphones made the internet available to all those people who hadn't been using it in the 1990s & 2000s.
Around 2010, your uncle Dave got his first smartphone and started blasting hourly messages from mafia wars achievements. The average Angela & Gabriel from Manilla got connected to free, Facebook-only internet.
No one pays much attention to the laggards directly. I mean, they are noticeable in FBs DAUs, amazon's gross sales and such. They're just rarely noticed as disaggregated people. Facebook, or any distant tech company, has no idea what kind of impact they are have on this vast sea of people. Billions of people go from non computer users to using their smartphones for their media and communications, and no one close to Zuck speaks the language or has any idea what's going on.
We learn in retrospect. For most of the arab spring, social media was the official headquarters of dozens of active rebels, revolutionaries, political movements and everything in between. They had recruited armies on social media before the companies paid much attention to it.
Trump, Brexit, most political events of the last decade have been heavily tied to this phenomenon. It will keep happening.
Consider this. The current religious makeup of the world is the legacy of various religious explosions where a belief system "went viral," one way or another. From now on, this happens online.
The next vatican will be built in Zuck's front yard. From his perspective, he'll just discover one day that facebook now hosts the world's largest religion.
There's a strong strain of (bogus) piety in conservative American Christianity that thrives on pages, sites, and media branded as Christian. "Wow, I can get my ticket punched for the stairway to heaven just by visiting the Jesus Is Lord page? Cool."
It's weaker in other countries. At any rate, it started out weaker.
So this sort of trolling is, in the early 21st century, peculiarly successful at targeting Americans. In that way it's similar to the televangelism craze of the late 20th century. Like televangelism, it is spreading globally.
FB should pay these trolls. They're a huge boost to FB's "engagement" business model. There's nothing to be done about it except mass boycotts (account cancellation) of FB. Clergy and other church leaders could try, if they got organized, to drive such boycotts. But they won't; FB is too convenient.
Similar analysis applies also to targeting of Black communities, in which church leaders are big offline influencers.
It's weaker in other countries. At any rate, it started out weaker.
So this sort of trolling is, in the early 21st century, peculiarly successful at targeting Americans. In that way it's similar to the televangelism craze of the late 20th century. Like televangelism, it is spreading globally.
FB should pay these trolls. They're a huge boost to FB's "engagement" business model. There's nothing to be done about it except mass boycotts (account cancellation) of FB. Clergy and other church leaders could try, if they got organized, to drive such boycotts. But they won't; FB is too convenient.
Similar analysis applies also to targeting of Black communities, in which church leaders are big offline influencers.
IDK... There's a strong strain of "cat-pictureiness" to the internet... always has been. Most of us indulge in it, in one sense or another. If people are christian, and they're in vapid cat picture mode... these sites might grab their attention.
Social media is a niche finding, attention grabbing device. There's no mystery in how these got so many people's attention.
The question is what is being done with their attention. Most likely it's just selling them stuff. Most likely. A more unlikely, but also more worrying scenario is that some scheiter has suddenly become a messiah with 100m followers because FB algorithms accidentally did it.
I mean, people will do these sorts of things. But, if Zuck does it accidentally for cheese... I will be mad with him. ISIS was bad enough.
Social media is a niche finding, attention grabbing device. There's no mystery in how these got so many people's attention.
The question is what is being done with their attention. Most likely it's just selling them stuff. Most likely. A more unlikely, but also more worrying scenario is that some scheiter has suddenly become a messiah with 100m followers because FB algorithms accidentally did it.
I mean, people will do these sorts of things. But, if Zuck does it accidentally for cheese... I will be mad with him. ISIS was bad enough.
The way I phrase this is that Twitter is a revolutionary technology: it'll give your country a revolution whether it needs it or not.
Kind of agree, but I think it should be twitter, not FB.
Twitter is inherently more "revolutionary" in aesthetics. Lots of politics, shrill arguments and such. It's also popular among journalists, politicians, and such. It represents a relatively elite user base.
FB is the populist social media site. Your Uncle who never had a computer until he got a smartphone in 2013, he's a facebook user. The fisherman who got a smartphone before home electricity, he's a facebook user.
The dichotomy isn't necessarily FB-Twitter, but a lot of social media's political stuff in the west (Brexit, Trump...) has come from the non elite parts of social media. It was neither mainstream nor fringe, which hints at the populism of it.
Religion is a great candidate for revolution. Major power shifts could happen in broad daylight and journalists, politicians and social media execs probably wouldn't even notice.
Twitter is inherently more "revolutionary" in aesthetics. Lots of politics, shrill arguments and such. It's also popular among journalists, politicians, and such. It represents a relatively elite user base.
FB is the populist social media site. Your Uncle who never had a computer until he got a smartphone in 2013, he's a facebook user. The fisherman who got a smartphone before home electricity, he's a facebook user.
The dichotomy isn't necessarily FB-Twitter, but a lot of social media's political stuff in the west (Brexit, Trump...) has come from the non elite parts of social media. It was neither mainstream nor fringe, which hints at the populism of it.
Religion is a great candidate for revolution. Major power shifts could happen in broad daylight and journalists, politicians and social media execs probably wouldn't even notice.
I tried to find the listed pages and they are all down now. The research is from 2019.
I did a free "birthright" style trip to Israel when I was younger. One of the events during the trip was a presentation from some business executive that was also a hasidic jew that founded and ran a holding company that actually appeared to be a pretty seriously large business. I'll always remember though when he was going through all the businesses they owned that one was some media company that owned major networks and production companies for televangelism. I always thoughts that was hilarious.
> “We have empowered inauthentic actors to accumulate huge followings for largely unknown purposes.”
So, almost like a religion?
So, almost like a religion?
I think focusing on religion/christianity is missing the point here - it's irrelevant probably, the point is that on global web 2.0 websites there may be manipulation
That's kinda weakness of english language itself, because when everybody is capable of using it, then it's hard to distinguish actual native speakers from foreign actors (and genuine users too) that are proficient at it,
meanwhile let's say that you have group of people only using some not so popular language like X, then it's way harder to pretend to be X user, so at worst you're being trolled by people from your country which may not have as bad intentions.
Or maybe I'm too optimistic about my not so popular language :)
That's kinda weakness of english language itself, because when everybody is capable of using it, then it's hard to distinguish actual native speakers from foreign actors (and genuine users too) that are proficient at it,
meanwhile let's say that you have group of people only using some not so popular language like X, then it's way harder to pretend to be X user, so at worst you're being trolled by people from your country which may not have as bad intentions.
Or maybe I'm too optimistic about my not so popular language :)
Consider the source of the article. Religion is very much the point for a website with a "Faith" heading.
It is not irrelevant. It is a suceptible pool of people who "believe." Ripe for whatever con you want to operate at internet scale.
And you don't believe? As the saying goes, atheists don't believe nothing, they believe anything.
Your insinuation that Christianity implies credulity and unfounded wishful thinking says a lot.
Your insinuation that Christianity implies credulity and unfounded wishful thinking says a lot.
== Your insinuation that Christianity implies credulity and unfounded wishful thinking says a lot.==
It says almost as much as you insulting someone for having different beliefs than you. Doesn’t seem like the kind of thing “believers” should do.
It says almost as much as you insulting someone for having different beliefs than you. Doesn’t seem like the kind of thing “believers” should do.
I find the headline to be incomplete to the point of incomprehensibility. Both Facebook and Christianity are international in scope – what on Earth makes a Christian page on Facebook "foreign"?
Turns out tribal identity groups are easily hijacked.
If only humans could somehow thrive outside tribal identity groups. If only atomized unbounded skepticism turned cynicism were a long term solution.
Taking evolutionary psychology into account, probably the best long term solution is an organized religion that is strong enough not to be hijacked by troll farms. It seems that the easily hijacked Christian groups are due to weakened Christian institutions.
A lot of top pages are run by Foreign Troll Farms. They are paying customers for Facebook advertising so Facebook refuses to ban them.
Like, this seems unlikely. Given their business model (get cheap clicks from FB, sell for slightly more) it's vanishingly unlikely that these pages have a FB rep in any real sense, and even less likely that said reps have any pull within the company.
Now, if you'd said FB refuse to ban violating game advertisers, that would be a much more likely state of affairs.
Now, if you'd said FB refuse to ban violating game advertisers, that would be a much more likely state of affairs.
A friend asked some questions I wasn't sure what my answers to were, and am curious what people here think:
What is the definition of a "troll"? What makes these pages different than any other large social media page, almost all of which are presumably run by people for eyeball-click-generating financial purposes, just like these?
What is the definition of a "troll"? What makes these pages different than any other large social media page, almost all of which are presumably run by people for eyeball-click-generating financial purposes, just like these?
Well, yes, platforms will be trolled.
Facebook and co don't care who submitted the content or the truth value, the revenue is made elsewhere.
Facebook is full of personal opinions and misleading articles, it will never qualify as journalism, it's wide open to such abuse.
Facebook is full of personal opinions and misleading articles, it will never qualify as journalism, it's wide open to such abuse.
'Foreign' to Christianity? Just 'by troll farms' is sufficient, surely. (Or else 'Christian page' is under-qualified.)
I ran into one of these many years ago. Reported them as obviously fake, nothing happened.
There are also a lot of Facebook political pages that are run by paid trolls.
“Why are these other countries posting Christian content! That’s American!”
Who’s got a worse spam problem: Facebook or Amazon?
>These groups, based largely in Kosovo and Macedonia
So the two poorest countries in Europe. And ones with incredibly pro-US stances, to the point where they don't have a foreign policy beyond whatever the US ambassador tells them to do.
What the article says without realizing it is that making a living off journalism is impossible in the first world. The rent extracted from monopoly advertising by Facebook and Google has made the majority of journalism and editorial jobs and all the distribution jobs that were part of newspapers untenable.
So you need to find the cheapest English(ish) speakers you can to both write the articles and be the equivalent of the news paper boy. If I were a younger man I'd head to Nigeria and start a troll farm there because the living standard is even lower than that of Macedonia and the number of English speakers higher.
So the two poorest countries in Europe. And ones with incredibly pro-US stances, to the point where they don't have a foreign policy beyond whatever the US ambassador tells them to do.
What the article says without realizing it is that making a living off journalism is impossible in the first world. The rent extracted from monopoly advertising by Facebook and Google has made the majority of journalism and editorial jobs and all the distribution jobs that were part of newspapers untenable.
So you need to find the cheapest English(ish) speakers you can to both write the articles and be the equivalent of the news paper boy. If I were a younger man I'd head to Nigeria and start a troll farm there because the living standard is even lower than that of Macedonia and the number of English speakers higher.
It's not the rent per se, it's the scale. FB/G outcompeted traditional media by having lower margins, compensated by scale. Alas, turns out healthy social systems are sustained through better information nutrition than mass-produced low cost soylent.
Matthew 7:15 comes to mind.
> Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
https://biblehub.com/matthew/7-15.htm
I guess this verse doesn't get much love in sermons, though. It might lead the flock to suspect their shepherds.
> Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
https://biblehub.com/matthew/7-15.htm
I guess this verse doesn't get much love in sermons, though. It might lead the flock to suspect their shepherds.
mlang23(4)
[deleted]
> In the run-up to the 2020 election, the most highly contested in US history, Facebook’s most popular pages for Christian and Black American content were being run by Eastern European troll farms.
Why wouldn’t this article mention the Black American content as well? Certainly this is newsworthy, given the crucial implication here: foreign actors were pushing opposite views on many topics in order to manufacture division.