[klooney]

> Russian disinformation tactics but massively scaled up. And those were already wildly effective.

Russian disinformation's success in the 2016 election is massively over hyped for the usual partisan sour grapes reasons.

You cannot move the world with six figures of Facebook ads, if you could, everyone would spend a lot more money on Facebook ads.

[piyh]

People have voted with 130 billion dollars a year that Meta ads are an effective means of influence

[nradov]

How many Electoral College votes did those ads change in 2016?

[lucubratory]

Yes, this is the annoying thing about that story. They were definitely trying very hard, and they likely had some effect, but ultimately they just didn't have that much influence, likely significantly under a 0.1% swing. The whole Comey thing was significantly more influential and I believe the consensus is that even that wouldn't have changed the results.

Of course, nations still have a right to sovereignty and to be upset when another nation interferes in their internal affairs. I really hope the American public remembers how it felt going forward.

[MattPalmer1086]

I see disinformation tactics more broadly as a long term effort undermining the idea that there is anything trustworthy. While there may be specific outcomes that an adversary might favour, the pollution of reasonable discourse alone is a win.

[vintermann]

It's perfectly possible for "both sides" to see that as a plus.

[dukeofdoom]

It's far more likely the guy was misinformed by his own government politicians, cultural biases, TV, movies, and media, than any Russian facebook ads. But the matrix is strong.