HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Facebook sent its employe...

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 07:46 AM

Facebook sent its employees to Donald Trumps campaign office to help with online marketing

Facebook is finally admitting that it allowed fake Russian accounts to run paid political ads during the election (link). Although Facebook says it’s now cooperating with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the revelation is bringing new attention to the relationship between Facebook Incorporated and the Donald Trump campaign. That relationship involved Facebook sending its employees to help out at the Trump campaign office in charge of digital marketing. The source of this information: one of Trump’s own people.


In an online BBC video, Theresa Hong, the Donald Trump campaign’s Digital Content Director, has made a number of startling confessions that she seems to think were bragging points. She’s revealed that Cambridge Analytica, the company suspected of having used voter data stolen by the Russian government to plot its online marketing strategy on Trump’s behalf, ran its operations out of the same offices where the Trump campaign itself was plotting its paid Facebook ad strategy. But the truly shocking revelation is who else she admits was in the building, which Trump’s people called “Project Alamo.”


The BBC interviewer asks Hong, “What were Facebook and Google and YouTube people actually doing here? Why were they here?” She responds by saying “They were helping us, you know. They were basically our hands-on partners as far as being able to utilize the platform as effectively as possible.” Shen then bragged “When you’re pumping in millions and millions of dollars to these social platforms, you’re going to get white glove treatment. So they would send people, you know, representatives to the Project Alamo to ensure that all our needs were being met.”

http://www.palmerreport.com/politics/facebook-employees-trump-office/4784/

37 replies, 4312 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 37 replies Author Time Post
Reply Facebook sent its employees to Donald Trumps campaign office to help with online marketing (Original post)
UCmeNdc Sep 2017 OP
global1 Sep 2017 #1
C_U_L8R Sep 2017 #2
tanyev Sep 2017 #3
George II Sep 2017 #14
hedda_foil Sep 2017 #19
saidsimplesimon Sep 2017 #4
annabanana Sep 2017 #6
Ligyron Sep 2017 #7
annabanana Sep 2017 #9
Dr Hobbitstein Sep 2017 #5
tecelote Sep 2017 #11
hwmnbn Sep 2017 #12
Dr Hobbitstein Sep 2017 #16
hwmnbn Sep 2017 #24
Dr Hobbitstein Sep 2017 #25
hwmnbn Sep 2017 #32
Dr Hobbitstein Sep 2017 #33
hwmnbn Sep 2017 #37
Dr Hobbitstein Sep 2017 #17
c-rational Sep 2017 #22
Blue_Adept Sep 2017 #13
nycbos Sep 2017 #8
AllyCat Sep 2017 #10
Dr Hobbitstein Sep 2017 #18
hwmnbn Sep 2017 #34
PatrickforO Sep 2017 #15
Baitball Blogger Sep 2017 #20
dembotoz Sep 2017 #21
Lee-Lee Sep 2017 #23
Gothmog Sep 2017 #26
Egnever Sep 2017 #27
Not Ruth Sep 2017 #28
Dr Hobbitstein Sep 2017 #30
FreeState Sep 2017 #29
Dr Hobbitstein Sep 2017 #31
JoeStuckInOH Sep 2017 #35
octoberlib Sep 2017 #36

Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 07:51 AM

1. Drip - Drip - Drip.......nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 07:55 AM

2. Millions and millions of dollars

The numbers keep changing.
How much was Russia's (illegal) contribution to the Trump campaign?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 08:09 AM

3. Hm, wouldn't that be an in kind campaign donation?

And did they report it as such?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tanyev (Reply #3)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 10:16 AM

14. Reported or not, no business entity can contribute in-kind donations, and there are limits, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tanyev (Reply #3)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 10:35 AM

19. No, it's still part of a commercial transaction. More's the pity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 08:28 AM

4. Good catch

So, will FB lose any revenue as a result of this treachery? I have never had a FB, Youtube or Twitter account.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to saidsimplesimon (Reply #4)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 09:31 AM

6. No, they won't... Maybe Facebook is now ubiquitous enough to be

regulated as a utility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to annabanana (Reply #6)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 09:36 AM

7. You mean like they used to regulate the airwaves?

Or, like they don't anymore?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ligyron (Reply #7)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 09:44 AM

9. Sure

and the phone company

We The People do hold a cudgel or two.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 08:28 AM

5. They also went to Hillary's office.

 

Of course, this is the rarely factual Palmer Report.

Anyone paying that kind of money for advertising gets in house TECH SUPPORT.

Also, fun fact, HRC received the majority of donations from facebook employees and executives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #5)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 10:02 AM

11. +1!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #5)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 10:15 AM

12. So by your logic...

Anyone paying that kind of money for advertising gets in house TECH SUPPORT.


Then the one critical difference between the two campaigns is Russian involvement.


Btw, I googled and couldn't find any article confirming in house tech support for Clinton campaign. It would seem likely and obvious but I couldn't find it. May I ask for your source on this? Thanks.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hwmnbn (Reply #12)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 10:25 AM

16. Of course you won't.

 

Because it's common fucking sense. If this were a thing, don't you think Hillary and/or prominent Dems would be screaming it from the rooftops?

They're not, because it's not a scandal.

The real scandal is Russian influence on our election. Not the infrastructure they used.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #16)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 11:47 AM

24. "it's common fucking sense"...

So that means you can't or won't provide confirmation for your assertion. Noted.

The real scandal is Russian influence on our election.


What infrastructure did the Russians use to influence our election? What does your common fucking sense tell you?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hwmnbn (Reply #24)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 11:55 AM

25. They used the internet.

 

Including, but not limited to, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, email, various targeted ads from other advertisers, Google, Yahoo, and other search engines via SEO, tons of blogs and fake news websites. And there were even russian trolls/bots here on DU.

Not to mention hacking of various state election boards and databases.

But it's all facebook's fault.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/russian-political-ad-buys-raise-questions-facebook-transparency

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #25)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 04:14 PM

32. No one said it was all Facebook's fault...

but they may have been witting or unwitting accomplices to this "influence." That's a point of inquiry the special Counsel is pursuing. Thus far Facebook has not been completely cooperative. They're a private company so we're in tricky legal waters here. I'll await developments.

I absolutely agree with TPM's article that this influence was multi-faceted. The question is was it coordinated? Seems like it was. So the main issue is who coordinated? I suspect Russia did most of the grunt work, but someone helped them to focus and maximize the effect.



And that SOMEONE must be held accountable for this straight up treason.



You may have seen this but if you didn't...



I've not seen or heard any similar information about the Clinton campaign, that's why I asked for your source.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hwmnbn (Reply #32)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 04:21 PM

33. I have seen the video.

 

It's not damning like you think it is.

And of course you won't hear about it. It's NOT newsworthy.
"Company Provides Paid Service To Political Candidates, Details at 11".
ANYONE spending millions on facebook marketing WILL get hands on attention from facebook staff. If Clinton marketed on facebook (which she did), then she had the SAME services that OrangeDick McFuckface did. It's not illegal, nefarious, or even notable.
The only reason you know about Trump having said service was this interview that keeps being posted ad naseum by people who don't understand how the internet works.

Ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #33)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 07:59 PM

37. Funny, but...

And of course you won't hear about it. It's NOT newsworthy.

you do hear about THIS Drumpf/Russia/Facebook strategy. That seemed newsworthy enough for the BBC. I take it you have different journalistic standards.




If Clinton marketed on facebook (which she did), then she had the SAME services that OrangeDick McFuckface did.

And you know this by your common fucking sense again? Would you publish that statement in your newspaper, blog, letter to the editor, or even a comment thread on an internet forum without citing external sourcing?




The only reason you know about Drumpf having said service was this interview that keeps being posted ad naseum

(1) I'm impressed by your certainty about what and how I know things.

(2) Credibility of the clip is not dependent on number of views or posts. Do you have any evidence that counters the substance of the BBC report? If so, why not e-mail and enlighten them on their errors. They'd be grateful.



by people who don't understand how the internet works.

Well you got me there, I'll defer to your superior intellect and confess I'm not very bright. But that's precisely why I require independent verification. I have to work double hard to screen out eloquent bullshit. It's a curse!



Ridiculous

I agree. So Dr Hobbitstein, unless you have more to add, I'll just say Peace...Out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hwmnbn (Reply #12)


Response to hwmnbn (Reply #12)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 11:02 AM

22. Regarding critical difference, I would also suggest intent. There is a big difference between

scheming and strategizing, and unfortunately with our corporate MSM they would be put forth as equivanent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #5)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 10:16 AM

13. No kidding

This is not something nefarious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 09:39 AM

8. I hate Trump but given this is the Palmer Report...

... I am highly skeptical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 09:54 AM

10. Okay, I can't stand 45 and the Russian mobsters that put him in power, but

this is the Palmer Report. Additionally, did others running for office run ads on FB? Wouldn't any major outlet seek business from a national or local campaign with money to spend?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AllyCat (Reply #10)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 10:31 AM

18. Ding ding ding!

 

Those are the logical questions to ask when posited with sensationalist/yellow journalism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AllyCat (Reply #10)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 04:28 PM

34. I'd like to see exactly who ran which ads...

When and where. Seems like that's get-able information in this digital world.

Analysis might shed some light as to how this "interference" actually took place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 10:17 AM

15. Good news.

One step closer to bringing the traitors to justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 10:38 AM

20. How much are they going to pay to deprogram the people that were so completely

brainwashed that they're still posting nuttery today? Facebook: A self-propelling nut factory. It finds the gene of prejudice and feeds it until it grows inside the brain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 10:47 AM

21. if i owned a company and someone wanted to spend big$$$$$ with me god damn right i would help them

take them to lunch
buy em a beer or three
give em a bunch of company pens

tech support you damn well better believe it

in most places you buy something tech you get tech support....

would you buy an i phone that had not tech support? of coarse not

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 11:12 AM

23. Wow, Palmer Report is misrepresenting something

 

That's never happened before, has it.....

When you spend a bunch of money with a company like Facebook, they send people to work with you and keep you happy. Doesn't matter if it's Trump, Hillary, Stein, or anyone else. If Vermin Supreme set up a multi-million dollar advertising account he would get the same treatment too.

Typical Palmer nonsense. Take something like this and then spin it to be a huge controversy when it's really nothing. Nothing but click bait garbage so he gets paid because the traffic pushes ad views.

I can't believe people still find his garbage credible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 12:01 PM

26. Facebook has a great deal to answer for

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #26)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 12:08 PM

27. Yes but this isn't part of it

 

Standard procedure for big add buys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 12:41 PM

28. Russia spent $100k, did Facebook go to Russia to help?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Not Ruth (Reply #28)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 01:17 PM

30. Russia didn't setup a large adbuy.

 

Russia had small, seemingly unrelated, adbuys that totaled $100k.
Russia's FUNDING may have all come from one place, but the adbuys were setup small and discretely.

Big difference between one person dropping $100k and many different people dropping a combined total of $100k.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 12:45 PM

29. Doesnt Facebook offer this to any paying company? N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreeState (Reply #29)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 01:17 PM

31. Yes. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 04:31 PM

35. As far as I'm concerned, Facebook is an online social media company.

 

They exist to make their shareholder's money and they deal in personal information and human information. They sell off information about users and sell ad space to the highest bidders and, as far as I'm aware, nothing regulating their stances in partisan politics. I don't expect corporations to necessarily be upstanding or have a conscience. They exist to make money. Trump paid them money... they delivered. If any rules were broken, I'm sure it's in the Trump camp.

Perhaps laws need written to limit the influence social media has on elections and election contributions.

But as of right now, I don't think Facebook was in the wrong whatsoever and don't have shit to answer for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 04:31 PM

36. Facebook and Google will do this for any high dollar spender. Doesn't mean they supported Trump

or didn't support him. It's all about the money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread