Google CEO Exposes Shocking Full Extent Of Russian Meddling In 2016 (crimes, rating)

[Mikala43]

Zero Hedge via Sputnik.com.

I think I'll wait for another source. Thanks.

[WaldoKitty]

This says it all. Proved in this topic too.

https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/statu...70535459086337


Direct from congressional testimony.

[Spartacus713]

Originally Posted by Mikala43

Zero Hedge via Sputnik.com.

I think I'll wait for another source. Thanks.

Here is his testimony televised on CSPAN, with the video hosted by YouTube. The question and answer exchange starts at the 51:50 mark:

[craigiri]

Originally Posted by WaldoKitty

This says it all. Proved in this topic too.



Direct from congressional testimony.

The same Republicans who asked Google about the iphone they make.

Of course, Russian TV has quite a few youtube channels. I'm sure the OP doesn't even know how many....no one does....and therefore, no one knows how much they spent in production, marketing, etc.

No one. But it's a lot by any measure - enough propaganda to easily swing a close election.

The NRA has admitted being tied to at least 20 Russian donors. Does NRA spending of RUSSIAN money not count?

Sorry, a big thread fail. You are not talking to fellow Trumpies here- and Russias are not stupid. They don't spend the money directly - walk into Google with rubles and hand them over! How silly.

[WaldoKitty]

Originally Posted by craigiri

The same Republicans who asked Google about the iphone they make.

Is that all you focused on? That one single slip of the toungue. Did it change anything said?


Is is this what you have to do to see the Russian meme completely destroyed by the testimony?


Shouldn't be hard to answer.

[Goodnight]

Originally Posted by Spartacus713

By comparison, Trump and Hillary spent $81 Million on facebook ads.

You of course are just looking at paid ads by the Russians, the more significant issue was the phony personalities created by Russian companies and agents. Information put forth was retransmitted millions of times by people that were not even aware that these were Russian bots. One sticks in my mind was the family from Pa that was pro Trump/anti Hillary. There actions had a tremendous impact on the election. The funds they spent overseas far exceed simple advertising and is not easily traceable like ads.


If you want to know the real impact you should listen to the intelligence agencies rather than dismissing the hacking because of the CEO's statement.

Sometimes an international offensive begins with a few shots that draw little notice. So it was last year when Melvin Redick of Harrisburg, Pa., a friendly-looking American with a backward baseball cap and a young daughter, posted on Facebook a link to a brand-new website.
“These guys show hidden truth about Hillary Clinton, George Soros and other leaders of the US,” he wrote on June 8, 2016. “Visit #DCLeaks website. It’s really interesting!”
Mr. Redick turned out to be a remarkably elusive character. No Melvin Redick appears in Pennsylvania records, and his photos seem to be borrowed from an unsuspecting Brazilian. But this fictional concoction has earned a small spot in history: The Redick posts that morning were among the first public signs of an unprecedented foreign intervention in American democracy

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/u...-election.html

[Spartacus713]

Originally Posted by Goodnight

You of course are just looking at paid ads by the Russians, the more significant issue was the phony personalities created by Russian companies and agents. Information put forth was retransmitted millions of times by people that were not even aware that these were Russian bots. One sticks in my mind was the family from Pa that was pro Trump/anti Hillary. There actions had a tremendous impact on the election. The funds they spent overseas far exceed simple advertising and is not easily traceable like ads.

So since we cannot know how much this might have been, could you please fabricate some sort of baseless and thoroughly laughable estimate of what you want everyone to accept by faith from you that it must have been?

[Mikala43]

Russia buying ads on Google has never been a very big issue, I'm not sure why you think you made some grand point.

I didn't even know they were being looked at for Russia meddling, and now I know why.... there wasn't very much of it............. on a search engine.

Again, the issue has been their meddling on social media, and Google is NOT social media.

[WaldoKitty]

Originally Posted by Mikala43

Russia buying ads on Google has never been a very big issue, I'm not sure why you think you made some grand point.

I didn't even know they were being looked at for Russia meddling, and now I know why.... there wasn't very much of it............. on a search engine.

Again, the issue has been their meddling on social media, and Google is NOT social media.

Well.


This sounds like moving the goalpost after the game was lost.

[Three Wolves In Snow]

Originally Posted by Mikala43

Russia buying ads on Google has never been a very big issue, I'm not sure why you think you made some grand point.

I didn't even know they were being looked at for Russia meddling, and now I know why.... there wasn't very much of it............. on a search engine.

Again, the issue has been their meddling on social media, and Google is NOT social media.

"on its platforms". Plural. That includes YouTube which is considered "social media". Google owns YouTube, that is part of Google's "platforms", plural. You can buy ads on Google's platforms, including YouTube, which is part of social media.