 |
| By Mikhail Svetlov/Getty Images. |
Recently Facebook announced to congress that it had discovered the origin of certain ads that were displayed during the 2016 election. A Russian company known to publicize the state narrative were discovered to have spent $100,000 to advertise on Facebook. While a ¨small portion¨ of them contained Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump directly, most of the ads were focused around divisive issues that the two candidates disagreed on ¨from LGBT matters to race issues to immigration to gun rights.¨
While Facebook only disclosed the source of the ads and not which candidate or platform they seemed to support, it is likely that this will be taken as evidence that Trump´s campaign received social media help from Russia. While $100,000 is comparatively small when put next to Trump´s overall campaign fund, investigators are primarily focused on whether the Trump campaign was in contact with the Russian government and/or this corporation when these ads were placed; they are less concerned about the actual effect that these ads had on the election.
Some congressmen such as representative Adam Schiff of California see this as a warning sign of potential foreign involvement for future elections, as he sees this as a sign of malicious intent on the part of the Russians.
Questions:
Is this the extent of Russian involvement in the 2016 election?
Should Russia as a state be punished for the actions of a corporation in their nation? If so, how?
Should we prevent foreign companies from political advertising?
3 comments:
I don't think the U.S. should punish companies from other countries for advertising for certain companies. When it comes to advertisement, other countries should be allowed to contribute as long as it is open, public, and not shady. I think that if the company was not Russian, this wouldn't even be news, and I also think that this news is not really related to the investigations of Russia tampering with the elections, as advertisements are legitimate and if countries want to legally and publicly support certain candidates, there should not be conflicts over that.
I firmly agree with Michael about the idea that a private company ought to be free to spend its dollars as it pleases. Where my general absolute belief becomes foggy is in nations, like Russia, where government and business are often intertwined and we have no way of knowing. That being said, I think establishing who authorized these ads is important before leaping to accusations of collusion. A simple google search will yield plenty of adverts for Clinton, Trump, and even Putin that are not officially endorsed and are often satirical in nature. Simply put, more context is needed before any judgement is passed.
It also interests me that Facebook was the cite who facilitated these ads. Facebook and foreign policy have gotten a bad rap when it comes to free speech in the global setting (see "Pakistan Blasphemy Law + Facebook"). Whether Facebook should've provided a platform for a Russian corporation to advertise on is a question I'll pose to any other comments.
I agree that private companies should be allowed to spend their money where they want and have no repercussions for it. An international company's reason for investing would usually be because the person they are supporting would be beneficial to have in office for that business or country. The more money they invest, the more likely that person would win, and would result in more trade with richer countries.
Post a Comment