Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That the author is peddling the absurd “Russians hacked muh servers” popular myth makes the comment all the more poignant.

Social networks tolerate fake traffic because it increases their perceived value. The real crime is the fictive usage and engagement metrics they use to set ad pricing.



The "popular myth" is sourced to both independent security firms and multiple U.S. intelligence agencies, and isn't a partisan issue: https://www.wired.com/2017/03/marco-rubio-says-hack-attempts...


My understanding is that the only group that ever got access to Hillary's servers to do forensics was a service that Hillary paid directly and is absolutely not "independent".


Oh it most definitely is a partisan issue. I'll wait for your evidence for if any votes were changed in machines, the only thing that could truly be construed as "hacking" a election.


But that's not what anyone was saying. You're making up an easier position to defend. What about the claim that was actually made in the article?

> target misleading messages based on material stolen in the Russian hack of Democratic National Committee servers


Well, I prefer to victim-blame the idiots who shell out astronomical sums of money for ads; based on these fraudulent "statistics".




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: