Russia-linked posts 'reached 126m Facebook users in US'

Facebook has said as many as 126 million American users may have seen content uploaded by Russia-based operatives over the past two years.

The social networking site said about 80,000 posts were produced before and after the 2016 presidential election.

Most of the posts focused on divisive social and political messages.

Facebook released the figures ahead of two Senate hearings where it - together with Twitter and Google - will detail Russia's impact on the popular sites.

Russia has repeatedly denied allegations that it attempted to influence the last US presidential election, in which Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton.

In a separate major development on Monday, an investigation by independent counsel Robert Mueller into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia produced its first charges against two former aides. It also emerged that a third former aide had pleaded guilty in early October to lying to the FBI.

President Trump has dismissed allegations of collusion with Moscow, and has repeatedly called on Mrs Clinton to be investigated.

What is Facebook saying?

Facebook says some 80,000 posts were published between June 2015 and August 2017 and were seen by about 29 million Americans directly, according to a draft of prepared remarks seen by US media ahead of Tuesday's Senate hearing.

These posts, which Facebook says were created by a Kremlin-linked company, were amplified through likes, shares and comments and spread to tens of millions more people.

The company also said it had deleted 170 Instagram accounts, which posted about 120,000 pieces of content.

"These actions run counter to Facebook's mission of building community and everything we stand for," wrote Facebook's general counsel Colin Stretch.

"And we are determined to do everything we can to address this new threat."

In a blog post from earlier this month, Facebook's Elliot Schrage said that many of the posts did not violate the company's content policies. They were removed, he said, because they were inauthentic - the Russians behind the posts did not identify themselves as such.
What about other social networking sites?

Google also revealed on Monday that Russian trolls had uploaded more than 1,000 political videos on YouTube on 18 different channels. The company said they had very low view counts and there was no evidence they had been targeting American viewers.

Meanwhile, Twitter found and suspended all 2,752 accounts that it had tracked to the Russia-based Internet Research Agency, Reuters quotes a source as saying.

These accounts, which have now been suspended, posted about 131,000 tweets between September 2016 and November 2016.

Key recent developments:

Nov 2016: Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg says "the idea that fake news on Facebook influenced the (US) election in any way is a pretty crazy idea"

Aug 2017: Facebook says it will fight fake news by sending more suspected hoax stories to fact-checkers and publishing their findings online

Oct 2017: Google finds evidence that Russian agents spent tens of thousands of dollars on ads in a bid to sway the election, reports say

Oct 2017: Twitter bans Russia's RT and Sputnik media outlets from buying advertising amid fears they attempted to interfere in the election

Getting short shrift

Dave Lee, BBC technology reporter, San Francisco

It's quite staggering how this problem, dismissed just over a year ago by Mark Zuckerberg as "crazy" talk, has exploded into a crisis at the world's biggest social network.

Apparently not learning from that mistake, we understand that the thrust of Facebook's message to various government committees this week will be that just one in 23,000 or so messages shared on the network were from the Russians.

It should not surprise Facebook if such a statement - an engineer's defence, you might say - gets short shrift from a panel already unsatisfied with some of what it's heard from the companies so far.

You won't see Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey or Google's executives answering questions this week. That job will be left up to their lawyers.

You wonder how long tech's great and powerful can get away with not personally standing up for the companies they built.

What is happening with the Russia inquiry?

Meanwhile, the White House on Monday sought to downplay the arrest of President Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, and aide Rick Gates on money-laundering charges unrelated to the 2016 campaign.

Another of Mr Trump's campaign advisers, George Papadopoulos, pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI over his contacts with Russia in the first such indictments by Robert Mueller's special counsel investigating alleged links between the Trump campaign and Moscow.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said Mr Papadopoulos had been working in a "volunteer position" and "no activity was done in an official capacity".

Analysts say Mr Papadopoulos's case has the potential to damage the US leader, and that he may have been helping Mr Mueller's inquiries since his arrest in July - which was not made public until Monday.

What are the charges in Mr Mueller's investigation?

- Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and business associate Rick Gates both deny 12 charges, including conspiracy to launder money and conspiracy against the US

-They are alleged to have hidden millions of dollars in earnings acquired from Ukrainian politician Viktor Yanukovych and his pro-Russia party

-Both Mr Manafort and Mr Gates are currently under house arrest, on bail of $10m and $5m respectively

-Former foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about the timing of meetings with alleged go-betweens for Russia

-He admitted to falsely claiming he had met two figures, including a London-based professor who was offering "dirt" on Hillary Clinton, before joining the Trump campaign when in fact he met them afterwards

My Opinion:

Audience:

The audience of this article is probably targeted to younger generation Americans who have been following the Russia scandal closely. Therefore they are probably mostly liberals. It also has significance to people around the world because if the globe's leading nation for a democratic government cannot hold fair elections it changes the way countries may choose to run their government.

Author Bias:

There is obviously a bias against the Trump administration and their collusion with Russia in the election but also in this article there is strong language against the way Mark Zukerberg handled the situation. 

My Bias:

I share similar feelings as this author about the Trump administration and how the election was carried out. I also agree that Mark Zukerberg was strange to deny Russian use of Facebook to impact the elections and even now reluctant to say much when facts have come out saying that the Russians did in fact use Facebook. 

After Niger, ramping up U.S. ‘aggression’ in Africa is a really, really bad idea

By Karen Attiah October 23 at 1:46 PM

Some of us Africa-watchers were hoping that Donald Trump and his administration, laden with military generals, would not set its sights on Africa. Apart from a reference to the imaginary nation of “Nambia,” Trump rarely mentions the continent, much less outlines a clear policy towards it. Now, more than two weeks after four U.S. green berets were killed in a mysterious ambush in Niger, it appears that the U.S. counterterrorism machine may be ramping up in Africa.

According to reports late last week, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told senior lawmakers that the U.S. military would shift its counterterrorism efforts to focus more on Africa.

When asked about Niger, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) of the Senate Committee on Armed Services said, “the war is morphing. You’re going to see more actions in Africa, not less; you’re going to see more aggression by the United States toward our enemies, not less; you’re going to have decisions being made not in the White House but out in the field.”

The Niger ambush only began to make headlines because of Trump’s failure to mention the attacks for 12 days, his reckless handling of a condolence call to Sgt. La David Johnson’s widow, and his Twitter attacks on Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.). Many unanswered questions remain about the mission that the troops embarked on. We still aren’t sure which armed group was responsible for the attack, whether the American troops were adequately armed, or why Johnson’s body was left behind in the desert for two days.

In the absence of answers, and a lack of a clear and coherent Africa strategy to begin with, ramping up U.S. military aggression in Africa sounds like a really, really bad idea right now.

To be fair, the Trump administration inherited an overmilitarized Africa policy from the Obama administration, which oversaw the expansion of the Africom regional command and special operations forces. Africa hosts the second largest regional contingent of special operations forces after the Middle East. The percent of special forces deployed to Africa rose from 3 percent to 17 percent between 2010 and 2016.

The Sahel is a region with porous borders and weak governments. As Joe Penney noted for Defense One in August about threats in Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger and Chad, “year after year, Western and West African nations pour resources into military response to the growing insecurity in the region, with little results.” Responding to the attack in Niger, Rudy Atallah, who was once considered for a national security council appointment for Africa under Trump, told the Atlantic that Niger is particularly difficult for U.S. forces, noting that “we don’t have very good intelligence information on what the threat looks like or how it’s growing and [U.S. troops] don’t have the support of local population.”


If the administration plans to scale up its aggression against terrorism in Africa, it needs to be clearer about how that initiative complements that of France. “The French are the most engaged outside power in the region, and the U.S.A. originally became involved in both Mali and Niger to support French anti-terror initiatives,” said Naunihal Singh, an assistant professor at the Naval War College. He said it should be clearer how U.S. drone bases in Niger mesh with French strategic aims, and how French efforts to train military forces in the region complement U.S. training efforts.

If the last nine months are anything to go by, the Trump administration seems to have no idea what the heck it is doing in Africa, even when it comes to basic diplomacy. It was just a few months ago that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson infuriated African diplomats when he snubbed Moussa Faki, the head of the African Union, by cancelling their first Washington meeting at the last minute. The Trump administration has not yet nominated an assistant secretary of state for Africa, and there is currently no National Security Council senior director for Africa. It damaged relations with Chad, one of its most capable counterterrorism allies, by slapping a nonsensical travel ban on the country, since revoked. As a result, Chad withdrew hundreds of forces from Niger, where it was helping to combat Boko Haram.

On Thursday, asked about why U.S. troops were in Africa, White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly said, “They’re there working with partners … teaching them how to be better soldiers; teaching them how to respect human rights …” However on Friday, the Post reported that the Pentagon was adopting a “status-based targeting” system for suspected terrorists, meaning troops will be able to use lethal force against a suspected member of a terrorist organization even if that person does not pose an immediate threat.”


This should make anyone who cares about human rights and effective counterterror strategy quite nervous. Already, a number of the nations that the United States relies on in the war against terror have pretty dismal records when it comes to abuses against civilians. So what will happen when the Trump administration begins allowing U.S. forces to eliminate suspected targets who don’t pose an immediate threat? What message will this send to the armies that the U.S. is tasked with training? It’s not inconceivable to think that such a policy will give African governments a pass to commit abuses against civilians with more impunity.

Africa matters for global security. But African nations and Western powers need to be asking the right questions and setting clear counterterrorism objectives before embroiling themselves in unwinnable shadow wars.

My Opinion:

The Audience:

It seems pretty clear from the first sentence that the author is mainly targeting Americans who have some connection to Africa that makes them monitor the political aspects of it more closely. This may be immigrants, African-Americans or globally minded people who monitor the political atmosphere. Most of these people are probably middle aged (18-40) and are likely more liberal thinkers.

Author Bias:

There is an overwhelming bias by the author in this article against the Trump Administration and their decisions in Africa. We can see this from the first paragraph where it is pretty direct that they do not agree with Trump's actions. That is the obvious bias but there is also an overall pretty negative bias. The author criticizes the Obama administration and the West African governments quite a bit.

My Bias:

Going into this article I did not have any previous knowledge of the situation including the Niger incident so I did not have a specific bias on this issue. However, I tend to be pretty negative about the US and especially Trump's interactions with Africa so going into this article I assumed that it was a bad decision. At the end I still agree but I am probably less bias because I can see that there may be parts of these actions that have much more reason behind them than we know. 

My Opinion:

With all that is going on in West Africa it does not seem to be a good time to ramp up the military action in the region. However, I do believe that there maybe more to the story because it seems extreme, even for the Trump administration, to make a decision so big with so little facts. 

Iraqi forces enter Kirkuk as Kurds flee


Iraqi government forces have entered central Kirkuk after taking key installations outside the disputed city from Kurdish fighters.

Thousands of people fled the city ahead of the Iraqi advance.

The Iraqi military moved into Kirkuk three weeks after the Kurdistan Region held a controversial independence referendum.

They are aiming to retake areas under Kurdish control since Islamic State militants swept through the region.

Residents of Kurdish-controlled areas, including Kirkuk, overwhelmingly backed secession from Iraq in a 25 September vote.

While Kirkuk is outside Iraqi Kurdistan, Kurdish voters in the city were allowed to take part.

Iraq's prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, had denounced the vote as unconstitutional. But the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) insisted it was legitimate.

US officials said they were "engaged with all parties in Iraq to de-escalate tension".

Mr Abadi said in a statement on Monday that the operation in Kirkuk was necessary to "protect the unity of the country, which was in danger of partition" because of the referendum.

"We call upon all citizens to co-operate with our heroic armed forces, which are committed to our strict directives to protect civilians in the first place, and to impose security and order, and to protect state installations and institutions," he added.

On Monday, the Iraqi military said its units had taken control of the K1 military base, the Baba Gurgur oil and gas field, and a state-owned oil company's offices.

The government in Baghdad said the Peshmerga had withdrawn "without fighting". However, clashes were reported to the south, and the sound of gunfire was caught by a BBC cameraman as a team filmed near a checkpoint.

By afternoon, as thousands of people fled the city fearing impending clashes between the two sides, Iraqi military vehicles were rolling into the heart of Kirkuk. A picture shared on social media appeared to show Iraqi forces sitting in the governor's office.

Forces pulled down the Kurdish flag which had been flying alongside the national flag, according to Reuters.

Mr Abadi had ordered the flag to fly over all disputed territories.

The speed with which Iraqi forces reached the centre of the city has led the two main armed Kurdish parties to accuse the other of "betrayal".

The Peshmerga General Command, which is led by President Massoud Barzani of the ruling Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), accused officials from Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) of aiding " the plot against the people of Kurdistan".

But the PUK have denied being part of ordering any withdrawal, saying dozens of their fighters had been killed and hurt, but noted "not even one KDP Peshmerga has been martyred as of yet in the fighting in Kirkuk".

Meanwhile Turkey, which fears Kurdish independence in Iraq could lead to similar calls from its own Kurdish minority, praised Baghdad, saying it was "ready for any form of co-operation with the Iraqi government in order to end the PKK presence in Iraqi territory".

The PKK - or Kurdistan Workers' Party - is a Turkish-Kurdish rebel group which has been fighting for autonomy since the 1980s. It is considered a terrorist group by Turkey as well as by the EU and US.

Why is Kirkuk at the heart of this Kurdish crisis?

Kirkuk is an oil-rich province claimed by both the Kurds and the central government. It is thought to have a Kurdish majority, but its provincial capital has large Arab and Turkmen populations.

Kurdish Peshmerga forces took control of much of the province in 2014, when Islamic State (IS) militants swept across northern Iraq and the Iraq army collapsed.

The Iraqi parliament asked Mr Abadi to deploy troops to Kirkuk and other disputed areas after the referendum result was announced, but he said last week that he would accept them being governed by a "joint administration" and that he did not want an armed confrontation.

On Sunday, his cabinet accused the KRG of deploying non-Peshmerga fighters in Kirkuk, including members of the PKK, which it said was tantamount to a "declaration of war". But KRG officials denied this.

My Response:

The intended audience for this article seems to be people from Turkey as they would be directly affected, the UK as it is the BBC and the United States because this also affects those living there. It is probably written to those between 18 and 60 because they would be more likely to be interested in this topic and concerned enough about the world to read it. Although the article is about Iraq, I do not think it was intended for Iraqi people as it was quite negative about both of the groups. It talked about the blame game of the Kurds and the somewhat selfish aspect of the current government. However, in this article the author did seem to have a slight bias towards the Iraq government and their hopes to keep the nation unified. We can see this in the fact that he was very critical of how the Kurdish leadership was acting and he inferred that the current president just wanted peace. In my opinion I think that the Kurds have every right to independence as they are a very large people group without their own nation. They have been oppressed for many years and that is a human rights issue more than it is political, therefore they have this right.