Facebook in Damage Control Mode After Russia Probe Indictments

The transcript discusses Rob Goldman's comments on Russian influence in the 2016 election and their impact on Facebook's public narrative. It highlights Facebook's cooperation with Mueller's investigation and the challenges in tracking Russian activities. Goldman's comments, which seemed to contradict Mueller's findings, sparked controversy and raised questions about Facebook's role and responsibility. The distinction between paid ads and organic content is also explored, emphasizing the complexity of the situation.

What was the main concern about Rob Goldman's comments on the Russian influence?

• They were supportive of the Russian activities.

• They were in line with Mueller's findings.

• They were seen as representing Facebook's official stance.

• They were ignored by the public.

How did Facebook aim to present itself in light of the investigation?

• As an opponent of the investigation.

• As a supporter of the Russian activities.

• As a company unaware of any wrongdoing.

• As a neutral party cooperating with the investigation.

What was the nature of the Russian activities mentioned in the indictment?

• They were unrelated to social media.

• They were only conducted on other platforms.

• They were mostly organic posts and false identities.

• They were primarily paid advertisements.

Why was it challenging for Facebook to track the Russian ads?

• The ads were in a foreign language.

• The ads were not on Facebook.

• The ads were purchased using real American identities.

• The ads were too expensive to track.

What was a key issue with Goldman's comments on the investigation?

• He was too supportive of Mueller's findings.

• He was a spokesperson for the Russian government.

• He was not qualified to speak on the full extent of the investigation.

• He had insider information.