Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So a few trolls overcame Hillary's 1 billion dollar campaign, having Obama and all of Hollywood behind her, having her whole party behind her, and having the media on her side?
Wow, Hillary was a worse candiate than I thought
You are mistaken if you believe all Ds wanted Billary. Many wanted Webb. Looks like many wanted Sanders.
Too bad they didn't want him badly enough to read the convention rules.
Hillary knew the process and had her ducks in a row 2 years before the primary. Which as has been indicated is a private club. Each state decides how they will do their primary and who and how gets ballot access.
This topic comes up frequently, and I think it would be nice to start a thread where we can compile these statistics. People often ask for "evidence" that Russian bots had their hand in influencing people's minds on social media, so I think it would be good to provide some of that for everyone (in a single thread).
Did they tell lies, or expose Hillary for who she really is?
We have not established that aspect to make a decision.
1. What we actually know about the Russian activity on Facebook and Twitter: "It was often modest, heavily dissociated from the campaign itself and minute in the context of election social media efforts."
2. "The Facebook ads were not targeted to be seen in key swing states."
3. Very few of the ads referred to Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, or the election.
Did they tell lies, or expose Hillary for who she really is?
We have not established that aspect to make a decision.
If you bothered to look at the great amount of content that has been compiled (shared throughout this, and other threads, FYI) for what has been shared and posted online by Russian bots/trolls, you would see that they told many lies and shared many divisive opinions.
All with the clear goal of sowing discontent in our "system" and to undermine our democratic electoral process.
If you bothered to look at the great amount of content that has been compiled (shared throughout this, and other threads, FYI) for what has been shared and posted online by Russian bots/trolls, you would see that they told many lies and shared many divisive opinions.
All with the clear goal of sowing discontent in our "system" and to undermine our democratic electoral process.
1. What we actually know about the Russian activity on Facebook and Twitter: "It was often modest, heavily dissociated from the campaign itself and minute in the context of election social media efforts."
Debatable. A lot of it was random and just meant to be totally divisive (see troll accounts talking about issues like the origins of the Civil War, Muslims, or immigration) - but there was also some specific content very much in relation to the campaigns. Lots to look at here: https://medium.com/@ushadrons
Quote:
Originally Posted by lchoro
2. "The Facebook ads were not targeted to be seen in key swing states."
Well, according to Oxford University researchers, content on Twitter was actually quite targeted in swing states:
Oxford University researchers have found that misinformation and polarizing content seemed to target swing states: Social Media, News and Political Information during the US Election: Was Polarizing Content Concentrated in Swing States? http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-conte...ing-States.pdf
Abstract (much more about their conclusions and methodologies at the link):
Quote:
US voters shared large volumes of polarizing political news and information in the form of links to content from Russian, WikiLeaks and junk news sources. Was this low quality political information distributed evenly around the country, or concentrated in swing states and particular parts of the country?
Quote:
In this data memo we apply a tested dictionary of sources about political news and information being shared over Twitter over a ten day period around the 2016 Presidential Election. Using self-reported location information, we place a third of users by state and create a simple index for the distribution of polarizing content around the country. We find that (1) nationally, Twitter users got more misinformation, polarizing and conspiratorial content than professionally produced news. (2) Users in some states, however, shared more polarizing political news and information than users in other states. (3) Average levels of misinformation were higher in swing states than in uncontested states, even when weighted for the relative size of the user population in each state.
Maybe the same wasn't true for Facebook...but there is evidence at least on one medium that efforts were focused towards key states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lchoro
3. Very few of the ads referred to Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, or the election.
Debatable. Like with point 1, many of the ads were random and just meant to be divisive...but plenty did target Clinton, Trump, and other political figures.
Debatable. A lot of it was random and just meant to be totally divisive (see troll accounts talking about issues like the origins of the Civil War, Muslims, or immigration) - but there was also some specific content very much in relation to the campaigns. Lots to look at here: https://medium.com/@ushadrons
That was what the Russiagate trolls tried to do by making false associations between social issues and the elections. The Democrats even tarred the progressive media as being Russian trolls because they were on the opposite side on issues. Those same progressive news sites have been in the lead for making the false claims about Russian interference and campaign collusion.
You can't have it both ways.
Quote:
Well, according to Oxford University researchers, content on Twitter was actually quite targeted in swing states:
Oxford University researchers have found that misinformation and polarizing content seemed to target swing states: Social Media, News and Political Information during the US Election: Was Polarizing Content Concentrated in Swing States?
Maybe the same wasn't true for Facebook...but there is evidence at least on one medium that efforts were focused towards key states.
There was a lot more news articles in the states with large numbers of votes. The problem is that there aren't 16 swing states in the election as claimed by Oxford propaganda site. Many of those are traditional Democratic strongholds with large populations. There are a slew of these fake anti-propaganda sites that have sprung up in the last three years.
Quote:
Debatable. Like with point 1, many of the ads were random and just meant to be divisive...but plenty did target Clinton, Trump, and other political figures.
The topics are controversial. That doesn't make it favor one side. It is a very strange world that's been turned upside down where the Republican candidate claimed to have be a populist so that traditionally liberal issues are lumped in with conservative positions and both are assumed to favor that candidate.
I think the Democrats positioned themselves too far to the right under Clinton in order to siphon off votes from the Republicans.
That was what the Russiagate trolls tried to do by making false associations between social issues and the elections. The Democrats even tarred the progressive media as being Russian trolls because they were on the opposite side on issues. Those same progressive news sites have been in the lead for making the false claims about Russian interference and campaign collusion.
I don't even know what you're referring to. Can you be specific, please? Civil War, Muslims, or immigration? Something else?
And why are Russian bots/trolls talking about these issues? Let's stay on that topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lchoro
There was a lot more news articles in the states with large numbers of votes. The problem is that there aren't 16 swing states in the election as claimed by Oxford propaganda site. Many of those are traditional Democratic strongholds with large populations.
What specific issues do you find with their research? What states are you referring to as "Democratic strongholds"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lchoro
There are a slew of these fake anti-propaganda sites that have sprung up in the last three years.
I'm not sure what you're talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lchoro
The topics are controversial. That doesn't make it favor one side. It is a very strange world that's been turned upside down where the Republican candidate claimed to have be a populist so that traditionally liberal issues are lumped in with conservative positions and both are assumed to favor that candidate.
I think the Democrats positioned themselves too far to the right under Clinton in order to siphon off votes from the Republicans.
The divisive topics were purposefully discussed by Twitter/FB bots/trolls to create division. And you're correct, it wasn't necessarily always done to "favor" any side - but was certainly done with intent.
That said, it was often done in very misleading ways. One could argue, "fake news" ways very often. And those were misleading "in favor" of Trump's side.
Take the very simple example that I have shared of a picture of a Muslim lady walking by a terrorist attack in London. The implication that she was somehow "in favor" or "a part of" the attack because she appeared to be "indifferent". Of course, that was not true at all. But, by the time she found out she was a meme on the Internet, it was already too late - the message had been shared, and hatred/anger had been stewed by the Russian trolls.
It is clear as day what the "intent" here was.
Other content was very specific to Trump and Clinton, and very much favored Trump. You can take a look at the thousands of examples in the links that I have shared.
You underestimate the degree to which people's views can be swayed with information (whether true or untrue), particularly if the information confirms some preconceived notion about something.
The power to manipulate is real. And it should concern you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
