The Billion-Dollar Disinformation Campaign to Reelect the President

[Boosted87]

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/03/the-2020-disinformation-war/605530/

I think this is an important read. I think the 2020 election is going to be bananas. I think Russian interference efforts in 2016 are going to look like child's play compared to the strategic use of disinformation from the actual campaigns. We know for sure that Trump is going to do this. We don't know how his eventual democratic rival is going to respond.

One thing is for sure - Facebook is cancer for democracy. No private entity should have this much influence on elections based on their own internal ad policies. CIA grade information warfare on your own citizens is simply incompatible with democracy.

 

[Crazyhole]

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/03/the-2020-disinformation-war/605530/

I think this is an important read. I think the 2020 election is going to be bananas. I think Russian interference efforts in 2016 are going to look like child's play compared to the strategic use of disinformation from the actual campaigns. We know for sure that Trump is going to do this. We don't know how his eventual democratic rival is going to respond.

One thing is for sure - Facebook is cancer for democracy. No private entity should have this much influence on elections based on their own internal ad policies. CIA grade information warfare on your own citizens is simply incompatible with democracy.

Regardless of the forum, all propaganda is dangerous for democracy. Facebook is no more guilty than the nightly news or the internet in general. That's why it's more valuable to assess your own personal situation than believe what you read about others.

 

[Sir Galahad]

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/03/the-2020-disinformation-war/605530/

I think this is an important read. I think the 2020 election is going to be bananas. I think Russian interference efforts in 2016 are going to look like child's play compared to the strategic use of disinformation from the actual campaigns. We know for sure that Trump is going to do this. We don't know how his eventual democratic rival is going to respond.

One thing is for sure - Facebook is cancer for democracy. No private entity should have this much influence on elections based on their own internal ad policies. CIA grade information warfare on your own citizens is simply incompatible with democracy.

Very much a one sided written article. She says that both parties use this tool but because “Trump lies” it’s worse. I’ll say this, anyone that uses a single source to get their information is the problem, liberal or conservative. She said she only chose things connected to Trump then watched the hearings and took them as gospel apparently. Both sides spin and lie, if can’t think for yourself you shouldn’t vote.

 

[KNIGHTTIME^]

Hasn't FB and Google been accused of using algorithms to push more liberal bias.

 

[NinjaKnight]

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/03/the-2020-disinformation-war/605530/

I think this is an important read. I think the 2020 election is going to be bananas. I think Russian interference efforts in 2016 are going to look like child's play compared to the strategic use of disinformation from the actual campaigns. We know for sure that Trump is going to do this. We don't know how his eventual democratic rival is going to respond.

One thing is for sure - Facebook is cancer for democracy. No private entity should have this much influence on elections based on their own internal ad policies. CIA grade information warfare on your own citizens is simply incompatible with democracy.

Every day a new Facebook group or Twitter page with hundreds of thousands of followers and super "patriotic" nationalistic lean comes out as being a Russian troll farm. Wired did a great article on it

 

[UCFKnight85]

Very much a one sided written article. She says that both parties use this tool but because “Trump lies” it’s worse. I’ll say this, anyone that uses a single source to get their information is the problem, liberal or conservative. She said she only chose things connected to Trump then watched the hearings and took them as gospel apparently. Both sides spin and lie, if can’t think for yourself you shouldn’t vote.

It's one sided because The Atlantic is a left wing rag that doesn't even attempt impartiality.

 

[Boosted87]

Regardless of the forum, all propaganda is dangerous for democracy. Facebook is no more guilty than the nightly news or the internet in general. That's why it's more valuable to assess your own personal situation than believe what you read about others.

I disagree. I've dabbled in FB advertising for my own business. If you read the research, it's insanity. Once you've hit "like" on FB ~80x, FB's algorithms can predict your behavior more accurately than you or your spouse can. It's called psychographic profiling.

There's a huge difference in what FB can do versus the nightly news. You can micro-target groups based on personality and interests. If the truth doesn't matter, then can simply tell different (conflicting) lies to different groups. This is quite literally information warfare. If the truth doesn't matter, then it's weapons-grade disinformation warfare.

Comparing it to the news or the internet in general is naive to what's happening.

 

[btbones]

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/03/the-2020-disinformation-war/605530/

I think this is an important read. I think the 2020 election is going to be bananas. I think Russian interference efforts in 2016 are going to look like child's play compared to the strategic use of disinformation from the actual campaigns. We know for sure that Trump is going to do this. We don't know how his eventual democratic rival is going to respond.

One thing is for sure - Facebook is cancer for democracy. No private entity should have this much influence on elections based on their own internal ad policies. CIA grade information warfare on your own citizens is simply incompatible with democracy.

Facebook isn't what is reelecting Trump. The Democratic party/resistance is doing that all on their own

 

[Boosted87]

Hasn't FB and Google been accused of using algorithms to push more liberal bias.

Yes. They've been accused of that.

A disputed Motherboard report had a Twitter employee making an interesting claim. The question was why couldn't Twitter employ the same algorithmic approach to White Nationalism as it had to ISIS in efforts to remove propaganda from the platform. The answer? You would sweep up large numbers of self-proclaimed Trump supporters, including elected Republicans - which obviously would not be a good policy.

And this is the problem. In a world where right-wing content is doused in disinformation, efforts to clean up disinformation can easily be framed as politically motivated bias because the cleanup effort disproportionately effects one side.

So here's the plan - create a massive web of disinformation. When the Press calls you out on it, use that as evidence the press is biased. When apolitical digital algorithms call you out on it, use that as proof that the tech companies are biased. When a reasonable conservative tries to ring an alarm, use that as proof they're a closet liberal. See the problem?

 

[btbones]

I disagree. I've dabbled in FB advertising for my own business. If you read the research, it's insanity. Once you've hit "like" on FB ~80x, FB's algorithms can predict your behavior more accurately than you or your spouse can. It's called psychographic profiling.

There's a huge difference in what FB can do versus the nightly news. You can micro-target groups based on personality and interests. If the truth doesn't matter, then can simply tell different (conflicting) lies to different groups. This is quite literally information warfare. If the truth doesn't matter, then it's weapons-grade disinformation warfare.

Comparing it to the news or the internet in general is naive to what's happening.

How do you explain the countless numbers of Americans who are dedicated strong supporters of Trump who don't even have Facebook . And there are plenty of them .

 

[UCFKnight85]

How do you explain the countless numbers of Americans who are dedicated strong supporters of Trump who don't even have Facebook . And there are plenty of them .

They're all being duped to vote for Trump by the big meanie social media companies who all happen to be liberals and massive DNC donors.

 

[Boosted87]

Very much a one sided written article. She says that both parties use this tool but because “Trump lies” it’s worse. I’ll say this, anyone that uses a single source to get their information is the problem, liberal or conservative. She said she only chose things connected to Trump then watched the hearings and took them as gospel apparently. Both sides spin and lie, if can’t think for yourself you shouldn’t vote.

The lies are a significant differentiating factor. Politicians have always talked out of both sides of their mouths. Imagine for a minute combining the micro-targeting ability of Facebook with a database that averages 3,000 data-points per voter in the United States. Then hand that information over to a bad-faith actor with unlimited budget. What kind of damage could you to do the American Political System? You'd take every divisive issue you can think of and turn the dial to 10.

So yes, how you use it matters. If it's in the hand of a demagogue who has no care for truth and places "winning" above all else, it's a recipe for disaster.

 

[Boosted87]

How do you explain the countless numbers of Americans who are dedicated strong supporters of Trump who don't even have Facebook . And there are plenty of them .

Look - Trump's support goes WAY beyond Facebook. But elections are won on the margins. A strategic effort to suppress the African-American vote in a key swing state, that succeeds by keeping 1% of voters home on election day, could be the difference in who's elected President. In reality, it will be the culmination of hundreds of different campaigns all targeting things who's sum total could swing the election.

If the Democrat nominee resorts to the same sort of behavior - putting winning above truth - then maybe it all cancels out, but Trump has a huge head start on the science here.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Look - Trump's support goes WAY beyond Facebook. But elections are won on the margins. A strategic effort to suppress the African-American vote in a key swing state, that succeeds by keeping 1% of voters home on election day, could be the difference in who's elected President. In reality, it will be the culmination of hundreds of different campaigns all targeting things who's sum total could swing the election.

If the Democrat nominee resorts to the same sort of behavior - putting winning above truth - then maybe it all cancels out, but Trump has a huge head start on the science here.

lol dude, give us a break already. You present yourself as being so analytical but under all of that, you're just trying to dump on the President and sound off on your own preconceived biases. Can you show me a single credible example of the Trump campaign "suppressing the African American vote" in a state? One that "peeled off" 1% of all black voters?

The last Democratic nominee resorted to buying Russian disinformation to leak to her buddies in the media and CIA. Did you forget about that? Or is that simply not "resorting to the same behavior" in your book?

 

[Boosted87]

They're all being duped to vote for Trump by the big meanie social media companies who all happen to be liberals and massive DNC donors.

You literally couldn't frame it more incorrectly.

So question - are you OK with campaigns running billion dollar information-warfare campaign using pyschogrphic profiling? Like is this just something you're OK with or not. Regardless of politics?

Today, it's Trump benefiting. But the democratic base is moving further and further left. Bernie is a pretty benign "socialist", but next cycle could be a Trump-like demagogue on the left, with no attachment to truth employing the same tactics.

 

[KNIGHTTIME^]

This is a big excuse for the left not putting out a decent candidate. Be honest with yourself. 90% of media and Hollywood is left and nobody makes an excuse.

 

[Boosted87]

lol dude, give us a break already. You present yourself as being so analytical but under all of that, you're just trying to dump on the President and sound off on your own preconceived biases. Can you show me a single credible example of the Trump campaign "suppressing the African American vote" in a state? One that "peeled off" 1% of all black voters?

The last Democratic nominee resorted to buying Russian disinformation to leak to her buddies in the media and CIA. Did you forget about that? Or is that simply not "resorting to the same behavior" in your book?

I'll be the first to admit there's no way to quantify the success of these campaigns. But the article itself mentioned one of the campaigns 2016 suppression efforts was specifically targeted at infrequent black voters in Florida. The link is a Bloomberg article written in real time mentioning this (before election day).

So no I can't provide data to prove it works, but I have a hard time believing the campaign spends money on that stuff without a good basis to believe it helps.

 

[Cubs79]

Regardless of the forum, all propaganda is dangerous for democracy. Facebook is no more guilty than the nightly news or the internet in general. That's why it's more valuable to assess your own personal situation than believe what you read about others.

The nightly news at least has editorial standards. That doesn't mean they wont make mistakes, but it isn't remotely the same thing as completely made up news on the internet. And like Boosted pointed out, FB will recommend news essentially based on the users bias, instead of what is actual news. Anyone on FB has seen someone share memes or stories that aren't even remotely based in reality.

 

[Boosted87]

lol dude, give us a break already. You present yourself as being so analytical but under all of that, you're just trying to dump on the President and sound off on your own preconceived biases.

I'll take this as a compliment I guess since I at least present myself analytically. If you knew me, you'd realize it's just how I am but whatevs...

I can't find the article, but I just read something recently that would have been good for the board. The conclusion was basically that the smarter you are, the more prone you are to confirmation bias. It was trying to explain how otherwise really smart people could end up going down a conspiracy type rabbit hole that had little to no factual basis.

So yea - let me be the first to admit that I'm human, I'm prone to confirmation bias, and I might be wrong at any time about any topic. Will you admit the same?

 

[Boosted87]

lol dude, give us a break already. You present yourself as being so analytical but under all of that, you're just trying to dump on the President and sound off on your own preconceived biases. Can you show me a single credible example of the Trump campaign "suppressing the African American vote" in a state? One that "peeled off" 1% of all black voters?

The last Democratic nominee resorted to buying Russian disinformation to leak to her buddies in the media and CIA. Did you forget about that? Or is that simply not "resorting to the same behavior" in your book?

In case you skip out on the Bloomberg link, here's the most relevant part.

In San Antonio, a young staffer showed off a South Park-style animation he’d created of Clinton delivering the “super predator” line (using audio from her original 1996 sound bite), as cartoon text popped up around her: “Hillary Thinks African Americans are Super Predators.” The animation will be delivered to certain African American voters through Facebook “dark posts”—nonpublic posts whose viewership the campaign controls so that, as Parscale puts it, “only the people we want to see it, see it.” The aim is to depress Clinton’s vote total. “We know because we’ve modeled this,” says the official. “It will dramatically affect her ability to turn these people out.”
​

 

[UCFWayne]

The nightly news at least has editorial standards. That doesn't mean they wont make mistakes, but it isn't remotely the same thing as completely made up news on the internet. And like Boosted pointed out, FB will recommend news essentially based on the users bias, instead of what is actual news. Anyone on FB has seen someone share memes or stories that aren't even remotely based in reality.

lol

 

[UCFKnight85]

In case you skip out on the Bloomberg link, here's the most relevant part.

In San Antonio, a young staffer showed off a South Park-style animation he’d created of Clinton delivering the “super predator” line (using audio from her original 1996 sound bite), as cartoon text popped up around her: “Hillary Thinks African Americans are Super Predators.” The animation will be delivered to certain African American voters through Facebook “dark posts”—nonpublic posts whose viewership the campaign controls so that, as Parscale puts it, “only the people we want to see it, see it.” The aim is to depress Clinton’s vote total. “We know because we’ve modeled this,” says the official. “It will dramatically affect her ability to turn these people out.”
​

Trying to convince people that a candidate is not in their best interest is not "suppression". Christ knows that the left has been running some of the most heinous ads and talking points about Trump but that won't "suppress" me from going out to vote, will it? "Suppression" is used way too frequently and frankly has been used dangerously by people who want to paint the exact picture you're going for.

Things that make it physically hard or impossible to vote, such as degenerates threatening to hurt people who turn out, is suppression.

 

[Boosted87]

Trying to convince people that a candidate is not in their best interest is not "suppression". Christ knows that the left has been running some of the most heinous ads and talking points about Trump but that won't "suppress" me from going out to vote, will it? "Suppression" is used way too frequently and frankly has been used dangerously by people who want to paint the exact picture you're going for.

Things that make it physically hard or impossible to vote, such as degenerates threatening to hurt people who turn out, is suppression.

I think that's a fair argument. This kind of "supression" has been going on forever, FB just gives it more powerful platform than before.

But imagine for a second if a team of psychologists was pouring over your "like" history on FB. They know all your demographic data as well. They then custom tailor an ad campaign designed to make you give up hope. To convince you the America you're dreaming of is simply not possible. To convince you that voting is simply a waste of time. That the both sides are corrupt. All to get a small percentage of people like you to stay home on election day.

This is precisely what we do to fight terrorist recruitment overseas. It's psychological warfare being applied to elections. This is not a partisan issue and we should all be able to agree it's unhealthy for democracy.

 

[fried-chicken]

There's 3 levels of reporting issues in America right now.

1. A mistake is made in reporting but the damage is done as people dont see the retraction.

Journalistic integrity still in place but a mistake is made. The spinzone media jumps on these mistakes as proof that these primary media outlets that are filled with educated journalists woth degrees in journalism and editors with decades of experience are untrustworthy.

2. Coverage bias - basically not reporting on things that your readers don't agree with. Presenting information in a way that leads readers to a certain conclusion that most will agree with. Spinning a news story that might damage their preexisting views.

This is damaging as you stop being able to understand the other sides positions on basically every topic because all you see is confirmation that your view is right and theirs is unfathomable in how wrong it is. Even here 85 calls me a baby murderer and uses incredibly inflammatory verbiage in his replies because he's disconnected with anything other than news like this. I can at least understand his views and disagree with them but he doesn't think of liberals as human.

3. Making shit up. This happens mostly on social media and with memes etc etc. This is particularly harmful because it is so hard to keep up with. After Trump was acquitted 2 people at the bar said they wondered if Nancy Pelosi would keep her word and resign like she said she would if impeachment failed. Obviously that never was said but they believed it because they saw it online.

This is just some shit that is used to make us hate the other side that's not based in fact at all.

 

[UCFKnight85]

I think that's a fair argument. This kind of "supression" has been going on forever, FB just gives it more powerful platform than before.

But imagine for a second if a team of psychologists was pouring over your "like" history on FB. They know all your demographic data as well. They then custom tailor an ad campaign designed to make you give up hope. To convince you the America you're dreaming of is simply not possible. To convince you that voting is simply a waste of time. That the both sides are corrupt. All to get a small percentage of people like you to stay home on election day.

This is precisely what we do to fight terrorist recruitment overseas. It's psychological warfare being applied to elections. This is not a partisan issue and we should all be able to agree it's unhealthy for democracy.

I think that social media in general is unhealthy, beyond just politics. But still, none of it amounts to suppression.

Ultimately it's up to voters to have take the minimal time required to actually learn about who is running and why they should vote for them (or not). If someone is so glued to Facebook that they could honestly be warped to believe something that a simple fact check could disprove, then they probably aren't voting anyways. People sucked into social media typically aren't the civic minded crowd.

 

[Cubs79]

I think that social media in general is unhealthy, beyond just politics. But still, none of it amounts to suppression.

Ultimately it's up to voters to have take the minimal time required to actually learn about who is running and why they should vote for them (or not). If someone is so glued to Facebook that they could honestly be warped to believe something that a simple fact check could disprove, then they probably aren't voting anyways. People sucked into social media typically aren't the civic minded crowd.

I don't think this is true at all, it certainly isn't based on my FB feed. FB provides confirmation bias, and a lot of people aren't going to question their own bias, so they don't really go about fact checking.

 

[Sir Galahad]

You literally couldn't frame it more incorrectly.

So question - are you OK with campaigns running billion dollar information-warfare campaign using pyschogrphic profiling? Like is this just something you're OK with or not. Regardless of politics?

Today, it's Trump benefiting. But the democratic base is moving further and further left. Bernie is a pretty benign "socialist", but next cycle could be a Trump-like demagogue on the left, with no attachment to truth employing the same tactics.

Sure, because none of the other campaigns do that...

 

[ChrisKnight06]

Jesus man it's all or nothing with you people

 

[UCFWayne]

Jesus man it's all or nothing with you people

the media has really pushed people into their corners and i dont see people trying to find common ground any time soon

 

[Boosted87]

I think that social media in general is unhealthy, beyond just politics. But still, none of it amounts to suppression.

Ultimately it's up to voters to have take the minimal time required to actually learn about who is running and why they should vote for them (or not). If someone is so glued to Facebook that they could honestly be warped to believe something that a simple fact check could disprove, then they probably aren't voting anyways. People sucked into social media typically aren't the civic minded crowd.

I wish your analysis was true, but you're premise is essentially "propaganda doesn't work." We both know that's not true. Read up on Cambridge Analytica. Watch the Netflix Doc (The Great Hack) do see examples of psychological warfare campaigns they ran.

My favorite was this - I don't remember the details - but an Island country had two cultural groups that basically split into two parties. Culturally, they knew that the young generation of one group would do their parents bidding and show up on election day no matter what. So they ran ran a covert information warfare campaign to create a social movement among the youth that amounted to "dont' vote". Basically, the youth from both cultures were united with each other to oppose their parents conflicts.

Well on election day, the youth from one side stayed home while the other showed up and voted how their parents wanted. Cambridge Analytica of course was hired by the party who's kids showed up to vote.

 

[Boosted87]

Sure, because none of the other campaigns do that...

I don't want to stop Trump from employing these tactics, I want to prevent all campaigns from employing them. I want FB to stop running political advertising or at minimum, stop micro-targetting on political ads (run by zip code like TV spots and that's it).

It's logical to me that both sides should see the dangers here. Yet one side is shielding this kind of propaganda behind the First Amendment to oppose efforts to regulate. Why is that? Because only one side (so far) is willing to weaponize this at mass scale.

 

[UCFKnight85]

I wish your analysis was true, but you're premise is essentially "propaganda doesn't work." We both know that's not true. Read up on Cambridge Analytica. Watch the Netflix Doc (The Great Hack) do see examples of psychological warfare campaigns they ran.

My favorite was this - I don't remember the details - but an Island country had two cultural groups that basically split into two parties. Culturally, they knew that the young generation of one group would do their parents bidding and show up on election day no matter what. So they ran ran a covert information warfare campaign to create a social movement among the youth that amounted to "dont' vote". Basically, the youth from both cultures were united with each other to oppose their parents conflicts.

Well on election day, the youth from one side stayed home while the other showed up and voted how their parents wanted. Cambridge Analytica of course was hired by the party who's kids showed up to vote.

But why are you limiting this to a social media problem? People have been brainwashed by what politicians and their pundits say for years and years, far before FB existed. Someone hammering home the same thing over and over to derive an intended voter outcome to those listening is ultimately the same thing, especially if it's knowingly vague or false and intended to get people up in arms against another group of people.

Hitler and Stalin brainwashed entire national populaces to hate and go after other groups of people without a Cambridge or Facebook.

 

[UCFWayne]

I don't want to stop Trump from employing these tactics, I want to prevent all campaigns from employing them. I want FB to stop running political advertising or at minimum, stop micro-targetting on political ads (run by zip code like TV spots and that's it).

It's logical to me that both sides should see the dangers here. Yet one side is shielding this kind of propaganda behind the First Amendment to oppose efforts to regulate. Why is that? Because only one side (so far) is willing to weaponize this at mass scale.

odd because up until this point it seemed like you only cared about stopping trump from doing it. in the second statement you then claim only the one side is weaponizing it. lol

you were so close to getting it. maybe in time you will realize they are both equally bad, but that second statement is why i will never take you seriously.

 

[Boosted87]

But why are you limiting this to a social media problem? People have been brainwashed by what politicians and their pundits say for years and years, far before FB existed. Someone hammering home the same thing over and over to derive an intended voter outcome to those listening is ultimately the same thing, especially if it's knowingly vague or false and intended to get people up in arms against another group of people.

Hitler and Stalin brainwashed entire national populaces to hate and go after other groups of people without a Cambridge or Facebook.

Right but that's like saying humans have always fought wars, so what's the big deal about biological weapons? Or, humans have always used written communication, so how does the invention of email change anything?

Technology creates the scale and access to do information warfare like never before. Nazi Germany is a great thought experiment here. Here's an article where an expert on pscyhological warfare argues that with Facebook, Geobells could rule the world. While hyperbolic, imagine if Nazi propoganda could have directly targeted vulnerable Americans open to that message in the throws of the depression.

 

[Boosted87]

odd because up until this point it seemed like you only cared about stopping trump from doing it. in the second statement you then claim only the one side is weaponizing it. lol

you were so close to getting it. maybe in time you will realize they are both equally bad, but that second statement is why i will never take you seriously.

I always used to be a "both sides are just bad" kind of guy. But history proves that's not always the case. That doesn't mean one side is a white knight on a shining horse and the other is evil - it just means that on a particular issue, at this moment in time, for whatever reason, the scales have tipped to one side.

And even if both side are equally guilty of weaponizing information, only one side is actively trying to do something about it, while the other side defends it as free speech. If you can find counterexamples where conservative leaders in the Trump era are genuinely trying to do something about this, please let me know. Right now, it's conservatives defending FB's ad policy and liberals arguing it's bad for democracy. I'm jaded too, and I'll admit a purely political motive - conservatives are enjoying a net-benefit so they don't want to rock the boat, liberals are not benefiting so they want change. Despite the politics, one side is still right - even if it's purely self serving in nature.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Right but that's like saying humans have always fought wars, so what's the big deal about biological weapons? Or, humans have always used written communication, so how does the invention of email change anything?

Technology creates the scale and access to do information warfare like never before. Nazi Germany is a great thought experiment here. Here's an article where an expert on pscyhological warfare argues that with Facebook, Geobells could rule the world. While hyperbolic, imagine if Nazi propoganda could have directly targeted vulnerable Americans open to that message in the throws of the depression.

Well, um, the Nazis came like 25 years after the Great Depression so that doesn't really make sense as an example, but there WAS a Nazi Party of America formed to do just that (in the 40s) but it didn't work. Same tactics, same message and it failed. Saying that someone can use a means to pump out a single message and it'll be received the same to everyone who listens is just not correct or true.

 

[UCFWayne]

I always used to be a "both sides are just bad" kind of guy. But history proves that's not always the case. That doesn't mean one side is a white knight on a shining horse and the other is evil - it just means that on a particular issue, at this moment in time, for whatever reason, the scales have tipped to one side.

And even if both side are equally guilty of weaponizing information, only one side is actively trying to do something about it, while the other side defends it as free speech. If you can find counterexamples where conservative leaders in the Trump era are genuinely trying to do something about this, please let me know. Right now, it's conservatives defending FB's ad policy and liberals arguing it's bad for democracy. I'm jaded too, and I'll admit a purely political motive - conservatives are enjoying a net-benefit so they don't want to rock the boat, liberals are not benefiting so they want change. Despite the politics, one side is still right - even if it's purely self serving in nature.

i realize project vertitas has done some shady things in the past but theyve been on point recently with there reporting about the social media companies.

odd it seems these social media companies all lean towards the left. yet you seem to believe only the right is weaponizing this stuff. almost like the social media's attempts to push people a certain way are working...

 

[Boosted87]

Well, um, the Nazis came like 25 years after the Great Depression so that doesn't really make sense as an example, but there WAS a Nazi Party of America formed to do just that (in the 40s) but it didn't work. Same tactics, same message and it failed. Saying that someone can use a means to pump out a single message and it'll be received the same to everyone who listens is just not correct or true.

I have no idea how you math. Goebbels run as head of Nazi Propoganda (1928-1945) overlaps perfectly with the depression era (1929-1939). Hitler became Chancellor in Jan 1933.

I think you'll find American Nazi efforts much more prominent in the 30's than the 40's. It was kicked off in '33 with blessing from Germany, but once the war started, it's formal operations we're scuttled, with leaders fleeing the US.

But to your last point - no one is saying it effects everyone the same way. That doesn't mean it has no effect. If that was true, propaganda and information warfare wouldn't even be a thing.

 

[Boosted87]

i realize project vertitas has done some shady things in the past but theyve been on point recently with there reporting about the social media companies.

odd it seems these social media companies all lean towards the left. yet you seem to believe only the right is weaponizing this stuff. almost like the social media's attempts to push people a certain way are working...

When I say weaponize, I mean a top-down formal structure being driven by data science and psychographic profiling to do generally un-democratic things. Do idiot lefties on FB share stupid memes just like the right? Absolutely. That's not what we're talking about though.

Even if Trump is acting purely in good faith and doing none of the bad things he could do here, there's nothing structurally from preventing a bad actor from doing the bad things using the most powerful propaganda engine in the history of humanity.

 

[UCFKnight85]

I have no idea how you math. Goebbels run as head of Nazi Propoganda (1928-1945) overlaps perfectly with the depression era (1929-1939). Hitler became Chancellor in Jan 1933.

I think you'll find American Nazi efforts much more prominent in the 30's than the 40's. It was kicked off in '33 with blessing from Germany, but once the war started, it's formal operations we're scuttled, with leaders fleeing the US.

But to your last point - no one is saying it effects everyone the same way. That doesn't mean it has no effect. If that was true, propaganda and information warfare wouldn't even be a thing.

damn you’re right. I had 1929 in my head as the end date to the depression for some reason.