6 ms·

The Voters Decide

81 points by ghosh 11y ago

dcw303 11y ago
Old media has always been in the business of printing stories that sell newspapers, or airing news stories that attract viewers. Facebook (new media) is in the business of getting eyeballs for advertising. These are basically the same business model. What is different is that the owners of the press/ tv networks have traditionally used their editorial control to push a political view, whereas Facebook does not (so far, anyway). This is a tricky proposition for a social media platform that is formed with no political leanings, but it's not inconceivable that a future platform could be started with an agenda. Social media (this site included)/upvotes/karma/imaginary internet points all encourage populist viewpoints. It's no surprise that a politician with a populist agenda is getting the most attention, it's actually the inevitable conclusion.
adt2bt 11y ago
Fascinating. I agree with the analysis that the Internet is giving more power to 'voters' because the content that gets talked about the most (and thus voted on) is the one they consume the most. However, I think there's some nuance needed with that model. The collective group of US megamedia companies have the means to focus public attention on topics they want, even if the population normally wouldn't be amenable. I don't think it's as cut and dry as 'I, a rational person with wholly my own thoughts and feelings, consume and internalize the media I want rather than what's shown to me.' Rather, the media I am exposed to plays a part in shaping my beliefs, even if it's subconscious, and media companies have strategies to get their stuff in my face. As a population, the Internet has both given us a wealth of information and taught us to rely more and more on intuition as the sheer quantity of knowledge is far too much to handle. As a side note, Facebook has already admitted to toying with its users emotions. I would not be very surprised if they have some 'variables' they can 'tweak' to bias their users. The authors benevolent assumption could just very well be wrong. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinkers-with-users-emotions-in-news-feed-experiment-stirring-outcry.html?referer=&_r=0 http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tin...
- ec109685 11y ago
  If someone consumes their news via Facebook/Snapchat and either doesn't have cable or has cable and a dvr, how do megamedia companies have the ability to focus attention? You can easily opt out of pretty much all media advertising if you want these days.
  - Symbiote 11y ago
    By choosing what questions to ask and what topics to debate.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - adt2bt 11y ago
    Agreed that it's possible to opt out at the individual level (I do so, myself). However, the people I interact with talk about the topics covered by the media with me. In a way they are acting as a 2nd order part of the megamedia companies by refocusing my attention, both IRL and online. This is obviously a weaker link than directly watching cable, but still there nonetheless.
Gupie 11y ago
"users increasingly find all their news [...] via Facebook" Mind-boggling!
tunesmith 11y ago
Well... this is liable to easily fall into political arguments so I'll engage in some tortured phrasing here to keep this uncontroversial. My thought is that the Republicans have long (since 1968 or so) sought political support from a large section of the population that they haven't had much interest in actually representing. And then this group has later felt betrayed by the lack of representation, over and over again. So their passion has increased. So I think that's part of why technology has had such a huge effect - this group has always been there, but for the "first" time (speaking broadly) they've got the ability to have a direct relationship with a candidate who is truly representing them (or, may only be appearing to representing them, but doing such a convincing job at it that he's freaking out other Republicans). As for how to define this population, it's tricky - I read a few essays a while back that called them "The Borderers" - but at any rate it's definitely more nuanced than calling them evangelicals or culturally conservative or isolationists, etc.
- mc32 11y ago
  But, then the question is, why isn't this happening so much on the Democratic side? Is it that a greater number of Republican voters feel disenfranchised by their party [or government] and are thus taking things into their own hands, so to speak?
  - secabeen 11y ago
    I think it's that Sanders is still part of the establishment in a way that Trump is not. Either Sanders or Clinton will graciously accept a loss and campaign for their opponent in a way that Trump may not.
    - deciplex 11y ago
      Progressives should be worried about what will happen to the Democratic party after this election, though. It's probably going to become the new home of neoconservatives by the end of this decade (if not already), and who knows what other factions will flock to the Democrats if Trump actually does remake the Republican party into a right-wing nationalist one. If you're a reliable Democrat (like myself) you might gloat for a while over the implosion of the imposing party, but a one-party state will really suck. I honestly hope the GOP can get their shit together sooner rather than later.
dfabulich 11y ago
When you get all your news from social media, and you and your friends think a candidate "tells it like it is," but there is contradictory evidence, you and your friends will tend to reject that evidence. More generally, when your Bayesian prior belief in a candidate gets too high, anyone who disagrees just makes themselves seem disreputable in your eyes; their disagreement strengthens your belief in the candidate. What could count as direct evidence that the candidate is wrong, when you and your friends have filtered all of your news?
- mc32 11y ago
  With the exception of Sanders (whose propositions do not make fiscal sense) all of the candidates, are unbelievable or have had a history of being unbelievable. So, it's not as if there is one [viable candidate]* who is immune to lies, exaggerations, distortions, obfuscation, scandal etc. Kasich and Carson [and O'Malley?] are "too nice" to win anything.
- wbillingsley 11y ago
  Most people don't actually get their news from social media. The people who do spend an inordinate amount of focus social media, and who've gone lurching off into a little bubble, are the journalists. They've spent the last year being shocked that the public keeps disagreeing with them and their circle of friends. Surely tomorrow the public will see how stupid it is to vote for that nasty Mr Trump that Twitter keeps condemning and that Mr Rubio is the only nice shiny acceptable candidate. No? Oh well, next week then. Still not, goodness why can't these people get with the Twitter vibe. Surely next month then... Sanders and Trump are quite different. Sanders has picked up votes from the social bubble moving leftwards into his territory. Trump has picked up votes from the people outside the bubble staring in incredulity as the bubble gets more inward looking and spends more and more of its time raging about what candidates can and cannot say. (Which is why every controversy helps Trump -- he's essentially made rebellion against that his campaign... the candidate who will not be cowed)
poof131 11y ago
Well written but disagree. I don’t see the internet playing a significantly larger role in 2016 than in the last couple of elections. The real distinction is the trajectory of the economy and people’s belief in the future. Sanders and Trump both represent populism, just on different sides of the political spectrum. Populism is the defining factor of this election cycle, not the Internet. I love tech, but sometimes it isn’t the center of the universe. Perhaps the Internet has made insurgency candidacies easier, but I bet history would dispute this. A quick google search of underdog candidates shows that Lincoln may have been one.[1] I wasn’t alive then so can’t say for sure, but American politics seems to be a battle of insurgencies and their absorption by one party or the other to gain the upper hand. A strong vein of populism can even create a whole party dedicated to bringing down a single perceived elite institution.[2] Even while one of their main targets, Andrew Jackson, was trying to take down the elite bankers himself.[3] Populism is the undercurrent here, not a change in technology. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Lincoln-President-Underdogs-Republican-Nomination/dp/0786439572 http://www.amazon.com/Lincoln-President-Underdogs-Republican... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Masonic_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Masonic_Party [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_War
snowwrestler 11y ago
IMO it can be rough when tech writers try to tackle politics. They tend to over-rely on technology as an explanatory factor, and under-rely on candidate, cultural, and political factors. For example Ben is relying on his "aggregator theory" to explain Trump, but I don't see how it applies. Trump is not spending resources on any of the big tech aggregators, and he is not trying to go around the media. In fact he is by far the most media-reliant candidate in the race. People find information about Trump on Facebook not because Trump is working Facebook's levers, but because so many news stories are written about him! He is infiltrating tech platforms via the media. Yes he is a heavy user of Twitter. But we've seen countless articles here on HN about the stagnant state of Twitter as a social network. But guess who still loves Twitter and uses it heavily: the media. Trump is on Twitter because that's where the reporters are. I'm not going to try to explain Trump's success. No one can, except maybe Trump. But I do know that the Internet / media structure today is not a sufficient explanation. Why? Because a) all the candidates exist in the same tech/media environment, and b) the tech/media environment in 2016 is not substantially different from 2012, when the GOP went establishment yet again. Now maybe Ben would say that Trump has seized the opportunity much better than the other candidates. But that is functionally the same as saying that Trump is an extraordinary candidate--which, while unsatisfying as an explanation, is right. Edit: for clarity
- deciplex 11y ago
  > I'm not going to try to explain Trump's success. No one can, except maybe Trump. FWIW his success is not really hard to explain, but to do so would likely derail this thread into LEO.
  - sentenza 11y ago
    I'd say that the explanation is actually less contentious than it might seem. He has mastered the art of going viral. Right now, even the people that hate him are promoting him by giving attention to the controversies he manufactures.
- leereeves 11y ago
  Clearly, Trump has mastered traditional media, but would the way he's done so be possible without social media? The traditional media coverage of Trump is generally negative, and his signature "Say something outrageous and spark a conversation" style relies on social media, where the conversation happens. Without that, would he just be "that rich guy the media always makes fun of"?
kibwen 11y ago
I would be wary of any theory that links Trump's success to the influence of Facebook, seeing as how the presidential candidate with more Facebook likes than any other is Ben Carson, which has translated into zilch at the polls.
- crucialfelix 11y ago
  Its easy to buy those. He probably just purchased the likes.
crucialfelix 11y ago
For a large demographic this election looks like its being fought with memes. Not proposed policy, speeches, ads or debates but these simplistic images that you can read in a second. Neither Sanders nor Clinton is generating this content. I think this is significant. The ability for candidates to control their own narrative is waning. Of course this is only for a segment of the population but its by no means small. Bernie Sanders wouldn't still be in the running if this was insignificant. Some of it is well put together, but lots of it is simplistic and vicious. The anti-Hillary stuff is out of hand and will cause huge problems if she is the nominee. Many Bernie heads will be unable to pull the lever for Hillary because the primary is overblown. The anti-Trump content (hitler memes) is the most extreme I think we've ever seen. Its a very stupid, emotional election.
lifeisstillgood 11y ago
One thing worth noting is that if he is right, and Facebook (and lesser extent Google and Twitter) represent the new gatekeeper / aggregator for political news, then there is a crying need for their algorithms to be public, and there is a whole industry of political SEO
vannevar 11y ago
It's worth bearing in mind that, in every Republican primary held so far, the majority has voted against Trump. If "the voters" are indeed deciding, they are deciding against Trump, not for him. I think his success so far has less to do with a new political paradigm than it does with the simple mathematics of an unusually large field of candidates. The Republicans had hoped that having a large field would a) give them a lot more publicity during the primary season (they were right), and b) split the opposition to Jeb Bush and give him a greater aura of legitimacy when he emerged victorious, compared to Clinton's relative coronation (they were wrong).

81 points by ghosh 11y ago

Old media has always been in the business of printing stories that sell newspapers, or airing news stories that attract viewers. Facebook (new media) is in the business of getting eyeballs for advertising. These are basically the same business model. What is different is that the owners of the press/ tv networks have traditionally used their editorial control to push a political view, whereas Facebook does not (so far, anyway). This is a tricky proposition for a social media platform that is formed with no political leanings, but it's not inconceivable that a future platform could be started with an agenda. Social media (this site included)/upvotes/karma/imaginary internet points all encourage populist viewpoints. It's no surprise that a politician with a populist agenda is getting the most attention, it's actually the inevitable conclusion.

adt2bt 11y ago

Fascinating. I agree with the analysis that the Internet is giving more power to 'voters' because the content that gets talked about the most (and thus voted on) is the one they consume the most. However, I think there's some nuance needed with that model. The collective group of US megamedia companies have the means to focus public attention on topics they want, even if the population normally wouldn't be amenable. I don't think it's as cut and dry as 'I, a rational person with wholly my own thoughts and feelings, consume and internalize the media I want rather than what's shown to me.' Rather, the media I am exposed to plays a part in shaping my beliefs, even if it's subconscious, and media companies have strategies to get their stuff in my face. As a population, the Internet has both given us a wealth of information and taught us to rely more and more on intuition as the sheer quantity of knowledge is far too much to handle. As a side note, Facebook has already admitted to toying with its users emotions. I would not be very surprised if they have some 'variables' they can 'tweak' to bias their users. The authors benevolent assumption could just very well be wrong. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinkers-with-users-emotions-in-news-feed-experiment-stirring-outcry.html?referer=&_r=0 http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tin...

ec109685 11y ago
If someone consumes their news via Facebook/Snapchat and either doesn't have cable or has cable and a dvr, how do megamedia companies have the ability to focus attention? You can easily opt out of pretty much all media advertising if you want these days.
- Symbiote 11y ago
  By choosing what questions to ask and what topics to debate.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- adt2bt 11y ago
  Agreed that it's possible to opt out at the individual level (I do so, myself). However, the people I interact with talk about the topics covered by the media with me. In a way they are acting as a 2nd order part of the megamedia companies by refocusing my attention, both IRL and online. This is obviously a weaker link than directly watching cable, but still there nonetheless.

Gupie 11y ago

"users increasingly find all their news [...] via Facebook" Mind-boggling!

tunesmith 11y ago

Well... this is liable to easily fall into political arguments so I'll engage in some tortured phrasing here to keep this uncontroversial. My thought is that the Republicans have long (since 1968 or so) sought political support from a large section of the population that they haven't had much interest in actually representing. And then this group has later felt betrayed by the lack of representation, over and over again. So their passion has increased. So I think that's part of why technology has had such a huge effect - this group has always been there, but for the "first" time (speaking broadly) they've got the ability to have a direct relationship with a candidate who is truly representing them (or, may only be appearing to representing them, but doing such a convincing job at it that he's freaking out other Republicans). As for how to define this population, it's tricky - I read a few essays a while back that called them "The Borderers" - but at any rate it's definitely more nuanced than calling them evangelicals or culturally conservative or isolationists, etc.

mc32 11y ago
But, then the question is, why isn't this happening so much on the Democratic side? Is it that a greater number of Republican voters feel disenfranchised by their party [or government] and are thus taking things into their own hands, so to speak?
- secabeen 11y ago
  I think it's that Sanders is still part of the establishment in a way that Trump is not. Either Sanders or Clinton will graciously accept a loss and campaign for their opponent in a way that Trump may not.
  - deciplex 11y ago
    Progressives should be worried about what will happen to the Democratic party after this election, though. It's probably going to become the new home of neoconservatives by the end of this decade (if not already), and who knows what other factions will flock to the Democrats if Trump actually does remake the Republican party into a right-wing nationalist one. If you're a reliable Democrat (like myself) you might gloat for a while over the implosion of the imposing party, but a one-party state will really suck. I honestly hope the GOP can get their shit together sooner rather than later.

dfabulich 11y ago

When you get all your news from social media, and you and your friends think a candidate "tells it like it is," but there is contradictory evidence, you and your friends will tend to reject that evidence. More generally, when your Bayesian prior belief in a candidate gets too high, anyone who disagrees just makes themselves seem disreputable in your eyes; their disagreement strengthens your belief in the candidate. What could count as direct evidence that the candidate is wrong, when you and your friends have filtered all of your news?

mc32 11y ago
With the exception of Sanders (whose propositions do not make fiscal sense) all of the candidates, are unbelievable or have had a history of being unbelievable. So, it's not as if there is one [viable candidate]* who is immune to lies, exaggerations, distortions, obfuscation, scandal etc. Kasich and Carson [and O'Malley?] are "too nice" to win anything.
wbillingsley 11y ago
Most people don't actually get their news from social media. The people who do spend an inordinate amount of focus social media, and who've gone lurching off into a little bubble, are the journalists. They've spent the last year being shocked that the public keeps disagreeing with them and their circle of friends. Surely tomorrow the public will see how stupid it is to vote for that nasty Mr Trump that Twitter keeps condemning and that Mr Rubio is the only nice shiny acceptable candidate. No? Oh well, next week then. Still not, goodness why can't these people get with the Twitter vibe. Surely next month then... Sanders and Trump are quite different. Sanders has picked up votes from the social bubble moving leftwards into his territory. Trump has picked up votes from the people outside the bubble staring in incredulity as the bubble gets more inward looking and spends more and more of its time raging about what candidates can and cannot say. (Which is why every controversy helps Trump -- he's essentially made rebellion against that his campaign... the candidate who will not be cowed)

poof131 11y ago

Well written but disagree. I don’t see the internet playing a significantly larger role in 2016 than in the last couple of elections. The real distinction is the trajectory of the economy and people’s belief in the future. Sanders and Trump both represent populism, just on different sides of the political spectrum. Populism is the defining factor of this election cycle, not the Internet. I love tech, but sometimes it isn’t the center of the universe. Perhaps the Internet has made insurgency candidacies easier, but I bet history would dispute this. A quick google search of underdog candidates shows that Lincoln may have been one.[1] I wasn’t alive then so can’t say for sure, but American politics seems to be a battle of insurgencies and their absorption by one party or the other to gain the upper hand. A strong vein of populism can even create a whole party dedicated to bringing down a single perceived elite institution.[2] Even while one of their main targets, Andrew Jackson, was trying to take down the elite bankers himself.[3] Populism is the undercurrent here, not a change in technology. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Lincoln-President-Underdogs-Republican-Nomination/dp/0786439572 http://www.amazon.com/Lincoln-President-Underdogs-Republican... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Masonic_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Masonic_Party [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_War

snowwrestler 11y ago

IMO it can be rough when tech writers try to tackle politics. They tend to over-rely on technology as an explanatory factor, and under-rely on candidate, cultural, and political factors. For example Ben is relying on his "aggregator theory" to explain Trump, but I don't see how it applies. Trump is not spending resources on any of the big tech aggregators, and he is not trying to go around the media. In fact he is by far the most media-reliant candidate in the race. People find information about Trump on Facebook not because Trump is working Facebook's levers, but because so many news stories are written about him! He is infiltrating tech platforms via the media. Yes he is a heavy user of Twitter. But we've seen countless articles here on HN about the stagnant state of Twitter as a social network. But guess who still loves Twitter and uses it heavily: the media. Trump is on Twitter because that's where the reporters are. I'm not going to try to explain Trump's success. No one can, except maybe Trump. But I do know that the Internet / media structure today is not a sufficient explanation. Why? Because a) all the candidates exist in the same tech/media environment, and b) the tech/media environment in 2016 is not substantially different from 2012, when the GOP went establishment yet again. Now maybe Ben would say that Trump has seized the opportunity much better than the other candidates. But that is functionally the same as saying that Trump is an extraordinary candidate--which, while unsatisfying as an explanation, is right. Edit: for clarity

deciplex 11y ago
> I'm not going to try to explain Trump's success. No one can, except maybe Trump. FWIW his success is not really hard to explain, but to do so would likely derail this thread into LEO.
- sentenza 11y ago
  I'd say that the explanation is actually less contentious than it might seem. He has mastered the art of going viral. Right now, even the people that hate him are promoting him by giving attention to the controversies he manufactures.
leereeves 11y ago
Clearly, Trump has mastered traditional media, but would the way he's done so be possible without social media? The traditional media coverage of Trump is generally negative, and his signature "Say something outrageous and spark a conversation" style relies on social media, where the conversation happens. Without that, would he just be "that rich guy the media always makes fun of"?

kibwen 11y ago

I would be wary of any theory that links Trump's success to the influence of Facebook, seeing as how the presidential candidate with more Facebook likes than any other is Ben Carson, which has translated into zilch at the polls.

crucialfelix 11y ago
Its easy to buy those. He probably just purchased the likes.

crucialfelix 11y ago

For a large demographic this election looks like its being fought with memes. Not proposed policy, speeches, ads or debates but these simplistic images that you can read in a second. Neither Sanders nor Clinton is generating this content. I think this is significant. The ability for candidates to control their own narrative is waning. Of course this is only for a segment of the population but its by no means small. Bernie Sanders wouldn't still be in the running if this was insignificant. Some of it is well put together, but lots of it is simplistic and vicious. The anti-Hillary stuff is out of hand and will cause huge problems if she is the nominee. Many Bernie heads will be unable to pull the lever for Hillary because the primary is overblown. The anti-Trump content (hitler memes) is the most extreme I think we've ever seen. Its a very stupid, emotional election.

lifeisstillgood 11y ago

One thing worth noting is that if he is right, and Facebook (and lesser extent Google and Twitter) represent the new gatekeeper / aggregator for political news, then there is a crying need for their algorithms to be public, and there is a whole industry of political SEO

vannevar 11y ago

It's worth bearing in mind that, in every Republican primary held so far, the majority has voted against Trump. If "the voters" are indeed deciding, they are deciding against Trump, not for him. I think his success so far has less to do with a new political paradigm than it does with the simple mathematics of an unusually large field of candidates. The Republicans had hoped that having a large field would a) give them a lot more publicity during the primary season (they were right), and b) split the opposition to Jeb Bush and give him a greater aura of legitimacy when he emerged victorious, compared to Clinton's relative coronation (they were wrong).