4 ms·

It sounds like you didn't read the article which was more about news bubbles rather than being upset about one candidate or the other. Why not give the article

by plandis 10y ago

It sounds like you didn't read the article which was more about news bubbles rather than being upset about one candidate or the other. Why not give the article a shot before insulting "the left"?

zzzcpan 10y ago
Why do you assume that? The conclusion sounds correct, the bubbles favor candidates that have no chance otherwise, because the bubbles protect people from outside influence. Essentially making "democracy" more "democratic".
- pohl 10y ago
  I believe, as many do, that the health of a democracy is a function of the degree to which the citizenry is informed. Votes were cast, yes, and a candidate was selected. Those are necessary conditions for a healthy democracy – but not sufficient. The candidate that was selected showed himself during the campaign to be entirely unmoored from factual reality or consistency, and somehow he paid no political consequences for that. This is important for reasons above & beyond whether one's own candidate won or lost.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    True. But don't forget how flawed Hillary was as a candidate. All the scandals. Too uncharismatic and un-empathetic to really resonate with voters. (It would not be a stretch to compare her to Kerry in this category.) She was completely an establishment candidate at a time of great anti-establishment sentiment. And the DNC put her on the express path to the nomination, which turned off a big chunk of her own party, and thereby (I strongly suspect) reduced turnout. With all those flaws, it's a measure of Trump's weakness that Hillary came as close as she did...
  - EdSharkey 10y ago
    The losing candidate had negatives too, both in terms of messaging (that whole 'basket of deplorables' fracas) and scandals (pay-for-play at State). Also she was in the pocket of the banksters and wall street. Also she was promising a 3rd Obama term. And on, and on ... I don't like all this recent talk about how Comey sunk Clinton's candidacy or some right wing FBI agent conspiracy did her in. She owns all her scandals, it's her job to defend and sell her brand. I took it she thought the presidency was a foregone conclusion and she felt should could let the email thing fester for months with evolving excuses without taking any serious damage. The unanswered drip-drip Wikileaks revelations with DNC bag ladies and Media shills dropping like flies all around her didn't help either. I didn't have a dog in the fight, I didn't vote for either Clinton nor Trump. Both the candidates were super negative. I believe if the Democrats put up someone with a modicum of positive energy (Bernie, perhaps?) Trump would not have been elected.
- popra 10y ago
  You're assuming "outside influence" is the same thing as "different views". For example, in information ops you only have to use sensemaking on a target (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensemaking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensemaking) to feed little bits of info or ideas that favor your goal. The end result is that the target feels protected from outside influence but it's anything but.
  - zzzcpan 10y ago
    I didn't assume that. News bubbles give people a way to not be subjected to some external influence, which is not to say they are not subjected to any influence, it just makes a choice of which influence they are subjected to more random and different. Traditional media, on the other hand, being less bubbly and exposing everyone to their ideas favors money and gives unfair advantage to elites and not outsiders.

by plandis 10y ago

It sounds like you didn't read the article which was more about news bubbles rather than being upset about one candidate or the other. Why not give the article a shot before insulting "the left"?

zzzcpan 10y ago

Why do you assume that? The conclusion sounds correct, the bubbles favor candidates that have no chance otherwise, because the bubbles protect people from outside influence. Essentially making "democracy" more "democratic".

pohl 10y ago
I believe, as many do, that the health of a democracy is a function of the degree to which the citizenry is informed. Votes were cast, yes, and a candidate was selected. Those are necessary conditions for a healthy democracy – but not sufficient. The candidate that was selected showed himself during the campaign to be entirely unmoored from factual reality or consistency, and somehow he paid no political consequences for that. This is important for reasons above & beyond whether one's own candidate won or lost.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  True. But don't forget how flawed Hillary was as a candidate. All the scandals. Too uncharismatic and un-empathetic to really resonate with voters. (It would not be a stretch to compare her to Kerry in this category.) She was completely an establishment candidate at a time of great anti-establishment sentiment. And the DNC put her on the express path to the nomination, which turned off a big chunk of her own party, and thereby (I strongly suspect) reduced turnout. With all those flaws, it's a measure of Trump's weakness that Hillary came as close as she did...
- EdSharkey 10y ago
  The losing candidate had negatives too, both in terms of messaging (that whole 'basket of deplorables' fracas) and scandals (pay-for-play at State). Also she was in the pocket of the banksters and wall street. Also she was promising a 3rd Obama term. And on, and on ... I don't like all this recent talk about how Comey sunk Clinton's candidacy or some right wing FBI agent conspiracy did her in. She owns all her scandals, it's her job to defend and sell her brand. I took it she thought the presidency was a foregone conclusion and she felt should could let the email thing fester for months with evolving excuses without taking any serious damage. The unanswered drip-drip Wikileaks revelations with DNC bag ladies and Media shills dropping like flies all around her didn't help either. I didn't have a dog in the fight, I didn't vote for either Clinton nor Trump. Both the candidates were super negative. I believe if the Democrats put up someone with a modicum of positive energy (Bernie, perhaps?) Trump would not have been elected.
popra 10y ago
You're assuming "outside influence" is the same thing as "different views". For example, in information ops you only have to use sensemaking on a target (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensemaking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensemaking) to feed little bits of info or ideas that favor your goal. The end result is that the target feels protected from outside influence but it's anything but.
- zzzcpan 10y ago
  I didn't assume that. News bubbles give people a way to not be subjected to some external influence, which is not to say they are not subjected to any influence, it just makes a choice of which influence they are subjected to more random and different. Traditional media, on the other hand, being less bubbly and exposing everyone to their ideas favors money and gives unfair advantage to elites and not outsiders.