3 ms·
If the spread of misinformation was a significant contributor to the election results, I think it's reasonable to feel the results are, to some degree illegitim
by the_gastropod 10y ago
If the spread of misinformation was a significant contributor to the election results, I think it's reasonable to feel the results are, to some degree illegitimate.
- mc32 10y agoRight because their candidate didn't win. Same for the winners, they don't see an issue because they won. Honestly, I don't think it affected the election. With all the anti Trump rhetoric on most media, it's hard to see the argument people for Trump got the better deal, from the media. [OMG his hand on the RED button, he's gonna grope the nation, legal immigrants are in peril]
- the_gastropod 10y agoAgain, and with emphasis, GIVEN the spread of misinformation was a significant contributor to the election results... In other words, assuming Trump benefited from misinformation [more than Clinton], then the results are justifiably frustrating. I'm not claiming whether or not Trump did or did not benefit more from misinformation. But if he did, I think my point is fair.
- mc32 10y agoWhat do you mean by significant? 1-2% of articles had misinformation, of that percentage a fraction (unknown, reportedly small) were politically related. How do we go from "there were articles containing misinformation" to those articles contributed to the outcome of the election? We simply dont know. We know both sides enjoyed having articles denouncing the other side, but we don't know if they had any effect. In terms of persuasion, friends family likely had more influence than this small percentage of made up news articles, should we get the pitchforks for misinformed friends too?
- alva 10y agoThis is straight out of Bremoaners Brexit playbook.