4 ms·

"I don't know how Nixon won, nobody I know voted for him". People live in bubbles. When you encounter a cultural clique with contrary ideas it can look like a v

"I don't know how Nixon won, nobody I know voted for him". People live in bubbles. When you encounter a cultural clique with contrary ideas it can look like a villainous conspiracy simply because it's assumptions are so alien and yet so strongly held. Surely they must be shills, trolls, etc? No, generally not. People actually do have those beliefs and consider them worth grouping up and fighting for. Not the people you hang with, but elections in particular are great puncturers of bubbles; they count the real numbers.

greesil 10y ago
So paid-for propaganda in online comments didn't happen?
- JulianMorrison 10y ago
  Probably happened on a number of sides, as well as group organising on a voluntary basis to do propaganda, and individuals who were just that motivated, and so on. My main point being though, black hat or white, pro Trump or pro Hillary, they were all spitting in the wind.
  - gnaritas 10y ago
    Your point is off the mark, propaganda works, it cost Hillary the election; that last minute FBI story swayed people and secured Trump as the winner despite the story being false.
    - JulianMorrison 10y ago
      It made the numbers move, but those are the same numbers that predicted a Hillary win. Clearly those numbers reflected more factors than absolute voting intention. For example: how acceptable it was to oppose Hillary in public. Nobody gets to rerun the election in a Comey-less alternate universe and see if he changed it all. Pretending you can is self delusion.
      - gnaritas 10y ago
        The numbers didn't have time to move, that was the point of the late release, and why the polls were off, they didn't have time to adjust to the new information. > Nobody gets to rerun the election in a Comey-less alternate universe and see if he changed it all. Pretending you can is self delusion. I'm not pretending anything, you pretending that news didn't change the outcome of a close election is you being delusional.
        JulianMorrison 10y ago
        The poll numbers did move. But polls are just polls. The election is the real count but it only happens once, you can't draw trend lines.
        gnaritas 10y ago
        Polls take time to move, some moved, some weren't re-polled before the election, and no polls aren't just polls; poll are a statistical sampling of the electorate and do allow you to draw a trend line and notice things like hey, that piece of news made a different in the outcome. That elections happen only once is not relevant, it doesn't invalidate the poll data that shows minds were changed.
      - notahacker 10y ago
        Whether Comey influenced it or not is also a moot point, since Comey was a high-profile public servant making an official statement to the mainstream media, not a bunch of anyonymous forumites and Tweeters arguing with other anonymous forumites and tweeters across random internet backwaters.
- notahacker 10y ago
  I think it's more than a little unlikely the US government was so obsessed with making the case for war it launched (and successfully concealed from the public) a massive campaign to troll online forums without even being able to do basic stuff like make the official case for war a bit more competently and "discover" some WMDs to vindicate themselves afterwards. It's not like there's any reason to believe that the millions of US citizens who passionately believed in the necessity of bringing down the "Axis of Evil" or just enjoy trolling liberals would recuse themselves from online debate in the build up to the war
  - ConfuciusSay02 10y ago
    Influencing opinion online is many orders of magnitude easier to accomplish than faking WMD's in Iraq.
    - notahacker 10y ago
      Paying enough people to troll enough web forums for there to be a non-trivial possibility the OP was interacting with several of them without being rumbled doesn't really seem orders of magnitude more difficult than paying a couple of "weapons experts" to lie for you, or getting some material your military possesses into a territory your military controls.
    - ConfuciusSay02 10y ago
      They tried that mate. But it turns out it's hard to find credible weapons experts that are total hacks with no qualms about lying. When it became clear that their chosen expert was going to expose the fact that there were indeed NO WMD's, he promptly died shortly before his report was due to be published: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert) By comparison, posting on online forums can be done very easily by anyone of any character.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>Not the people you hang with, but elections in particular are great puncturers of bubbles; they count the real numbers. An "election" that just "counts" which propaganda campaigns were more effective is worthless. You're really going to have to do better than just claiming that it's all bubbles and there are no propaganda campaigns.
- JulianMorrison 10y ago
  I'm saying that everyone's propaganda campaign was equally ineffective. Opinions weren't swayed.
- notahacker 10y ago
  I think the burden of proof lies on people making extraordinary claims like "people that disagreed with me in 2003 did so only because they were part of an enormous, undiscovered government conspiracy"

greesil 10y ago

So paid-for propaganda in online comments didn't happen?

JulianMorrison 10y ago
Probably happened on a number of sides, as well as group organising on a voluntary basis to do propaganda, and individuals who were just that motivated, and so on. My main point being though, black hat or white, pro Trump or pro Hillary, they were all spitting in the wind.
- gnaritas 10y ago
  Your point is off the mark, propaganda works, it cost Hillary the election; that last minute FBI story swayed people and secured Trump as the winner despite the story being false.
  - JulianMorrison 10y ago
    It made the numbers move, but those are the same numbers that predicted a Hillary win. Clearly those numbers reflected more factors than absolute voting intention. For example: how acceptable it was to oppose Hillary in public. Nobody gets to rerun the election in a Comey-less alternate universe and see if he changed it all. Pretending you can is self delusion.
    - gnaritas 10y ago
      The numbers didn't have time to move, that was the point of the late release, and why the polls were off, they didn't have time to adjust to the new information. > Nobody gets to rerun the election in a Comey-less alternate universe and see if he changed it all. Pretending you can is self delusion. I'm not pretending anything, you pretending that news didn't change the outcome of a close election is you being delusional.
      - JulianMorrison 10y ago
        The poll numbers did move. But polls are just polls. The election is the real count but it only happens once, you can't draw trend lines.
        gnaritas 10y ago
        Polls take time to move, some moved, some weren't re-polled before the election, and no polls aren't just polls; poll are a statistical sampling of the electorate and do allow you to draw a trend line and notice things like hey, that piece of news made a different in the outcome. That elections happen only once is not relevant, it doesn't invalidate the poll data that shows minds were changed.
    - notahacker 10y ago
      Whether Comey influenced it or not is also a moot point, since Comey was a high-profile public servant making an official statement to the mainstream media, not a bunch of anyonymous forumites and Tweeters arguing with other anonymous forumites and tweeters across random internet backwaters.
notahacker 10y ago
I think it's more than a little unlikely the US government was so obsessed with making the case for war it launched (and successfully concealed from the public) a massive campaign to troll online forums without even being able to do basic stuff like make the official case for war a bit more competently and "discover" some WMDs to vindicate themselves afterwards. It's not like there's any reason to believe that the millions of US citizens who passionately believed in the necessity of bringing down the "Axis of Evil" or just enjoy trolling liberals would recuse themselves from online debate in the build up to the war
- ConfuciusSay02 10y ago
  Influencing opinion online is many orders of magnitude easier to accomplish than faking WMD's in Iraq.
  - notahacker 10y ago
    Paying enough people to troll enough web forums for there to be a non-trivial possibility the OP was interacting with several of them without being rumbled doesn't really seem orders of magnitude more difficult than paying a couple of "weapons experts" to lie for you, or getting some material your military possesses into a territory your military controls.
  - ConfuciusSay02 10y ago
    They tried that mate. But it turns out it's hard to find credible weapons experts that are total hacks with no qualms about lying. When it became clear that their chosen expert was going to expose the fact that there were indeed NO WMD's, he promptly died shortly before his report was due to be published: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert) By comparison, posting on online forums can be done very easily by anyone of any character.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

>Not the people you hang with, but elections in particular are great puncturers of bubbles; they count the real numbers. An "election" that just "counts" which propaganda campaigns were more effective is worthless. You're really going to have to do better than just claiming that it's all bubbles and there are no propaganda campaigns.

JulianMorrison 10y ago
I'm saying that everyone's propaganda campaign was equally ineffective. Opinions weren't swayed.
notahacker 10y ago
I think the burden of proof lies on people making extraordinary claims like "people that disagreed with me in 2003 did so only because they were part of an enormous, undiscovered government conspiracy"