3 ms·

What remains unclear to me is how Facebook makes misinformation and fraudulent content so powerful, but not factual content. I have yet to hear one person admi

What remains unclear to me is how Facebook makes misinformation and fraudulent content so powerful, but not factual content. I have yet to hear one person admit they did any of the following: 1) Switch their vote from HRC to DJT; 2) Decide to stay home instead of vote for HRC; 3) Decide to vote for DJT instead of staying home. If we're going to consider whether FB was complicit in a dirty win by DJT, we should at least also consider some of the polls were fabricated in a attempt to make HRC's victory look inevitable and depress R turnout.

thesagan 9y ago
I admit to number 2, as a lot of us in MI did. I just stayed home because I was so disappointed in HRC. Fun fact, in my state the number of ballots with a blank presidential section exceeded the margin of HRC's loss in the state. This was a Bernie state.
- jessaustin 9y ago
  We can all regret that DNC wiped their asses with the majority of votes in the primaries. Bernie would have beaten Trump.
madeofpalk 9y ago
Because misinformation can be as catchy and as (un) appealing as you want, whereas the truth is almost mostly a lot more boring. > If we're going to consider whether FB was complicit in a dirty win by DJT, My observation of the discussion is that no one (well, very few) is trying to claim that FB was complicit, but their inaction and what defines them as a platform implicitly involved themselves in all of this.
- jessaustin 9y ago
  ...the truth is almost mostly a lot more boring. By this metric, which should we believe? That a) one unpopular candidate barely beat some other unpopular candidate, or that b) some heretofore unimagined global conspiracy of crypto-Stalinists overturned what would have been an electoral landslide just by trolling from some sockpuppet accounts?
  - madeofpalk 9y ago
    As an outsider watching this all play out from Australia, it was always my understanding that it was a bit of both. HRC is extremely unlikeable, an easy target to hate, but I don’t think they expected their opposition to play ‘dirty’ on social the way they did.
    - jessaustin 9y ago
      ...bit of both The only reason anyone believes anything untoward happened (other than Bernie getting shafted in the primary by the DNC, because we have actual proof of that) is that they previously believed Clinton was poised for a landslide victory. There is no overlap between that fantasy and the truth that few voters liked either candidate, but the process is set up to pick a winner anyway.
gamechangr 9y ago
"we should at least also consider some of the polls were fabricated in a attempt to make HRC's victory look inevitable and depress R turnout" That rings true to me. I would be curious if anyone would disagree with that?
- JoBrad 9y ago
  I’m sure that somewhere, a poll was fabricated to make this seem true. Much like the maps showing Facebook shares supporting Trump and thereby “proving” that Trump was really winning, and the polls were rigged. People remember the last example much more than any real examples of actual poll rigging, though.

thesagan 9y ago

I admit to number 2, as a lot of us in MI did. I just stayed home because I was so disappointed in HRC. Fun fact, in my state the number of ballots with a blank presidential section exceeded the margin of HRC's loss in the state. This was a Bernie state.

jessaustin 9y ago
We can all regret that DNC wiped their asses with the majority of votes in the primaries. Bernie would have beaten Trump.

madeofpalk 9y ago

Because misinformation can be as catchy and as (un) appealing as you want, whereas the truth is almost mostly a lot more boring. > If we're going to consider whether FB was complicit in a dirty win by DJT, My observation of the discussion is that no one (well, very few) is trying to claim that FB was complicit, but their inaction and what defines them as a platform implicitly involved themselves in all of this.

jessaustin 9y ago
...the truth is almost mostly a lot more boring. By this metric, which should we believe? That a) one unpopular candidate barely beat some other unpopular candidate, or that b) some heretofore unimagined global conspiracy of crypto-Stalinists overturned what would have been an electoral landslide just by trolling from some sockpuppet accounts?
- madeofpalk 9y ago
  As an outsider watching this all play out from Australia, it was always my understanding that it was a bit of both. HRC is extremely unlikeable, an easy target to hate, but I don’t think they expected their opposition to play ‘dirty’ on social the way they did.
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    ...bit of both The only reason anyone believes anything untoward happened (other than Bernie getting shafted in the primary by the DNC, because we have actual proof of that) is that they previously believed Clinton was poised for a landslide victory. There is no overlap between that fantasy and the truth that few voters liked either candidate, but the process is set up to pick a winner anyway.

gamechangr 9y ago

"we should at least also consider some of the polls were fabricated in a attempt to make HRC's victory look inevitable and depress R turnout" That rings true to me. I would be curious if anyone would disagree with that?

JoBrad 9y ago
I’m sure that somewhere, a poll was fabricated to make this seem true. Much like the maps showing Facebook shares supporting Trump and thereby “proving” that Trump was really winning, and the polls were rigged. People remember the last example much more than any real examples of actual poll rigging, though.