4 ms·

One could argue that social media companies are attempting to appear responsible for fear that if they don't then govt might regulate them more

ProAm 8y ago
I just don't understand what they would regulate. Would they ban other countries from using Twitter? Would they censor foreign tweets within the US border? What is wrong or illegal with allowing foreigners to comment about our election system?
- ptaipale 8y ago
  One thing that is wrong or even illegal is that the "foreigners" are not actual Twitter users that they purport to be; instead, they are fake accounts forming part of a coordinated effort to influence opinions. This is not limited to U.S. politics, of course; similar attempts can be seen in many countries. They may be organised by foreign powers (Russia is often named, but there are others too) or domestic organisations (who sometimes create very formidable follower bases in smaller countries; one such example was just discovered in Sweden.)
- moorhosj 8y ago
  ==I just don't understand what they would regulate.== The first step to answering this question lies in understanding the data.
  - ProAm 8y ago
    I just dont think it matters if a foreign person (or bot farm) tries to sway an election? They aren't telling any more lies than the politicians, their PACs and/or supporters are already spreading. They just don't happen to be in the US, but we live in a global economy, with treaties, arms deals, pacts, etc.... If someone is dumb enough to be swayed by what they read on Twitter it doesn't matter who is sending the message. No one said the internet is a source of truth or honesty, and in reality there isn't much of that in US politics anyways, especially during an election campaign. This seems like political fodder and grandstanding by all parties.
    - matt4077 8y ago
      Contrary to popular opinion, politicians actually (used to) lie very rarely. For non-elected officials, such as the WH press secretary, it was even rarer. Yes, they'd deny comment, avoid the question, give a completely unrelated answer, etc. But they avoided actual lying. What was especially rare was lying to gain something, as opposed to, for example, getting out of a scandal. There are people now gearing up to give me contrarian examples of politician X telling that story how they were shot at in Belgrade, etc. But the simple fact that we remember these episodes proves their extraordinary nature. So I'd say the main problem with your comment, among many others, is this cynical view that everything is as terrible as it can be, anyway. If that were true, we'd have lost already and the US would be indistinguishable from, say, Yemen. Once you agree that there is something like a political culture, or at least there could be, your other claim seems to be that the internet just doesn't matter. Because people shouldn't use it for information, or because it just is a space seperate from "the real world" in your mind. But just as nobody is ever influenced by advertising and yet the practice continues, everyone thinks it's a stupid idea to get your news from Twitter but it just happens to be one of many channels that has an impact on people's opinions.
      - ProAm 8y ago
        > So I'd say the main problem with your comment, among many others, is this cynical view that everything is as terrible as it can be, anyway. If that were true, we'd have lost already and the US would be indistinguishable from, say, Yemen. I think there is a lot to be said about the Dog and Pony show we see during campaign season to what politicians actually do and accomplish once in office. Whether they are outright lies or just knowingly false promises or attempts to slander an opponents images, it's definitely a show that rarely has anything to do with what they will do if elected. Cynical? Probably yes, but it's also based on a lifetime of watching what occurs in this country every few years. So whether its the 'home team' sending out these messages of what will change, or how bad X person is, etc.. or a foreign entity anyone who believes what they see, hear or read during a campaign cycle is a person not in touch with reality. But I still believe that any attempts to regulate this is just political grandstanding after all it's the internet, everyone has a voice.

ProAm 8y ago

I just don't understand what they would regulate. Would they ban other countries from using Twitter? Would they censor foreign tweets within the US border? What is wrong or illegal with allowing foreigners to comment about our election system?

ptaipale 8y ago
One thing that is wrong or even illegal is that the "foreigners" are not actual Twitter users that they purport to be; instead, they are fake accounts forming part of a coordinated effort to influence opinions. This is not limited to U.S. politics, of course; similar attempts can be seen in many countries. They may be organised by foreign powers (Russia is often named, but there are others too) or domestic organisations (who sometimes create very formidable follower bases in smaller countries; one such example was just discovered in Sweden.)
moorhosj 8y ago
==I just don't understand what they would regulate.== The first step to answering this question lies in understanding the data.
- ProAm 8y ago
  I just dont think it matters if a foreign person (or bot farm) tries to sway an election? They aren't telling any more lies than the politicians, their PACs and/or supporters are already spreading. They just don't happen to be in the US, but we live in a global economy, with treaties, arms deals, pacts, etc.... If someone is dumb enough to be swayed by what they read on Twitter it doesn't matter who is sending the message. No one said the internet is a source of truth or honesty, and in reality there isn't much of that in US politics anyways, especially during an election campaign. This seems like political fodder and grandstanding by all parties.
  - matt4077 8y ago
    Contrary to popular opinion, politicians actually (used to) lie very rarely. For non-elected officials, such as the WH press secretary, it was even rarer. Yes, they'd deny comment, avoid the question, give a completely unrelated answer, etc. But they avoided actual lying. What was especially rare was lying to gain something, as opposed to, for example, getting out of a scandal. There are people now gearing up to give me contrarian examples of politician X telling that story how they were shot at in Belgrade, etc. But the simple fact that we remember these episodes proves their extraordinary nature. So I'd say the main problem with your comment, among many others, is this cynical view that everything is as terrible as it can be, anyway. If that were true, we'd have lost already and the US would be indistinguishable from, say, Yemen. Once you agree that there is something like a political culture, or at least there could be, your other claim seems to be that the internet just doesn't matter. Because people shouldn't use it for information, or because it just is a space seperate from "the real world" in your mind. But just as nobody is ever influenced by advertising and yet the practice continues, everyone thinks it's a stupid idea to get your news from Twitter but it just happens to be one of many channels that has an impact on people's opinions.
    - ProAm 8y ago
      > So I'd say the main problem with your comment, among many others, is this cynical view that everything is as terrible as it can be, anyway. If that were true, we'd have lost already and the US would be indistinguishable from, say, Yemen. I think there is a lot to be said about the Dog and Pony show we see during campaign season to what politicians actually do and accomplish once in office. Whether they are outright lies or just knowingly false promises or attempts to slander an opponents images, it's definitely a show that rarely has anything to do with what they will do if elected. Cynical? Probably yes, but it's also based on a lifetime of watching what occurs in this country every few years. So whether its the 'home team' sending out these messages of what will change, or how bad X person is, etc.. or a foreign entity anyone who believes what they see, hear or read during a campaign cycle is a person not in touch with reality. But I still believe that any attempts to regulate this is just political grandstanding after all it's the internet, everyone has a voice.