5 ms·

It’s not about changing minds, it’s about making sure people get out the vote by appealing to people’s emotions through misleading statements or outright lies (

by nrb 8y ago

It’s not about changing minds, it’s about making sure people get out the vote by appealing to people’s emotions through misleading statements or outright lies (they are taking away your guns, they are prdophiles!)

smsm42 8y ago
Wait, I though getting people to vote is a good thing? I am seeing a wave of propaganda to vote each time elections are near, registration drives, celebrity appeals, etc. Everybody is talking about how voting is good, not voting is bad and "suppressing" somebody's vote (including convincing them not to vote) is plain awful. There's a case where judge threatened a person with jail unless they vote: https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/investigator-judge-ordered-defendants-to-vote-or-face-jail-time/95-462893339 https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/investigator-judge-ordered... (clearly unlawful but the judge wouldn't do it unless they thought voting is great). So if fake news drive people to vote it should be a good thing, at least in the minds of people that think voting is always good?
- kelnos 8y ago
  So if fake news drive people to vote it should be a good thing Absolutely not. I would rather people not vote at all than vote based on incorrect information.
  - smsm42 8y ago
    But you must know tons of people are voting based on incorrect information already. Just read any public politics forum, you'll encounter thousands of them. Nobody says "please vote only if you are sure you have correct information". Everybody says "please vote" without any qualifications. Nobody says "we'd make a voter registration drive, but before registering every voter we'd double check they have correct information with this easy 20-minute exam". It's always unconditional "voting is good, no matter what". So, is it one or the other? Is it always good or only good if you have "correct information"? And who's gonna decide that information is correct, given how wildly different information providers disagree even about basic questions of the policy? Even if we look at the same person position in 5 years, they may be saying something diametrically opposite to what they said 5 years ago - so which information is correct? Should we discourage people that we think have incorrect information from voting, and if it's a good thing, why is nobody doing it?
  - 51lver 8y ago
    Your vote is not worth more than a common idiot's vote.
  - smsm42 8y ago
    Note for example some politicians are going as far as creepily threatening to publicly shame non-voters: https://freebeacon.com/politics/wallace-campaign-uses-orwellian-door-hangers-noting-whether-constituents-vote-is-public-record/ https://freebeacon.com/politics/wallace-campaign-uses-orwell...
- nrb 8y ago
  I guess that depends on whether you think appealing to outrage and fear through lies and disinformation is good for Democracy. When a candidate/politician tells a lie, they can be called out on it and are (until recently) accountable to their words and actions. However, fake news purveyors can practically anonymously blanket the internet to such a degree that mass manipulation can occur with no real way to counter it.
  - smsm42 8y ago
    > I guess that depends on whether you think appealing to outrage and fear through lies and disinformation is good for Democracy Given how much it is done by top politicians, and they are still getting elected and re-elected for decades, I think most of the electorate is OK with that. > When a candidate/politician tells a lie, they can be called out on it and are (until recently) accountable to their words and actions. Or not. But I don't see how it is related to the topic under discussion. You said the main effect of fake news is getting people to vote. But getting people to vote is considered to be a good thing, so what is the bad thing then? That they are lies? Politician lie all the time, nothing changed. Democracy survived it. > However, fake news purveyors can practically anonymously blanket the internet Do you realize the size of the modern internet? Nobody can "blanket" it. > to such a degree that mass manipulation can occur with no real way to counter it. So we're back to the original question - is there any evidence of mass manipulation actually occurring, and if so - who is being manipulated and to do what? So far the hypothesis was that the people are manipulated to vote more - but, as I noted, people are manipulated to vote on every election, this has nothing to do with "fake news", literally everybody is trying to manipulate their supporters to vote more (and their opponents to vote less). Is there any data that fake news makes a noticeable effect on this? I certainly haven't seen any, and neither of the MSM articles mentioning this as an obvious fact that everybody knows is happening provides any. It looks more like the routine moral panic than something factual.
    - nrb 8y ago
      You keep glossing over the fact that they are convincing people to vote entirely through deceit. Do the ends justify the means to you? Re: blanketing the internet, an estimated 126 million Americans were exposed to this kind of content just on Facebook - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/technology/facebook-google-russia.amp.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/technology/facebook-googl...

by nrb 8y ago

smsm42 8y ago

Wait, I though getting people to vote is a good thing? I am seeing a wave of propaganda to vote each time elections are near, registration drives, celebrity appeals, etc. Everybody is talking about how voting is good, not voting is bad and "suppressing" somebody's vote (including convincing them not to vote) is plain awful. There's a case where judge threatened a person with jail unless they vote: https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/investigator-judge-ordered-defendants-to-vote-or-face-jail-time/95-462893339 https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/investigator-judge-ordered... (clearly unlawful but the judge wouldn't do it unless they thought voting is great). So if fake news drive people to vote it should be a good thing, at least in the minds of people that think voting is always good?

kelnos 8y ago
So if fake news drive people to vote it should be a good thing Absolutely not. I would rather people not vote at all than vote based on incorrect information.
- smsm42 8y ago
  But you must know tons of people are voting based on incorrect information already. Just read any public politics forum, you'll encounter thousands of them. Nobody says "please vote only if you are sure you have correct information". Everybody says "please vote" without any qualifications. Nobody says "we'd make a voter registration drive, but before registering every voter we'd double check they have correct information with this easy 20-minute exam". It's always unconditional "voting is good, no matter what". So, is it one or the other? Is it always good or only good if you have "correct information"? And who's gonna decide that information is correct, given how wildly different information providers disagree even about basic questions of the policy? Even if we look at the same person position in 5 years, they may be saying something diametrically opposite to what they said 5 years ago - so which information is correct? Should we discourage people that we think have incorrect information from voting, and if it's a good thing, why is nobody doing it?
- 51lver 8y ago
  Your vote is not worth more than a common idiot's vote.
- smsm42 8y ago
  Note for example some politicians are going as far as creepily threatening to publicly shame non-voters: https://freebeacon.com/politics/wallace-campaign-uses-orwellian-door-hangers-noting-whether-constituents-vote-is-public-record/ https://freebeacon.com/politics/wallace-campaign-uses-orwell...
nrb 8y ago
I guess that depends on whether you think appealing to outrage and fear through lies and disinformation is good for Democracy. When a candidate/politician tells a lie, they can be called out on it and are (until recently) accountable to their words and actions. However, fake news purveyors can practically anonymously blanket the internet to such a degree that mass manipulation can occur with no real way to counter it.
- smsm42 8y ago
  > I guess that depends on whether you think appealing to outrage and fear through lies and disinformation is good for Democracy Given how much it is done by top politicians, and they are still getting elected and re-elected for decades, I think most of the electorate is OK with that. > When a candidate/politician tells a lie, they can be called out on it and are (until recently) accountable to their words and actions. Or not. But I don't see how it is related to the topic under discussion. You said the main effect of fake news is getting people to vote. But getting people to vote is considered to be a good thing, so what is the bad thing then? That they are lies? Politician lie all the time, nothing changed. Democracy survived it. > However, fake news purveyors can practically anonymously blanket the internet Do you realize the size of the modern internet? Nobody can "blanket" it. > to such a degree that mass manipulation can occur with no real way to counter it. So we're back to the original question - is there any evidence of mass manipulation actually occurring, and if so - who is being manipulated and to do what? So far the hypothesis was that the people are manipulated to vote more - but, as I noted, people are manipulated to vote on every election, this has nothing to do with "fake news", literally everybody is trying to manipulate their supporters to vote more (and their opponents to vote less). Is there any data that fake news makes a noticeable effect on this? I certainly haven't seen any, and neither of the MSM articles mentioning this as an obvious fact that everybody knows is happening provides any. It looks more like the routine moral panic than something factual.
  - nrb 8y ago
    You keep glossing over the fact that they are convincing people to vote entirely through deceit. Do the ends justify the means to you? Re: blanketing the internet, an estimated 126 million Americans were exposed to this kind of content just on Facebook - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/technology/facebook-google-russia.amp.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/technology/facebook-googl...