4 ms·

I personally think propaganda works on people so I disagree with your statement that propaganda wasn't the reason Trump was elected. One example...Ads.. are non

I personally think propaganda works on people so I disagree with your statement that propaganda wasn't the reason Trump was elected. One example...Ads.. are non-political propaganda for companies and are billion dollar industry....for example Nike shoes are made in China and sold at insane markups...simply because of advertising/propaganda/branding. People are easily influenced in my opinion.

malvosenior 7y ago
Clinton raised and spent roughly 1.5X as much money as Trump. She also had near universal support from actors, sports figures, the media (aka the people Nike pays that money to). It didn’t win her the election. Some crappy banner ads on Facebook don’t even register against that.
- sanderjd 7y ago
  Personally, I always feel unsure that the evidence that foreign propaganda affected the election is very strong. But I also feel that people making the case that the evidence isn't strong universally dismissively downplay the problem, which makes me distrust their argument. Your "some crappy banner ads" thing is exactly this. Your dismissal of the problem as only "some crappy banner ads" makes it seem like you haven't grappled with worse things like social sharing of propaganda. Maybe that problem is also overplayed, but it isn't clear to me whether that's the case, and your dismissiveness doesn't convince me.
  - Mikeb85 7y ago
    Not the OP, but to me, if Russian propaganda is somehow stronger than US propaganda, maybe it means that the American public is sick of the status quo and have lost faith in the image that the US sells to them? The US attempts to influence Russian elections all the time, but Slavs aren't easily influenced, due to their innate cynicism about, well, everything.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    People dismiss the problem because there is no evidence that Russia had a meaningful impact on the election. You say that the evidence is "very strong" but I've not seen that at all.
icelancer 7y ago
>> for example Nike shoes are made in China and sold at insane markups...simply because of advertising/propaganda/branding This is part of it. It couldn't also be because that Nike shoes (Blue Ribbon before them) made a superior product that matched the needs of the market for years on end, could it? Are all sales and mega corporations only due to advertising and propaganda? Or could quality maybe have some part of it?

malvosenior 7y ago

Clinton raised and spent roughly 1.5X as much money as Trump. She also had near universal support from actors, sports figures, the media (aka the people Nike pays that money to). It didn’t win her the election. Some crappy banner ads on Facebook don’t even register against that.

sanderjd 7y ago
Personally, I always feel unsure that the evidence that foreign propaganda affected the election is very strong. But I also feel that people making the case that the evidence isn't strong universally dismissively downplay the problem, which makes me distrust their argument. Your "some crappy banner ads" thing is exactly this. Your dismissal of the problem as only "some crappy banner ads" makes it seem like you haven't grappled with worse things like social sharing of propaganda. Maybe that problem is also overplayed, but it isn't clear to me whether that's the case, and your dismissiveness doesn't convince me.
- Mikeb85 7y ago
  Not the OP, but to me, if Russian propaganda is somehow stronger than US propaganda, maybe it means that the American public is sick of the status quo and have lost faith in the image that the US sells to them? The US attempts to influence Russian elections all the time, but Slavs aren't easily influenced, due to their innate cynicism about, well, everything.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  People dismiss the problem because there is no evidence that Russia had a meaningful impact on the election. You say that the evidence is "very strong" but I've not seen that at all.

icelancer 7y ago

>> for example Nike shoes are made in China and sold at insane markups...simply because of advertising/propaganda/branding This is part of it. It couldn't also be because that Nike shoes (Blue Ribbon before them) made a superior product that matched the needs of the market for years on end, could it? Are all sales and mega corporations only due to advertising and propaganda? Or could quality maybe have some part of it?