6 ms·
If you understand that the goal is only to move a small number of people from unlikely voter to likely voter (or vice versa) over the course of several months,
by jessedhillon 7y ago
If you understand that the goal is only to move a small number of people from unlikely voter to likely voter (or vice versa) over the course of several months, given targeting tools that are capable of a high-degree of precision, it doesn't seem implausible at all. An entire industry exists to take people from complete ignorance to paying advocate, and I don't see anyone arguing that the concept of advertising is an "utterly fanciful", "basically irrelevant" proposition. Voting costs nothing but your time, all you need to do is convince someone that their ideas matter.
- malvosenior 7y agoWhat makes you think "Russian trolls" would be more effective at this than hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign financing from the candidates themselves?
- mistermann 7y agoHas it actually happened though, that's the part that seems a bit fanciful. How have they measured it?
- lkrubner 7y agoIf Russia launched a missile at a Western nation, but it turned out the missile was a dud, so when it hits it does almost no damage, would anyone have the slightest doubt that this was an act of war? It doesn’t matter if the missile does damage, the mere effort of launching is an act of war. Likewise, it does not matter if a Russian intelligence operation is successful.
- mistermann 7y agoOk, so is a single internet troll post by someone from another country sufficient to be considered an act of war? And if so, does this apply to all countries, or only Russia?
- lkrubner 7y agoWhy are you asking this question? If Russian intelligence engaged in an action against the USA then it is an act of war. Everyone knows this. So why are we still talking about it? I feel like, for some strange reason, on this particular topic, some people are looking for any possible excuse to argue against common sense.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- mistermann 7y ago> Why are you asking this question? Because I am interested in your opinion on it. An even better question is: why didn't you answer it? > If Russian intelligence engaged in an action against the USA then it is an act of war. For the sake of argument, let's take that as true (I'm curious if it actually is, I've never read the formal text on what constitutes an act of war, if you have please share it). Considering that, once again: does this apply to all countries, or only Russia? > Everyone knows this. So why are we still talking about it? Well, now that you put it this way, I think I would like to formally request a link to where I can read about how a Twitter post (which is an an action) by an individual who is employed by Russian intelligence is considered an "act of war". My intuition tells me this is an exaggeration. Or maybe it's just "common sense"?
- VK538FY 7y agoI believe that the grandparent poster could be qualified as rather 'hawkish'. I hope truly that cooler heads are at the helm of international politics.
- mistermann 7y agoI find it fascinating how people's abstract (in their mind) philosophical opinions can change as you move a topic through different dimensions. Widespread realization of this phenomenon would make political change possible imho.
- fmajid 7y agoFrom the Russians, it’s unclear, but the Trump campaign certainly used micro targeting in swing states to get Sanders voters to not turn out to vote for Clinton. As for the Russians, they are not interested in getting a specific candidate elected as much as amplifying falt lines in Western societies. There are many cases where they were inciting unrest on both sides of an issue.