3 ms·

How are signs not also an example of people attempting "large-scale psychological manipulation"? Signs don't just grow naturally out of the ground. Someone ha

How are signs not also an example of people attempting "large-scale psychological manipulation"? Signs don't just grow naturally out of the ground. Someone had to make them and put them there. And those signs aren't there to decarate yards. They're there to convince passerbys that a lot of people support a particular candidate.

vinniejames 7y ago
There is absolutely no difference. Why is it ok for politicians to pay for signs to be posted in front yards, show to all of the neighborhood "network". Yet, the same action is somehow evil when the "neighborhood" is instead a social media platform?
- dwallin 7y ago
  It’s because this exists in meatspace where there is almost always a significant Proof of Work required. This helps limit/prevent the most egregious abuses.
  - miscPerson 7y ago
    No it doesn’t: one person and a backpack of stickers or posters will tag all the light poles in a neighborhood in an evening. That’s no more “proof of work” than a day of Twitter posts, and is exactly the same false signaling of broad support. I suspect that targeting Bloomberg and not the paid shills of other campaigns is itself a form of false signaling from a Twitter employee with a political bias.
playpause 7y ago
The issue is not that people tend to follow the herd, nor that people try to influence each other’s opinions, those are just facts of life. The issue is when someone creates a fake herd that only they control. If 100 different Twitter accounts all weigh in on a thread, arguing for one side, but they are all secretly controlled by one person, that creates a false picture of widespread support for that person’s stance. It’s true that traditional advertising has always been used to create artificial buzz around candidates, and this is often a bit manipulative. But creating a crowd of fake supporters, with fake photos and bios, and deploying them in conversations with unsuspecting real humans, is a whole different level of manipulation.

vinniejames 7y ago

There is absolutely no difference. Why is it ok for politicians to pay for signs to be posted in front yards, show to all of the neighborhood "network". Yet, the same action is somehow evil when the "neighborhood" is instead a social media platform?

dwallin 7y ago
It’s because this exists in meatspace where there is almost always a significant Proof of Work required. This helps limit/prevent the most egregious abuses.
- miscPerson 7y ago
  No it doesn’t: one person and a backpack of stickers or posters will tag all the light poles in a neighborhood in an evening. That’s no more “proof of work” than a day of Twitter posts, and is exactly the same false signaling of broad support. I suspect that targeting Bloomberg and not the paid shills of other campaigns is itself a form of false signaling from a Twitter employee with a political bias.

playpause 7y ago

The issue is not that people tend to follow the herd, nor that people try to influence each other’s opinions, those are just facts of life. The issue is when someone creates a fake herd that only they control. If 100 different Twitter accounts all weigh in on a thread, arguing for one side, but they are all secretly controlled by one person, that creates a false picture of widespread support for that person’s stance. It’s true that traditional advertising has always been used to create artificial buzz around candidates, and this is often a bit manipulative. But creating a crowd of fake supporters, with fake photos and bios, and deploying them in conversations with unsuspecting real humans, is a whole different level of manipulation.