6 ms·

> It was an excuse for a embarrassing loss. This is the conspiracy theory in and of itself, not the other way around. Russia interfering in the election was al

> It was an excuse for a embarrassing loss. This is the conspiracy theory in and of itself, not the other way around. Russia interfering in the election was already being investigated & reported on BEFORE election day.

raxxorrax 5y ago
And how would they have done that? Facebook ads? Please... People were fed up with career politicians and voted out of spite. End of story. The DNC hacking could have been Russia. I have seen the public evidence and it is inconclusive. An internal source sounds more likely, but there is just no evidence on anything.
- SonicScrub 5y ago
  Microtargeted advertisements to the exact people who need to hear a message have been shown to be incredibly effective at persuasion. That's why targeted advertisements are a billion dollar industry. Tracking influence due to advertisements is tricky, as it's hard to make a direct 1-to-1 connection being being exposed to a consistent ad campaign and the decision to buy a product at a particular moment. Did I buy a Coca-Cola today because I saw a YouTube ad? Or is more the constant awareness of the Coca-Cola due to a dedicated persistent ad campaign? The exact influence is hard to measure, but nevertheless we can say it must be effective, or why would Coca-Cola spend billions on ads? I bring up this example to try to steer your thinking away from the unrealistic scenario of someone seeing a Facebook ad, and then choosing to vote differently because of it. That idea is obviously ludicrous, and you should rightly scoff at such a proposition. However that is not the scenario that the people arguing against you are stating. They are concerned with a foreign state actor spending so much money and attention to nudge public attention to a few key ideas. The entire advertising industry is proof that such techniques are effective. The question you should be asking is why the idea that "people are fed up with career politicians" was so prominent in this election. Why did that message resonate with some, but completely bypass others? Note: that Russia spending lots of money on targeted ads doesn't make people's frustrations not real, or manufactured. But why was so many people's attention drawn to this issue?
  - remarkEon 5y ago
    >Microtargeted advertisements to the exact people who need to hear a message have been shown to be incredibly effective at persuasion. That's why targeted advertisements are a billion dollar industry. Is the argument that this strategy is just completely lost on legacy incumbent politicians (because they're tech-illiterate, don't understand ads, whatever), and the "Russians" were able to spend 1/1000th the cash as the DNC on these targeted advertisements and actually effect the outcome? What makes all of this unconvincing to me is we have to act like the only set of political science "experts" in the 2016 election was a Russian troll farm. If that is the case, it's a much more serious point about the viability of American democracy in the 21st century than anything about "the Russians".
    - SonicScrub 5y ago
      > Is the argument that this strategy is just completely lost on legacy incumbent politicians (because they're tech-illiterate, don't understand ads, whatever) The US's own politicians use targeted advertising as well this as well. There is a huge difference between American politicians using advertising techniques to spread their messages and a foreign state actor with a history of hostility to the US doing the same thing. Especially when the primary goal of that foreign state actor was to spread divisiveness, such as by organizing both protests and opposing counter-protests. Rather than pushing for any specific policy. https://www.businessinsider.com/russians-organized-pro-anti-trump-rallies-to-sow-discord-2018-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/russians-organized-pro-anti-... Activities such as this are legitimate threats, and many people are rightly concerned about them.
      - remarkEon 5y ago
        I think you're kind of making my point for me, which is that if US democracy is so fragile that organizing facebook rallies is a "legitimate threat" we have some serious issues regarding the longevity of this system. If the solution we're implicitly talking about is just a blanket ban on social-media-organized political activity, I'd probably support that (obvious 1A issues aside for a moment). Perhaps the more interesting discussion to be had in that case is how well US-style democracy functions in the 21st century, with mass media and mass access to the internet.
- Supermancho 5y ago
  > Russia interfering in the election was already being investigated & reported on BEFORE election day. Television, newspaper, etc. It was reported that there was suspicion of Russian interference, from multiple outlets, well before election day. "The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation of Russian interference in July 2016, including a special focus on links between Trump associates and Russian officials and suspected coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government." Obviously it was all rather silly, AS YOU RIGHTLY POINT OUT. That being said... > It was an excuse for a embarrassing loss. It was not an "excuse" the (D) dreamt up for the loss. That's the issue that makes no sense.

raxxorrax 5y ago

And how would they have done that? Facebook ads? Please... People were fed up with career politicians and voted out of spite. End of story. The DNC hacking could have been Russia. I have seen the public evidence and it is inconclusive. An internal source sounds more likely, but there is just no evidence on anything.

SonicScrub 5y ago
Microtargeted advertisements to the exact people who need to hear a message have been shown to be incredibly effective at persuasion. That's why targeted advertisements are a billion dollar industry. Tracking influence due to advertisements is tricky, as it's hard to make a direct 1-to-1 connection being being exposed to a consistent ad campaign and the decision to buy a product at a particular moment. Did I buy a Coca-Cola today because I saw a YouTube ad? Or is more the constant awareness of the Coca-Cola due to a dedicated persistent ad campaign? The exact influence is hard to measure, but nevertheless we can say it must be effective, or why would Coca-Cola spend billions on ads? I bring up this example to try to steer your thinking away from the unrealistic scenario of someone seeing a Facebook ad, and then choosing to vote differently because of it. That idea is obviously ludicrous, and you should rightly scoff at such a proposition. However that is not the scenario that the people arguing against you are stating. They are concerned with a foreign state actor spending so much money and attention to nudge public attention to a few key ideas. The entire advertising industry is proof that such techniques are effective. The question you should be asking is why the idea that "people are fed up with career politicians" was so prominent in this election. Why did that message resonate with some, but completely bypass others? Note: that Russia spending lots of money on targeted ads doesn't make people's frustrations not real, or manufactured. But why was so many people's attention drawn to this issue?
- remarkEon 5y ago
  >Microtargeted advertisements to the exact people who need to hear a message have been shown to be incredibly effective at persuasion. That's why targeted advertisements are a billion dollar industry. Is the argument that this strategy is just completely lost on legacy incumbent politicians (because they're tech-illiterate, don't understand ads, whatever), and the "Russians" were able to spend 1/1000th the cash as the DNC on these targeted advertisements and actually effect the outcome? What makes all of this unconvincing to me is we have to act like the only set of political science "experts" in the 2016 election was a Russian troll farm. If that is the case, it's a much more serious point about the viability of American democracy in the 21st century than anything about "the Russians".
  - SonicScrub 5y ago
    > Is the argument that this strategy is just completely lost on legacy incumbent politicians (because they're tech-illiterate, don't understand ads, whatever) The US's own politicians use targeted advertising as well this as well. There is a huge difference between American politicians using advertising techniques to spread their messages and a foreign state actor with a history of hostility to the US doing the same thing. Especially when the primary goal of that foreign state actor was to spread divisiveness, such as by organizing both protests and opposing counter-protests. Rather than pushing for any specific policy. https://www.businessinsider.com/russians-organized-pro-anti-trump-rallies-to-sow-discord-2018-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/russians-organized-pro-anti-... Activities such as this are legitimate threats, and many people are rightly concerned about them.
    - remarkEon 5y ago
      I think you're kind of making my point for me, which is that if US democracy is so fragile that organizing facebook rallies is a "legitimate threat" we have some serious issues regarding the longevity of this system. If the solution we're implicitly talking about is just a blanket ban on social-media-organized political activity, I'd probably support that (obvious 1A issues aside for a moment). Perhaps the more interesting discussion to be had in that case is how well US-style democracy functions in the 21st century, with mass media and mass access to the internet.
Supermancho 5y ago
> Russia interfering in the election was already being investigated & reported on BEFORE election day. Television, newspaper, etc. It was reported that there was suspicion of Russian interference, from multiple outlets, well before election day. "The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation of Russian interference in July 2016, including a special focus on links between Trump associates and Russian officials and suspected coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government." Obviously it was all rather silly, AS YOU RIGHTLY POINT OUT. That being said... > It was an excuse for a embarrassing loss. It was not an "excuse" the (D) dreamt up for the loss. That's the issue that makes no sense.