3 ms·

> But it only works if X is fearful Yeah, that's power. It doesn't matter that you call them "authorities". If they cower in fear, it's because someone else ha

by tgv 4y ago

> But it only works if X is fearful Yeah, that's power. It doesn't matter that you call them "authorities". If they cower in fear, it's because someone else has the power. > all they can do is whine some more on Twitter. And all Putin does is sign decrees and drop a few hints. Perhaps press a button.

lapcat 4y ago
> And all Putin does is sign decrees and drop a few hints. Perhaps press a button. Putin is the President of Russia. You can't seriously compare him to anonymous people on Twitter. If Twitter was so powerful, then Putin would have resigned by now.
- tgv 4y ago
  Twitter holds very little power over Putin, but imagine the twitterati had been supporting Russia from the start, pumping out the Nazi smear, or repeating the "not our war" mantra. Support in the West might have been weaker. You can see it in Germany, where the chancellor was very slow, for fear of his constituents (and in case you need me to spell it out: many see Twitter as indicative of voting trends). No matter how stupid it is: as long as enough people care about the opinion on twitter, in particular people with power themselves, the twitter crowd has power. Russia understands that too, given their troll army.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > imagine the twitterati had been supporting I'm not sure what you mean by that. Twitter is a just a bunch of people. (According to Twitter, there are over 200 million mDAU) Anyone with a device that can connect to the internet can sign up for Twitter, if they want. It's not an organized special interest group. So you're imaging that the opinion of a bunch of people had been different. Which, yes, would have made things different, but I'm not sure this thought experiment is very useful. > many see Twitter as indicative of voting trends > No matter how stupid it is But it does matter how stupid it is. I was trying to point out that stupid and cowardly leaders are actually the problem and always have been the problem. You could abolish Twitter, but the problem of stupid and cowardly leaders won't magically go away. We're letting the leaders off the hook by blaming the "Twitter mobs" for their behavior. I believe this is the opposite of what we should be doing. > Russia understands that too, given their troll army. Well, their troll army doesn't seem particularly successful. Even less so than their real army.
    - tgv 4y ago
      > But it does matter how stupid it is. I think you mean: it should matter. But it doesn't, unfortunately. > Well, their troll army doesn't seem particularly successful. Even less so than their real army. They had a decisive influence in Trump's election and the Brexit vote. I think that's enough of a demonstration of the power of influencing via "social" media. We've since become a bit more weary, but Twitter still has a lot of influence.
      - lapcat 4y ago
        > They had a decisive influence in Trump's election and the Brexit vote. I strongly disagree with this conclusion. I think it's a convenient myth.
        tgv 4y ago
        There's no proof, true. I could have worded that more cautiously. But the margins were small. Elimination of one or two factors would have been enough to sway them. And there was conscious targeting via social media (including twitter). Not saying it was only Russia.
        lapcat 4y ago
        > But the margins were small. Elimination of one or two factors would have been enough to sway them. The margins were small. But my personal belief — which of course I can't prove either — is that no votes in the election were changed by Russian Twitter bots. Not even a single vote. Both candidates were already very well known public figures before they ran, and both were also more disliked than liked. In the end, Republicans mostly voted for the Republican, Democrats mostly voted for the Democrat, and the late deciding independents rolled the dice with Trump, because he had much less of a political record than Clinton. Voters like a "fresh face", and Trump was more of a fresh face in politics, despite being famous for other reasons since the 1980s. Washington outsiders tend to do well in open seat elections.

by tgv 4y ago

lapcat 4y ago

> And all Putin does is sign decrees and drop a few hints. Perhaps press a button. Putin is the President of Russia. You can't seriously compare him to anonymous people on Twitter. If Twitter was so powerful, then Putin would have resigned by now.

tgv 4y ago
Twitter holds very little power over Putin, but imagine the twitterati had been supporting Russia from the start, pumping out the Nazi smear, or repeating the "not our war" mantra. Support in the West might have been weaker. You can see it in Germany, where the chancellor was very slow, for fear of his constituents (and in case you need me to spell it out: many see Twitter as indicative of voting trends). No matter how stupid it is: as long as enough people care about the opinion on twitter, in particular people with power themselves, the twitter crowd has power. Russia understands that too, given their troll army.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > imagine the twitterati had been supporting I'm not sure what you mean by that. Twitter is a just a bunch of people. (According to Twitter, there are over 200 million mDAU) Anyone with a device that can connect to the internet can sign up for Twitter, if they want. It's not an organized special interest group. So you're imaging that the opinion of a bunch of people had been different. Which, yes, would have made things different, but I'm not sure this thought experiment is very useful. > many see Twitter as indicative of voting trends > No matter how stupid it is But it does matter how stupid it is. I was trying to point out that stupid and cowardly leaders are actually the problem and always have been the problem. You could abolish Twitter, but the problem of stupid and cowardly leaders won't magically go away. We're letting the leaders off the hook by blaming the "Twitter mobs" for their behavior. I believe this is the opposite of what we should be doing. > Russia understands that too, given their troll army. Well, their troll army doesn't seem particularly successful. Even less so than their real army.
  - tgv 4y ago
    > But it does matter how stupid it is. I think you mean: it should matter. But it doesn't, unfortunately. > Well, their troll army doesn't seem particularly successful. Even less so than their real army. They had a decisive influence in Trump's election and the Brexit vote. I think that's enough of a demonstration of the power of influencing via "social" media. We've since become a bit more weary, but Twitter still has a lot of influence.
    - lapcat 4y ago
      > They had a decisive influence in Trump's election and the Brexit vote. I strongly disagree with this conclusion. I think it's a convenient myth.
      - tgv 4y ago
        There's no proof, true. I could have worded that more cautiously. But the margins were small. Elimination of one or two factors would have been enough to sway them. And there was conscious targeting via social media (including twitter). Not saying it was only Russia.
        lapcat 4y ago
        > But the margins were small. Elimination of one or two factors would have been enough to sway them. The margins were small. But my personal belief — which of course I can't prove either — is that no votes in the election were changed by Russian Twitter bots. Not even a single vote. Both candidates were already very well known public figures before they ran, and both were also more disliked than liked. In the end, Republicans mostly voted for the Republican, Democrats mostly voted for the Democrat, and the late deciding independents rolled the dice with Trump, because he had much less of a political record than Clinton. Voters like a "fresh face", and Trump was more of a fresh face in politics, despite being famous for other reasons since the 1980s. Washington outsiders tend to do well in open seat elections.