3 ms·
> 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 s
by 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 agoThere'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.