Originally posted by quanchi112
I just posted a source that showed they targeted ****ing millions you gerbil faced freak. You then said it was not effective bull ****ing shit. Trump got elected. The link shows they attacked and created dissension in Democrats while supporting trump. Lots of Americans use fb, Twitter, etc.Read the article you mouth breathing sycophant.
😂
You have a really hard time using relevant posts to topics clearly displayed.. I accept your concessions.
Originally posted by quanchi112
I shared a source which disagrees with your assessment of the facts. You just pretended no one understood your silly position. You conceded not I.
It's so hard to actually treat you seriously. I made a statement that russia would have been better off targeting young, liberal democrats. That is my position, that's it. You have carried this so far beyond its crazy. Slow your mind, stop talking crazy. You never proved my wrong, ever, grats.
Originally posted by snowdragonSo you continue to cite your speculative position which is silly. You carry no credibility and just made a baseless prediction. Russia targeted millions and trump got elected. I think they were effective enoughbut cintunue to talk about unprovable conjecture based on the beat of your heart.
It's so hard to actually treat you seriously. I made a statement that russia would have been better off targeting young, liberal democrats. That is my position, that's it. You have carried this so far beyond its crazy. Slow your mind, stop talking crazy. You never proved my wrong, ever, grats.
Quit trying to downplay Russia it makes you look very stupid. When you read the post put your head down and just log out. Your pride will recover, eventually.
Originally posted by quanchi112
So you continue to cite your speculative position which is silly. You carry no credibility and just made a baseless prediction. Russia targeted millions and trump got elected. I think they were effective enoughbut cintunue to talk about unprovable conjecture based on the beat of your heart.Quit trying to downplay Russia it makes you look very stupid. When you read the post put your head down and just log out. Your pride will recover, eventually.
My entire conversation was based on pew facts. Your entire conversation was based on ?. Once again you fail to provide anything that detracts from what I said, you fail.
Originally posted by snowdragonI posted a link which discusses the huge scope and the totality of the Russian interference but you pew pew. Trump won the election I would say based off the facts that was successful. You continue to be the idiot talking to yourself in the corner saying he could have won more votes due to pew pew.
My entire conversation was based on pew facts. Your entire conversation was based on ?. Once again you fail to provide anything that detracts from what I said, you fail.
😂
Originally posted by quanchi112
I posted a link which discusses the huge scope and the totality of the Russian interference but you pew pew. Trump won the election I would say based off the facts that was successful. You continue to be the idiot talking to yourself in the corner saying he could have won more votes due to pew pew.😂
I know it's hard but you're wrong, you base that off your feelings. One more time, you're wrong.
Originally posted by snowdragonSo did trump win the election or not? Lets assess the facts. If Lebron James scores at a rate of 60 percent and they win by 2 would you scream about the shots he missed and how he could be more effective despite the win.
I know it's hard but you're wrong, you base that off your feelings. One more time, you're wrong.
Originally posted by snowdragonSo you wasted my time when they helped win a presidential election by arguing they could have won by a larger margin. Pitiful. You are a waste of time. They were effective enough you moron.
GD your f-n dumb. I never said they didn't impact I commented on the HOW. JC you are a slow person.
Originally posted by quanchi112
I just posted a source that showed they targeted ****ing millions
*Hundreds of millions, potentially.
My post to you right now is technically able to reach billions.
Technically and actual are not the same. That "millions" statement is hyperbole and it's not just misleading, it's an outright lie. Dumbass journalists...
Originally posted by dadudemonWe cannot compare fb activity and kmc activity. We are lucky to get 500 memebers a year to really view this cesspool.
*Hundreds of millions, potentially.My post to you right now is technically able to reach billions.
Technically and actual are not the same. That "millions" statement is hyperbole and it's not just misleading, it's an outright lie. Dumbass journalists...
Originally posted by quanchi112
We cannot compare fb activity and kmc activity. We are lucky to get 500 memebers a year to really view this cesspool.
At one point, KMC was #96 in the world for internet activity. And it stayed around #99 for 2 years shortly after Episode III (I got here after Episode III so I wasn't here at the height of KMC).
🙂
But, not, the journalist who wrote that article and listed that millions statement is a dumbass. It's thousands, at the very best.
Originally posted by dadudemonHow many Americans do you think have a fb account and use it?
At one point, KMC was #96 in the world for internet activity. And it stayed around #99 for 2 years shortly after Episode III (I got here after Episode III so I wasn't here at the height of KMC).🙂
But, not, the journalist who wrote that article and listed that millions statement is a dumbass. It's thousands, at the very best.
Originally posted by quanchi112
How many Americans do you think have a fb account and use it?
Let's go down the list:
According to a new IAB report, 26 percent of desktop users and 15 percent of mobile consumers use blockers to remove ads from publishers' websites.
https://www.adweek.com/digital/iab-study-says-26-desktop-users-turn-ad-blockers-172665/
But are advertisements even effective on Facebook?
A new lawsuit is now asking a basic question: Are those ads working? The lawsuit, filed by InvestorVillage.com, claims that Facebook misleads advertisers about how effective it is....
A survey last year showed over 60 percent of small business owners felt advertising on Facebook was ineffective. The lawsuit takes it a step further, saying Facebook is misleading advertisers.
https://www.npr.org/2018/09/12/647040758/advertising-on-facebook-is-it-worth-it
Research shows customized online ads are often ineffective
https://www.ama.org/publications/JournalOfMarketingResearch/Pages/pr-jmr.11.0503.aspx
For the last year, the audience measurement company Nielsen and the native advertising company Sharethrough have used neuroscience and eye-tracking technology to study how readers process different types of online ads....
Banner blindness is a long-known web user behavior: it describes people’s tendency to ignore page elements that they perceive (correctly or incorrectly) to be ads. And, while webpage patterns and types of advertisements have evolved, banner blindness is still prevalent, our recent research shows.
Banner blindness is an instance of selective attention: people direct their attention only to a subset of the stimuli in the environment — usually those related to their goals. This behavior is a consequence of our limited attention capacities. If we were to attend to the enormous inflow of sounds and patterns that surround us, we would be overwhelmed and behave inefficiently.
On the web, UI elements and different pieces of content all fight for users’ attention. To complete their tasks efficiently, people have learned to pay attention to elements that typically are helpful (e.g., navigation bars, search boxes, headlines) and ignore those which are usually void of information. Ads are perhaps the most prominent member of this last category. Hence banner blindness.
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/banner-blindness-old-and-new-findings/
Almost no one pays attention to those ads. When they say "millions" in the article, sure, it has the potential. Just like my posts on KMC have the potential. But the actual "consumers" of those ads can number in the thousands, at the very best, assuming they paid for millions of displays of those ads.
And this point, from an actual online advertiser, should end the "Russia used social media ads to affect the election" discussion:
I've run digital advertising campaigns on behalf of candidates in contested battleground states. And if the ads revealed this past week were an attempt to influence the election, they were a laughably botched and failed attempt. The total amount spent was less than what I've seen spent online in competitive congressional races. The ads were not well targeted to the battleground states that were most decisive. And the subject matter was designed to engage extremist voices on the political fringe, not persuadable voters undecided between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.
But how many posts did they make? 80,000
News of Russia's meddling has produced some scary-sounding numbers: as many as 126 million Americans reached on Facebook alone, a further 20 million on Instagram, and 1.4 million tweets sent by Russian-affiliated accounts in the two months leading up to the election.Yet, the Russian content was just a tiny share of the 33 trillion posts Americans saw in their Facebook news feeds between 2015 and 2017. Any success the ads had in terms of reach seems attributable largely to the sheer doggedness of the effort, with 80,000 Facebook posts in total. Facebook reported that a quarter of the ads were never seen by anyone. And — with the average Facebook user sifting through 220 news-feed posts a day — many of the rest were simply glanced at, scrolled past and forgotten.
With $81 million spent on Facebook by the Trump and Clinton campaigns, mostly to mobilize core supporters to donate and volunteer, a low-six-figure buy is unlikely to have tipped the election. The Russian effort looks even less influential when one considers the tiny amount of Russian Facebook spending directed at key battleground states — $1,979 in Wisconsin, $823 in Michigan and $300 in Pennsylvania. From an electoral perspective, the campaign was remarkably unsophisticated.
However, there is actual evidence that the ads were effective at being "anti-Trump"
In at least some cases, that translated into action. The most successful case appears to be an anti-Trump rally in New York City on Nov. 12, just five days after the election. More than 33,000 people expressed interest in an announcement of the event posted by Russian agents, and thousands ended up attending. The ad spending that we know of to promote the rally was piddling — $1.93 to serve the post to 188 people. Yet, touching a raw nerve, news of this event spread organically. And no one bothered to dig into the sockpuppet Facebook page behind the announcement.
Ok in your links unless I missed it I did not see the numbers of people who actively use fb. I see you are trying to really ram your point down but I never said fb is the end all be all. I believe with any advertising it is better to reach a wider audience than a smaller one. That is just common sense but now we come down to the crux of the issue how effective was it? A candidate no one really thought could win was aided by Russian efforts so I would say they got what they wanted. We can argue over percentages but the trump team won and fb reaches a lot of people.
Most people who are manipulated sometimes are so unself aware they probably did not even realize it.