Yes, Russian Trolls Tried To Influence the 2016 Election. No, They Didn't Win It for Trump.
^For anyone still dumb enough to think this had any significant impact
Nate Silver tweeted out something interesting about it:
"What fraction of overall social media impressions on the 2016 election were generated by Russian troll farms? 0.1%? I'm not sure what the answer is, but suspect it's low, and it says something that none of the reports that hype up the importance of them address that question."
Yeah I'm thinking these reports are being hyped, nobody talks about how effective these campaigns were...the hysteria is over the sheer fact they exist.
Originally posted by quanchi112
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.
I think the point I made is pretty clear - Russians could not and did not manipulate the 2016 presidential election with social media ads. They targeted the key battle ground states woefully pitifully and focused on states that didn't matter. The adverts were almost perfectly split down the middle as either pro/anti-Hillary or pro/anti-Trump.
The weakness in my point is that Instagram appears to have been "better targeted" by the Russians than Facebook. And I fully concede this point. However, I will point out that Facebook owns Instagram and the advertising machine is structured the same so there should not be much of a difference in the real world.
Lastly, the Russians WERE successful in rallying anti-Trump protests using these ad campaigns. At the end of the day, Russian adverts got an ROI from anti-Trump strategies. So if we are concerned about Russian meddling in US Political affairs, the best and strongest evidence we have that shows a true interference outcome is the Russians stirring up trouble against Trump because of leftists turning those rallying calls viral (they spread the anti-Trump Russian Ads which called for anti-Trump rallying, into a reality). But you won't read or hear most news outlets talking about Russian adverts being effective anti-Trump tools. The only narrative being peddled right now is "Russia bought the election for Trump" despite this point being false.
I still think the best case is the case Backfire made ages ago. The point was never to get Trump elected. The point was to divide America and make them weaker. Based on that 50-50 split and the anti-Trump rallying Russia did...seems like Backfire's original theory has been thoroughly validated.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think the point I made is pretty clear - Russians could not and did not manipulate the 2016 presidential election with social media ads. They targeted the key battle ground states woefully pitifully and focused on states that didn't matter. The adverts were almost perfectly split down the middle as either pro/anti-Hillary or pro/anti-Trump.The weakness in my point is that Instagram appears to have been "better targeted" by the Russians than Facebook. And I fully concede this point. However, I will point out that Facebook owns Instagram and the advertising machine is structured the same so there should not be much of a difference in the real world.
Lastly, the Russians WERE successful in rallying anti-Trump protests using these ad campaigns. At the end of the day, Russian adverts got an ROI from anti-Trump strategies. So if we are concerned about Russian meddling in US Political affairs, the best and strongest evidence we have that shows a true interference outcome is the Russians stirring up trouble against Trump because of leftists turning those rallying calls viral (they spread the anti-Trump Russian Ads which called for anti-Trump rallying, into a reality). But you won't read or hear most news outlets talking about Russian adverts being effective anti-Trump tools. The only narrative being peddled right now is "Russia bought the election for Trump" despite this point being false.
I still think the best case is the case Backfire made ages ago. The point was never to get Trump elected. The point was to divide America and make them weaker. Based on that 50-50 split and the anti-Trump rallying Russia did...seems like Backfire's original theory has been thoroughly validated.
Bingo.
Originally posted by Surtur
Yes, Russian Trolls Tried To Influence the 2016 Election. No, They Didn't Win It for Trump.^For anyone still dumb enough to think this had any significant impact
Nice.
Leave it to reason.com to systematically dismantle both conservative and liberal talking points.
They repeat some of the same points I've made multiple times. Such as the point about the Russian ads being very pro-Bernie.
Originally posted by Putinbot1
More people voted for Hilary, in their millions.
👆
But she still lost the election because she didn't campaign in the states that mattered. Oh, and she was a shit candidate.
Many Obama voters voted for Trump. That's crazy to me.
"...the ANES data suggest that about 8.4 million 2012 Obama voters backed Trump in 2016 and 2.5 million Romney voters supported Clinton."
Originally posted by dadudemonFloating voters are nothing new, they tend to have no strong ideology and just want things better, they are usually swayed by a single issue.
👆But she still lost the election because she didn't campaign in the states that mattered. Oh, and she was a shit candidate.
Many Obama voters voted for Trump. That's crazy to me.
Originally posted by Putinbot1
Floating voters are nothing new, they tend to have no strong ideology and just want things better, they are usually swayed by a single issue.
At least from the research, this was the largest swing voter change in all of modern US presidential elections.
That means something. Not sure if it means Hillary was just a shit candidate or voters are that sexist.
Originally posted by quanchi112
First no russian interference now it did not matter. Oh the dummies.
History will give them a brief mention as a collection of uneducated and emotionally stunted perma-virgins, lashing out on the internet over their own fragile masculinity, by collaborating with a hostile superpower against their own country. A couch-army of useful idiots.
Unfortunately no mention will be given for the obvious closet fascists who exhaust themselves defending his every move, while occasionally covering their tracks by calling him a "piece of shit".