“This is not really to anton, since he doesn’t care about much other than getting to type some more.”
Please. A moment of clarity.
So how much did Russia spend on ads for the 2016 election?
As was previously known, about $46,000 was spent on Russian-linked Facebook ads before the 2016 election. That amounts to about 0.05 percent of the $81 million spent on Facebook ads by the Clinton and Trump campaigns combined
It cannot be demostrated that one vote was changed because of this so called interference so why the blame game and not taking responsibility for the Party’s out of touch policies?Russian interference deniers love to point out that you can't download a history of people's brains and see why they made the choices they made. No, it cannot be "demonstrated" that any propaganda in history changed one person's mind. That doesn't mean that it's not known that propaganda does just that. It just means that nobody is going around saying, "Man, that propaganda sure changed my mind from what it was before." This is a weasely argument to avoid reality.
So how much did Russia spend on ads for the 2016 election?And there you go again trying to shoehorn reality into your little box. I see you've focused solely on "ads" AND NOTHING ELSE as your sole measurement to show it had no effect. But that's not where Russian efforts were focused. They weren't using traditional advertising campaign. They were bombarding social media and comments sections with fake people trying to stir up controversy and pit the two sides together. They were organizing protests AND the counter protests for those protests. They were purposely pitting us against each other, not simply posting political ads saying, "Vote for Trump because Clinton's a dick!"
And you are very clearly biased in your understanding and arguing. Your number, $46,000 in JUST advertising, is a far cry from what it is actually estimated Russia spent. You left out the part where the Mueller investigation actually indicted 11 Russians alleging they spent an estimated $1.25 million and employed hundreds of people. The number you gave is a paltry 3.68% of that. You’re cherry picking the very best facts which fit into your altered view of reality and completely ignoring the absolute fact that Russia put a huge effort into helping Trump in the 2016 elections. True, they did do it on a very modest budget. But you’re leaving out all but the most basic details in a transparent attempt to downplay the interference as no big deal. You leave out the findings of the Mueller report, the indictments it lead to, most of the cash spent, the Republican lead Senate investigation which detailed extensive contact between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence, the hacking of the DNC, the Trump Tower meeting and a whole lot of stuff I don’t care to look up right now. In short, if you can’t even admit the full facts in your argument, you really don’t have an argument and that’s why you’re leaving out facts.
Nothing like facts getting in the way of your world view.
“They were bombarding social media and comments sections with fake people trying to stir up controversy and pit the two sides together”
Give me one example please
So how much did Russia spend on ads for the 2016 election?Did that question come from 1992?
Give me one example pleaseOne example can be dismissed. But there are entire companies dedicated to creating these messages, working everyday, figuring out which ones triggered the most people, building their hit counts with fake accounts. Who is paying their salary?
Nothing like facts getting in the way of your world view.
“They were bombarding social media and comments sections with fake people trying to stir up controversy and pit the two sides together”
Give me one example please
https://www.npr.org/2017/11/01/561427876/how-russia-used-facebook-to-organize-two-sets-of-protesters
If you don’t like that source, look up a hundred others yourself. This is to the level of “common knowledge”.
And it took me a while, but I finally realized what was wrong with your argument here:
It cannot be demostrated that one vote was changed because of this so called interferenceJust because I can't link a single specific case to it doesn't mean that it ultimately had no effect. Many known carcinogens cannot be linked to a single specific case of cancer, but you can still show that people exposed to them are at higher risk of getting cancer. Likewise, just because I can't link a single specific changed mind to the Russian election interference does not mean that their influence campaign had no influence.
Widdershins
A texan event that they spent a huge 200 dollars, time and effort that no one turned up to!!!
It’s telling that those who are so certain Russian social-media posts affected the 2016 election never cite the posts that they think actually helped achieve that end. Perhaps its the content that is the problem
It’s telling when links are provided and they are told there are many more if they look, people insist that the thing can’t be found.
Lausten -
“It’s telling when links are provided”
Just one link mate.
i found russian links to ads of a cartoon of a gun-wielding Yosemite Sam, sex toys, LBGT issues, t- shirts and an ad featuring Jesus consoling a dejected young man by telling him: “Struggling with the addiction to masturbation? Reach out to me and we will beat it together.”
Here’s my fifth hit out of pages
From your link
That the IRA trolls aimed to pit Americans against each other with divisive memes is now well known. But this latest report reveals just how bizarre some of the IRA’s outreach got. To collect personally identifying information about targets, and perhaps use it to create custom and Lookalike audiences on Facebook, the IRA’s Instagram pages sold all kinds of merchandise. That includes LGBT sex toys and “many variants of triptych and 5-panel artwork featuring traditionally conservative, patriotic themes.”
The IRA also worked to recruit offline converts with job listings, some of which reveal just how low the trolls were willing to go to carry out their plot. One Facebook page called Army of Jesus offered free counseling to people with sexual addiction, using ads that read “‘Struggling with addiction to masturbation? Reach out to me and we will beat it together’ - Jesus.”
Can someone explai how this affected tbe 2016 election?
anton,
If you are going to pick out the weirdest thing they found while looking in to this, then it’s not going to make sense. I listened to a good interview on the topic on Sam Harris’ podcast. I think this is the one. Give it a try.
Which part should i have picked out instead?
The part you asked for, an example of a meme created by Russia
“The People Believe What the Media Tells Them They Believe: George Orwell.” The quote is surely false, but it’s also perfect in a way. “Born Liberal” was a creation of the Internet Research Agency, the Russian propaganda wing that might as well be part of Oceania. In other words, we live in a time when American democratic debate is being influenced by liars spreading memes about our inability to understand the truth.
You asked for one example. We’ve given you several, now you are asking for us to explain Artificial Intelligence and Data Analytics. Apparently you want this in less than 100 words and all them from a 5th grade vocabulary. That’s not possible.
Here are some more. Photos of the Memes Russia Spread to Influence Election 2016 | Time
Do you mind if we go through each example in the link you just provided?
So i take it as pure speculation that these memes changed the election
Now you’re trolling. You haven’t added anything to this thread for hours.
Did you read the comments below in your
10 Most Shocking Russian Troll Posts on Facebook and Instagram, From Hillary Clinton to Police Brutality (Photos)
Here’s two
Eric Brooks
2y
Not only lame and ineffective… but I can’t imagine a singe person thinking. “Hmmmm I was going to vote for Hillary, but I changed my mind.”
Joe Farrell2y
You’re telling me THIS is what Congress has been in a tizzy about the last two years? THIS?! No one in their right mind has their vote changed by this childish BS. Now, I have not gone to Harvard, Yale or Georgetown, but this stuff is laughable.
So there are at least two people in the world who agree with you. Do I need to start teaching you about logical fallacies? How old are you?
You never answered my question about why billions are invested in this. That’s why I call you a troll. You don’t engage. You just keep repeating that you don’t get it. You don’t support your position. You just challenge mine.