Posted by: chupacabra
Posted by: tungsten
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=19&v=6inQmf96SYQ
For several months we’ve been hearing a crescendo of outcries that Russia used social media to sway the 2016 presidential election. The claim has now been debunked by an unlikely source—one of the most Russiagate-frenzied big media outlets in the United States, the Washington Post.
Far away from the media echo chamber, the Post news story is headlined: “There’s Still Little Evidence That Russia’s 2016 Social Media Efforts Did Much of Anything.”
Let's be honest here. There is no real way to quantify how much influence the Russians had in the election, especially since a lot of the underlying messages were already being thrown about by actual Americans, but this article does a piss poor analysis of how a guerilla online campaign might work. People can't seem to get their heads wrapped around the idea that we are passed the era where messages were blasted at people in the hopes that we would be beaten down into believing them. This is the bygone era of TV and Radio ads. Now they want to analyze the Facebook ads and the money spent like that is how it still works. Today the people are having a global conversation and if you want to influence people, you join the conversation and try to direct it where it goes. Why pay FB ad money when you can use memes and source online bullshit and inject it into the conversation for free? '
People are saying...
Yes, let us be brutally honest here. You've been bamboozled!! BwAAAAAAAAA-hahahahahahahahahahaha.............
Last edited by: tungsten on Jan. 8, 2018, 8:03 p.m., edited 2 times in total.
