TrumPutinGate

[volinbham]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/8/16274094/facebook-russia-troll-problem

Facebook has acknowledged publicly that fake accounts linked to Russian sources bought $100,000 in political ads, accounting for over 3,000 ads. The announcement on Wednesday was the first time Facebook has acknowledged that many of the fake accounts it shut down came from Russian sources.

Creating fake accounts and buying ads was part of a larger Russian campaign to spread misinformation and political divisiveness across social media in the runup to the 2016 election, according to US intelligence officials.

We know this - show me any analysis of the impact.

 

[luthervol]

Impressive.

Some Russians spent $100k on ads and managed to topple Hillary Clinton and her $1b budget.

Don't forget the hundreds of paid Russian social media trolls. E-mails, Benghazi, Seth Rich, health issues, Pizza Gate - not even $1b could overcome the combined effects of misinformation, propaganda, fake news, and a gullible and lazy electorate.

 

[volinbham]

Don't forget the hundreds of paid Russian social media trolls. E-mails, Benghazi, Seth Rich, health issues, Pizza Gate - not even $1b could overcome the combined effects of misinformation, propaganda, fake news, and a gullible and lazy electorate.

470 fake accounts and a couple hundred trolls spending a total of $150K outdo 1 Billion, the DNC, the SuperPACs and Clinton's own campaign?

You've lost your mind - I wonder if you've thought this through.

 

[luthervol]

We know this - show me any analysis of the impact.

Check out the link in post # 2377.

The impact is obviously harder to quantify. To deny any impact is ridiculous. The only true debate would be on the level of impact. My conclusion is the impact was large enough to be the difference maker.

 

[volinbham]

https://www.aeaweb.org/full_issue.php?doi=10.1257/jep.31.2#page=213

Page 223 (don't panic....it starts on 213)

From the conclusion

to fake news, and it can give some sense of how persuasive fake news would need
to have been to have been pivotal. We estimate that the average US adult read and
remembered on the order of one or perhaps several fake news articles during the
election period, with higher exposure to pro-Trump articles than pro-Clinton articles.
How much this affected the election results depends on the effectiveness of
fake news exposure in changing the way people vote. As one benchmark, Spenkuch
and Toniatti (2016) show that exposing voters to one additional television campaign
ad changes vote shares by approximately 0.02 percentage points. This suggests that
if one fake news article were about as persuasive as one TV campaign ad, the fake
news in our database would have changed vote shares by an amount on the order
of hundredths of a percentage point. This is much smaller than Trump’s margin of
victory in the pivotal states on which the outcome depended.

Great source Luther - check out the last line bolded.

As for the first bold their actual estimate was 1.14 fake news ads remembered. Why they say "one to perhaps several" I don't know.

Lot's more goodies in the article

 

[volinbham]

Check out the link in post # 2377.

The impact is obviously harder to quantify. To deny any impact is ridiculous. The only true debate would be on the level of impact. My conclusion is the impact was large enough to be the difference maker.

The conclusion of the research you posted is the exact opposite - not enough impact to be a difference maker.

So is the research wrong?

 

[luthervol]

And another.......

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-fake-news-find-your-social-media-feeds/

 

[volinbham]

And another.......

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-fake-news-find-your-social-media-feeds/

Another good one that doesn't support your premise.

To get an idea of who reads fake news we turned to the Trade Desk. The Internet advertising firm that helps companies steer clear of fraudulent sites. Jeff Green is the CEO.

Jeff Green: So the first thing that we found out is that it is definitely a phenomenon that affects both sides.

Scott Pelley: Liberals and Conservatives.

Jeff Green: There is no question they’re both affected.

One fake story, Green examined claimed that the Congress was plotting to overthrow President Trump. He was surprised to learn that right-leaning fake news overwhelmingly attracted readers in their 40s and 50s. And he also found fake-news readers on the left were more likely to be affluent and college-educated.

 

[luthervol]

From the conclusion



Great source Luther - check out the last line bolded.

As for the first bold their actual estimate was 1.14 fake news ads remembered. Why they say "one to perhaps several" I don't know.

Lot's more goodies in the article

You left out the next paragraph....conveniently.

It said IF a fake news story had the same impact as a commercial. That's a big IF that they do not claim as being true. They only use it as a means of comparison. Again, impossible to quantify.

 

[volinbham]

A little more food for thought: Russia's plan was to disrupt the election and sow political discord. Given that most of the ad spend from those fake accounts occurred in 2015 before the primaries and before anyone knew Trump would be the nominee it's entirely possible that some of the ads were anti-GOP.

Yes the IC has determined Russia favored Trump so it's logical that later activity in 2016 (particularly the latter half) was aimed at HC but as FB's analysis shows the bulk of the ad had already happened.

If Russia is playing the disrupter and trying to lower faith in the government it's likely they played both sides and as Luther has shown us; both sides are susceptible to the dreaded "FAKE NEWS".

 

[luthervol]

Another good one that doesn't support your premise.

No one ever claimed it didn't happen on both sides. I said 80 - 20. A number surprisingly confirmed on page 223 of the link you obviously read. (do the math - almost exactly 80 - 20)

 

[luthervol]

A little more food for thought: Russia's plan was to disrupt the election and sow political discord. Given that most of the ad spend from those fake accounts occurred in 2015 before the primaries and before anyone knew Trump would be the nominee it's entirely possible that some of the ads were anti-GOP.

Yes the IC has determined Russia favored Trump so it's logical that later activity in 2016 (particularly the latter half) was aimed at HC but as FB's analysis shows the bulk of the ad had already happened.

If Russia is playing the disrupter and trying to lower faith in the government it's likely they played both sides and as Luther has shown us; both sides are susceptible to the dreaded "FAKE NEWS".

That analysis has already been done - at least partially. 80 - 20.

 

[volinbham]

You left out the next paragraph....conveniently.

It said IF a fake news story had the same impact as a commercial. That's a big IF that they do not claim as being true. They only use it as a means of comparison. Again, impossible to quantify.

They did not conclude that and the following paragraph is the opposite disclaimer arguing why their findings may be OVERSTATING the impact.

You say it's impossible to quantify; you post a study that tries to quantify it and concludes the impact was too small to make a difference then go on to ignore it and state YOU know the impact was big enough to make a difference.

If you believe it's impossible to quantify why not just admit you don't know if it had an impact?

 

[FLVOL_79]

No one ever claimed it didn't happen on both sides. I said 80 - 20. A number surprisingly confirmed on page 223 of the link you obviously read. (do the math - almost exactly 80 - 20)

You aint out looting? :birgits_giggle:

 

[Obsessed]

VIB is taking the lad to school.

 

[volinbham]

No one ever claimed it didn't happen on both sides. I said 80 - 20. A number surprisingly confirmed on page 223 of the link you obviously read. (do the math - almost exactly 80 - 20)

It's 75-25 in their database of fake news stories that they admit is not complete. Interestingly it only has just over 150 stories.

Also, they note problems with how the stories were selected. They only used stories that were flagged as fake on Snopes, Politifact and Buzzfeed. They acknowledge the problem of selection of articles to include for fact checking.

Finally, these are from the last 3 months of the election. The vast majority of the Russian FB activity (according to FB itself) occurred long before this sample of stories.

To be
clear, these statistics show that more of the fake news articles on these three factchecking
sites are right-leaning. This could be because more of the actual fake news
is right-leaning, or because more right-leaning assertions are forwarded to and/or
reported by fact-checking sites, or because the conclusions that fact-checking sites
draw have a left-leaning bias, or some combination. Some anecdotal reports support
the idea that the majority of election-related fake news was pro-Trump: some fake news providers reportedly found higher demand for pro-Trump (or anti-Clinton)
fake news, and responded by providing more of it (Sydell 2016).

 

[luthervol]

They did not conclude that and the following paragraph is the opposite disclaimer arguing why their findings may be OVERSTATING the impact.

You say it's impossible to quantify; you post a study that tries to quantify it and concludes the impact was too small to make a difference then go on to ignore it and state YOU know the impact was big enough to make a difference.

If you believe it's impossible to quantify why not just admit you don't know if it had an impact?

The only ridiculous stance is that it had zero impact.

The Stanford study concluded that their number could be low or high, ie....it's not quantifiable. They were, however, able to quantify that the number of fake news stories that were anti-Clinton or pro-Trump greatly outnumbered the anti-trump or pro-Hillary stories. And that the pro-right stories were shared at a far greater rate than the pro-left stories. (some things are quantifiable) I think we will learn more as the current investigations play out.

 

[FLVOL_79]

The only ridiculous stance is that it had zero impact.

The Stanford study concluded that their number could be low or high, ie....it's not quantifiable. They were, however, able to quantify that the number of fake news stories that were anti-Clinton or pro-Trump greatly outnumbered the anti-trump or pro-Hillary stories. And that the pro-right stories were shared at a far greater rate than the pro-left stories. (some things are quantifiable) I think we will learn more as the current investigations play out.

You still trying to blame your old bags loss on fake facebook posts?


Sad. :cray:

 

[luthervol]

It's 75-25 in their database of fake news stories that they admit is not complete. Interestingly it only has just over 150 stories.

Also, they note problems with how the stories were selected. They only used stories that were flagged as fake on Snopes, Politifact and Buzzfeed. They acknowledge the problem of selection of articles to include for fact checking.

Finally, these are from the last 3 months of the election. The vast majority of the Russian FB activity (according to FB itself) occurred long before this sample of stories.

Look at the number of times the stories were shared. The Russian activity picked up during the last 3 months, it was just more discreet (hundreds, if not thousands, of paid social media trolls directed to hurt Clinton and help trump) Wait for the investigations to play out.

 

[luthervol]

You still trying to blame your old bags loss on fake facebook posts?


Sad. :cray:

One of a handful of reasons.

 

[MG1968]

One of a handful of reasons.

It must be hard for you and your buddy, armchair, to reconcile the fact that Hillary lost not because of southern voters, but rather, she lost votes in the northern, rustbelt, heavily unionized states.

It's almost as sad as Al Gore supporters continuing to piss and moan about Florida while conveniently ignoring the fact that had he won his home state, Florida wouldn't have mattered.

 

[1972 Grad]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/8/16274094/facebook-russia-troll-problem

Facebook has acknowledged publicly that fake accounts linked to Russian sources bought $100,000 in political ads, accounting for over 3,000 ads. The announcement on Wednesday was the first time Facebook has acknowledged that many of the fake accounts it shut down came from Russian sources.

Creating fake accounts and buying ads was part of a larger Russian campaign to spread misinformation and political divisiveness across social media in the runup to the 2016 election, according to US intelligence officials.

Please explain to me why I voted for Trump, since I have never been on Facebook to be tainted by false propaganda.

 

[1972 Grad]

You aint out looting? :birgits_giggle:

Loothers gonna loot.

 

[1972 Grad]

It must be hard for you and your buddy, armchair, to reconcile the fact that Hillary lost not because of southern voters, but rather, she lost votes in the northern, rustbelt, heavily unionized states.

It's almost as sad as Al Gore supporters continuing to piss and moan about Florida while conveniently ignoring the fact that had he won his home state, Florida wouldn't have mattered.

I thought Gore carried D.C.?

 

[AirVol]

Look at the number of times the stories were shared. The Russian activity picked up during the last 3 months, it was just more discreet (hundreds, if not thousands, of paid social media trolls directed to hurt Clinton and help trump) Wait for the investigations to play out.

Maybe Soros helped Trump.