|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 17 2018 09:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 09:21 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2018 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:06 hunts wrote:
Russia literally made/paid for pro bernie and anti hillary ads. You can very literally say they helped make some people into never hillary bernie bros, and that not only did those people make bernies numbers look better than he otherwise would've had, but they also helped trump by refusing to vote for hillary, because of the anti hillary and pro bernie ads that russia sponsored. I'm pretty sure you've been told this before and still refused to understand. It's so unbelievably stupid that any dumbass facebook/twitter ad turned people into "never hillary bernie bros" I can't believe you're still trying it. Show me some ads that did what you said, I'm sure the few hundred retweets (probably mostly from their own botnet) were totally not because they posted something people already agreed with and was in no way novel, or significant. This is so ridiculous it's hard to even try to treat it seriously. Every leftist movement from environmentalists to racial justice are all just Russian agitprop now and liberals are at the front of the pack cheering this on... I almost worried Congress might actually do "something" on gun control and find bipartisan agreement on whitening up gun ownership with a modern version of the crime bill. It's not ridiculous. It's just the exact same mechanisms advertising agencies use to condition people. The psychology of spamming certain images/ideas/phrases is well understood and is exactly what was/is being done. No one is saying the entire left movement is from Russia. People *are* saying Russia's various methods of spamming achieved a significant number of views and that the psychology associated with this type of ad campaign is used in a lot of non-political situations. He was definitely pushing it farther than some and it is ridiculous. It wasn't even a significant number of views though. That's one of several aspects of this that seems to not really solidify in people's minds. For instance, the overwhelming number of tweets about the DNC leak were from real people and yet twitter intentionally censored them, same with facebook, and CNN told everyone it was a crime to read them. You guys will give some random shitty russian ads so much credit but ignore lying headlines like "Thousands attend protest organized by Russia on facebook" or CNN telling people not to read the leaks because it's illegal, and so on. You point out rightly how advertising works, you and others seem to be completely oblivious to how it's being used on you in this instance.
What number of views are you saying is insignificant? The ads weren't shitty. They were good ads. Why are you saying they are shitty? This entire post feels like a weird attempt at deflection. Why is what he said ridiculous? You are just kinda stating things as if you are an authority on the subject.
|
On February 17 2018 09:30 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 09:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:21 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2018 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:06 hunts wrote:
Russia literally made/paid for pro bernie and anti hillary ads. You can very literally say they helped make some people into never hillary bernie bros, and that not only did those people make bernies numbers look better than he otherwise would've had, but they also helped trump by refusing to vote for hillary, because of the anti hillary and pro bernie ads that russia sponsored. I'm pretty sure you've been told this before and still refused to understand. It's so unbelievably stupid that any dumbass facebook/twitter ad turned people into "never hillary bernie bros" I can't believe you're still trying it. Show me some ads that did what you said, I'm sure the few hundred retweets (probably mostly from their own botnet) were totally not because they posted something people already agreed with and was in no way novel, or significant. This is so ridiculous it's hard to even try to treat it seriously. Every leftist movement from environmentalists to racial justice are all just Russian agitprop now and liberals are at the front of the pack cheering this on... I almost worried Congress might actually do "something" on gun control and find bipartisan agreement on whitening up gun ownership with a modern version of the crime bill. It's not ridiculous. It's just the exact same mechanisms advertising agencies use to condition people. The psychology of spamming certain images/ideas/phrases is well understood and is exactly what was/is being done. No one is saying the entire left movement is from Russia. People *are* saying Russia's various methods of spamming achieved a significant number of views and that the psychology associated with this type of ad campaign is used in a lot of non-political situations. He was definitely pushing it farther than some and it is ridiculous. It wasn't even a significant number of views though. That's one of several aspects of this that seems to not really solidify in people's minds. For instance, the overwhelming number of tweets about the DNC leak were from real people and yet twitter intentionally censored them, same with facebook, and CNN told everyone it was a crime to read them. You guys will give some random shitty russian ads so much credit but ignore lying headlines like "Thousands attend protest organized by Russia on facebook" or CNN telling people not to read the leaks because it's illegal, and so on. You point out rightly how advertising works, you and others seem to be completely oblivious to how it's being used on you in this instance. What number of views are you saying is insignificant? The ads weren't shitty. They were good ads. Why are you saying they are shitty? This entire post feels like a weird attempt at deflection. Why is what he said ridiculous? You are just kinda stating things as if you are an authority on the subject.
Russian ads as they relate to election related impressions. The ads were most definitely shitty/basic af.
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
That marketing was actually rated AAA by Moody's!
It's ridiculous for the reasons I mentioned and that it's trying to be maintained in the same mind that also thinks the DNC didn't affect the primary.
|
On February 17 2018 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 09:30 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2018 09:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:21 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2018 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:06 hunts wrote:
Russia literally made/paid for pro bernie and anti hillary ads. You can very literally say they helped make some people into never hillary bernie bros, and that not only did those people make bernies numbers look better than he otherwise would've had, but they also helped trump by refusing to vote for hillary, because of the anti hillary and pro bernie ads that russia sponsored. I'm pretty sure you've been told this before and still refused to understand. It's so unbelievably stupid that any dumbass facebook/twitter ad turned people into "never hillary bernie bros" I can't believe you're still trying it. Show me some ads that did what you said, I'm sure the few hundred retweets (probably mostly from their own botnet) were totally not because they posted something people already agreed with and was in no way novel, or significant. This is so ridiculous it's hard to even try to treat it seriously. Every leftist movement from environmentalists to racial justice are all just Russian agitprop now and liberals are at the front of the pack cheering this on... I almost worried Congress might actually do "something" on gun control and find bipartisan agreement on whitening up gun ownership with a modern version of the crime bill. It's not ridiculous. It's just the exact same mechanisms advertising agencies use to condition people. The psychology of spamming certain images/ideas/phrases is well understood and is exactly what was/is being done. No one is saying the entire left movement is from Russia. People *are* saying Russia's various methods of spamming achieved a significant number of views and that the psychology associated with this type of ad campaign is used in a lot of non-political situations. He was definitely pushing it farther than some and it is ridiculous. It wasn't even a significant number of views though. That's one of several aspects of this that seems to not really solidify in people's minds. For instance, the overwhelming number of tweets about the DNC leak were from real people and yet twitter intentionally censored them, same with facebook, and CNN told everyone it was a crime to read them. You guys will give some random shitty russian ads so much credit but ignore lying headlines like "Thousands attend protest organized by Russia on facebook" or CNN telling people not to read the leaks because it's illegal, and so on. You point out rightly how advertising works, you and others seem to be completely oblivious to how it's being used on you in this instance. What number of views are you saying is insignificant? The ads weren't shitty. They were good ads. Why are you saying they are shitty? This entire post feels like a weird attempt at deflection. Why is what he said ridiculous? You are just kinda stating things as if you are an authority on the subject. Russian ads as they relate to election related impressions. The ads were most definitely shitty/basic af. + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +That marketing was actually rated AAA by Moody's! It's ridiculous for the reasons I mentioned and that it's trying to be maintained in the same mind that also thinks the DNC didn't affect the primary.
Those aren't shitty. Ads practically can't be shitty. A guy getting on paint and writing "Clinton rigged the primary" using comic sans would be effective. It doesn't need production value. These things are done through conditioning, not high budget special effects.
How many views are you saying is insignificant?
|
On February 17 2018 09:39 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:30 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2018 09:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:21 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2018 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:06 hunts wrote:
Russia literally made/paid for pro bernie and anti hillary ads. You can very literally say they helped make some people into never hillary bernie bros, and that not only did those people make bernies numbers look better than he otherwise would've had, but they also helped trump by refusing to vote for hillary, because of the anti hillary and pro bernie ads that russia sponsored. I'm pretty sure you've been told this before and still refused to understand. It's so unbelievably stupid that any dumbass facebook/twitter ad turned people into "never hillary bernie bros" I can't believe you're still trying it. Show me some ads that did what you said, I'm sure the few hundred retweets (probably mostly from their own botnet) were totally not because they posted something people already agreed with and was in no way novel, or significant. This is so ridiculous it's hard to even try to treat it seriously. Every leftist movement from environmentalists to racial justice are all just Russian agitprop now and liberals are at the front of the pack cheering this on... I almost worried Congress might actually do "something" on gun control and find bipartisan agreement on whitening up gun ownership with a modern version of the crime bill. It's not ridiculous. It's just the exact same mechanisms advertising agencies use to condition people. The psychology of spamming certain images/ideas/phrases is well understood and is exactly what was/is being done. No one is saying the entire left movement is from Russia. People *are* saying Russia's various methods of spamming achieved a significant number of views and that the psychology associated with this type of ad campaign is used in a lot of non-political situations. He was definitely pushing it farther than some and it is ridiculous. It wasn't even a significant number of views though. That's one of several aspects of this that seems to not really solidify in people's minds. For instance, the overwhelming number of tweets about the DNC leak were from real people and yet twitter intentionally censored them, same with facebook, and CNN told everyone it was a crime to read them. You guys will give some random shitty russian ads so much credit but ignore lying headlines like "Thousands attend protest organized by Russia on facebook" or CNN telling people not to read the leaks because it's illegal, and so on. You point out rightly how advertising works, you and others seem to be completely oblivious to how it's being used on you in this instance. What number of views are you saying is insignificant? The ads weren't shitty. They were good ads. Why are you saying they are shitty? This entire post feels like a weird attempt at deflection. Why is what he said ridiculous? You are just kinda stating things as if you are an authority on the subject. Russian ads as they relate to election related impressions. The ads were most definitely shitty/basic af. + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +That marketing was actually rated AAA by Moody's! It's ridiculous for the reasons I mentioned and that it's trying to be maintained in the same mind that also thinks the DNC didn't affect the primary. Those aren't shitty. Ads practically can't be shitty. A guy getting on paint and writing "Clinton rigged the primary" using comic sans would be effective. It doesn't need production value. These things are done through conditioning, not high budget special effects. How many views are you saying is insignificant?
lol then the campaigns could have saved hundreds of millions of dollars putting a bunch of junior high school art classes to work on their campaign, wonder why they don't do that and instead pay the hundreds of millions of dollars...?
The percentage of election related impressions in aggregate vs the proportion of them coming from Russian bots. I don't know how many times you're going to make me say it. I imagine there are some individual tweets from Hillary or Trump that have more impressions than all of the russia stuff combined for example. Especially when you take into account that these bot nets would be self-amplifying (presuming basic competence). Meaning many of their impressions would actually just be other bots like themselves.
EDIT: Feels funny to be arguing over whether something is ridiculous with someone who is telling me a paid ad that looks like it was made by a child with a couple dozen shares was a significant and effective ad. Like just step back and think about that for a second.
|
I wonder if Twitter and Facebook has a way to see what percentage of Russian-created ads were interacted with by actual Americans and which were just bots/trolls
|
Note all the indie sprite-based games that are out on steam, despite the days of such things being the visual height of gaming aesthetics being long over.
It isn't all how it's packaged, it's what it conveys.
|
On February 17 2018 09:50 plasmidghost wrote:
I wonder if Twitter and Facebook has a way to see what percentage of Russian-created ads were interacted with by actual Americans and which were just bots/trolls
I bet they could if they dig into it. Even if people didn’t read them, the big lie is still a power propaganda tactic. Just repeating false information makes people more likely to repeat it.
|
On February 17 2018 09:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 09:39 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2018 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:30 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2018 09:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:21 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2018 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:06 hunts wrote:
Russia literally made/paid for pro bernie and anti hillary ads. You can very literally say they helped make some people into never hillary bernie bros, and that not only did those people make bernies numbers look better than he otherwise would've had, but they also helped trump by refusing to vote for hillary, because of the anti hillary and pro bernie ads that russia sponsored. I'm pretty sure you've been told this before and still refused to understand. It's so unbelievably stupid that any dumbass facebook/twitter ad turned people into "never hillary bernie bros" I can't believe you're still trying it. Show me some ads that did what you said, I'm sure the few hundred retweets (probably mostly from their own botnet) were totally not because they posted something people already agreed with and was in no way novel, or significant. This is so ridiculous it's hard to even try to treat it seriously. Every leftist movement from environmentalists to racial justice are all just Russian agitprop now and liberals are at the front of the pack cheering this on... I almost worried Congress might actually do "something" on gun control and find bipartisan agreement on whitening up gun ownership with a modern version of the crime bill. It's not ridiculous. It's just the exact same mechanisms advertising agencies use to condition people. The psychology of spamming certain images/ideas/phrases is well understood and is exactly what was/is being done. No one is saying the entire left movement is from Russia. People *are* saying Russia's various methods of spamming achieved a significant number of views and that the psychology associated with this type of ad campaign is used in a lot of non-political situations. He was definitely pushing it farther than some and it is ridiculous. It wasn't even a significant number of views though. That's one of several aspects of this that seems to not really solidify in people's minds. For instance, the overwhelming number of tweets about the DNC leak were from real people and yet twitter intentionally censored them, same with facebook, and CNN told everyone it was a crime to read them. You guys will give some random shitty russian ads so much credit but ignore lying headlines like "Thousands attend protest organized by Russia on facebook" or CNN telling people not to read the leaks because it's illegal, and so on. You point out rightly how advertising works, you and others seem to be completely oblivious to how it's being used on you in this instance. What number of views are you saying is insignificant? The ads weren't shitty. They were good ads. Why are you saying they are shitty? This entire post feels like a weird attempt at deflection. Why is what he said ridiculous? You are just kinda stating things as if you are an authority on the subject. Russian ads as they relate to election related impressions. The ads were most definitely shitty/basic af. + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +That marketing was actually rated AAA by Moody's! It's ridiculous for the reasons I mentioned and that it's trying to be maintained in the same mind that also thinks the DNC didn't affect the primary. Those aren't shitty. Ads practically can't be shitty. A guy getting on paint and writing "Clinton rigged the primary" using comic sans would be effective. It doesn't need production value. These things are done through conditioning, not high budget special effects. How many views are you saying is insignificant? lol then the campaigns could have saved hundreds of millions of dollars putting a bunch of junior high school art classes to work on their campaign, wonder why they don't do that and instead pay the hundreds of millions of dollars...? The percentage of election related impressions in aggregate vs the proportion of them coming from Russian bots. I don't know how many times you're going to make me say it. I imagine there are some individual tweets from Hillary or Trump that have more impressions than all of the russia stuff combined for example. Especially when you take into account that these bot nets would be self-amplifying (presuming basic competence). Meaning many of their impressions would actually just be other bots like themselves. EDIT: Feels funny to be arguing over whether something is ridiculous with someone who is telling me a paid ad that looks like it was made by a child with a couple dozen shares was a significant and effective ad. Like just step back and think about that for a second.
We're not arguing over how many voters those two images swayed. We're talking about the effect of the ad campaign as a whole. You keep trying to frame this discussion in very specific ways, but you also try to frame it as if you are some kinda authority on the topic and we need to just take your word for it. No one is going to do that.
|
On February 17 2018 09:54 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 09:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:39 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2018 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:30 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2018 09:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:21 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2018 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:06 hunts wrote:
Russia literally made/paid for pro bernie and anti hillary ads. You can very literally say they helped make some people into never hillary bernie bros, and that not only did those people make bernies numbers look better than he otherwise would've had, but they also helped trump by refusing to vote for hillary, because of the anti hillary and pro bernie ads that russia sponsored. I'm pretty sure you've been told this before and still refused to understand. It's so unbelievably stupid that any dumbass facebook/twitter ad turned people into "never hillary bernie bros" I can't believe you're still trying it. Show me some ads that did what you said, I'm sure the few hundred retweets (probably mostly from their own botnet) were totally not because they posted something people already agreed with and was in no way novel, or significant. This is so ridiculous it's hard to even try to treat it seriously. Every leftist movement from environmentalists to racial justice are all just Russian agitprop now and liberals are at the front of the pack cheering this on... I almost worried Congress might actually do "something" on gun control and find bipartisan agreement on whitening up gun ownership with a modern version of the crime bill. It's not ridiculous. It's just the exact same mechanisms advertising agencies use to condition people. The psychology of spamming certain images/ideas/phrases is well understood and is exactly what was/is being done. No one is saying the entire left movement is from Russia. People *are* saying Russia's various methods of spamming achieved a significant number of views and that the psychology associated with this type of ad campaign is used in a lot of non-political situations. He was definitely pushing it farther than some and it is ridiculous. It wasn't even a significant number of views though. That's one of several aspects of this that seems to not really solidify in people's minds. For instance, the overwhelming number of tweets about the DNC leak were from real people and yet twitter intentionally censored them, same with facebook, and CNN told everyone it was a crime to read them. You guys will give some random shitty russian ads so much credit but ignore lying headlines like "Thousands attend protest organized by Russia on facebook" or CNN telling people not to read the leaks because it's illegal, and so on. You point out rightly how advertising works, you and others seem to be completely oblivious to how it's being used on you in this instance. What number of views are you saying is insignificant? The ads weren't shitty. They were good ads. Why are you saying they are shitty? This entire post feels like a weird attempt at deflection. Why is what he said ridiculous? You are just kinda stating things as if you are an authority on the subject. Russian ads as they relate to election related impressions. The ads were most definitely shitty/basic af. + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +That marketing was actually rated AAA by Moody's! It's ridiculous for the reasons I mentioned and that it's trying to be maintained in the same mind that also thinks the DNC didn't affect the primary. Those aren't shitty. Ads practically can't be shitty. A guy getting on paint and writing "Clinton rigged the primary" using comic sans would be effective. It doesn't need production value. These things are done through conditioning, not high budget special effects. How many views are you saying is insignificant? lol then the campaigns could have saved hundreds of millions of dollars putting a bunch of junior high school art classes to work on their campaign, wonder why they don't do that and instead pay the hundreds of millions of dollars...? The percentage of election related impressions in aggregate vs the proportion of them coming from Russian bots. I don't know how many times you're going to make me say it. I imagine there are some individual tweets from Hillary or Trump that have more impressions than all of the russia stuff combined for example. Especially when you take into account that these bot nets would be self-amplifying (presuming basic competence). Meaning many of their impressions would actually just be other bots like themselves. EDIT: Feels funny to be arguing over whether something is ridiculous with someone who is telling me a paid ad that looks like it was made by a child with a couple dozen shares was a significant and effective ad. Like just step back and think about that for a second. We're not arguing over how many voters those two images swayed. We're talking about the effect of the ad campaign as a whole. You keep trying to frame this discussion in very specific ways, but you also try to frame it as if you are some kinda authority on the topic and we need to just take your word for it. No one is going to do that.
I expect for this to be kinda shamefully clear at this point that the influence of the Russian ad campaign has been repeatedly overblown here.
The most recent and egregious instance being the propaganda spread here about thousands of people attending a rally organized by Russians through these twitter/facebook ads (basically the single largest example of their most effective ad known publicly to date).
If you want to lump ALL the Russian interference together that's a bit of a different story than one about the effectiveness of crappy ads that made up a remotely tiny fraction of the media viewed.
EDIT: You guys seem totally oblivious to how this whole "just say it a lot" is exactly what the media has been doing to you.
|
On February 17 2018 10:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 09:54 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2018 09:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:39 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2018 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:30 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2018 09:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:21 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2018 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:06 hunts wrote:
Russia literally made/paid for pro bernie and anti hillary ads. You can very literally say they helped make some people into never hillary bernie bros, and that not only did those people make bernies numbers look better than he otherwise would've had, but they also helped trump by refusing to vote for hillary, because of the anti hillary and pro bernie ads that russia sponsored. I'm pretty sure you've been told this before and still refused to understand. It's so unbelievably stupid that any dumbass facebook/twitter ad turned people into "never hillary bernie bros" I can't believe you're still trying it. Show me some ads that did what you said, I'm sure the few hundred retweets (probably mostly from their own botnet) were totally not because they posted something people already agreed with and was in no way novel, or significant. This is so ridiculous it's hard to even try to treat it seriously. Every leftist movement from environmentalists to racial justice are all just Russian agitprop now and liberals are at the front of the pack cheering this on... I almost worried Congress might actually do "something" on gun control and find bipartisan agreement on whitening up gun ownership with a modern version of the crime bill. It's not ridiculous. It's just the exact same mechanisms advertising agencies use to condition people. The psychology of spamming certain images/ideas/phrases is well understood and is exactly what was/is being done. No one is saying the entire left movement is from Russia. People *are* saying Russia's various methods of spamming achieved a significant number of views and that the psychology associated with this type of ad campaign is used in a lot of non-political situations. He was definitely pushing it farther than some and it is ridiculous. It wasn't even a significant number of views though. That's one of several aspects of this that seems to not really solidify in people's minds. For instance, the overwhelming number of tweets about the DNC leak were from real people and yet twitter intentionally censored them, same with facebook, and CNN told everyone it was a crime to read them. You guys will give some random shitty russian ads so much credit but ignore lying headlines like "Thousands attend protest organized by Russia on facebook" or CNN telling people not to read the leaks because it's illegal, and so on. You point out rightly how advertising works, you and others seem to be completely oblivious to how it's being used on you in this instance. What number of views are you saying is insignificant? The ads weren't shitty. They were good ads. Why are you saying they are shitty? This entire post feels like a weird attempt at deflection. Why is what he said ridiculous? You are just kinda stating things as if you are an authority on the subject. Russian ads as they relate to election related impressions. The ads were most definitely shitty/basic af. + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +That marketing was actually rated AAA by Moody's! It's ridiculous for the reasons I mentioned and that it's trying to be maintained in the same mind that also thinks the DNC didn't affect the primary. Those aren't shitty. Ads practically can't be shitty. A guy getting on paint and writing "Clinton rigged the primary" using comic sans would be effective. It doesn't need production value. These things are done through conditioning, not high budget special effects. How many views are you saying is insignificant? lol then the campaigns could have saved hundreds of millions of dollars putting a bunch of junior high school art classes to work on their campaign, wonder why they don't do that and instead pay the hundreds of millions of dollars...? The percentage of election related impressions in aggregate vs the proportion of them coming from Russian bots. I don't know how many times you're going to make me say it. I imagine there are some individual tweets from Hillary or Trump that have more impressions than all of the russia stuff combined for example. Especially when you take into account that these bot nets would be self-amplifying (presuming basic competence). Meaning many of their impressions would actually just be other bots like themselves. EDIT: Feels funny to be arguing over whether something is ridiculous with someone who is telling me a paid ad that looks like it was made by a child with a couple dozen shares was a significant and effective ad. Like just step back and think about that for a second. We're not arguing over how many voters those two images swayed. We're talking about the effect of the ad campaign as a whole. You keep trying to frame this discussion in very specific ways, but you also try to frame it as if you are some kinda authority on the topic and we need to just take your word for it. No one is going to do that. I expect for this to be kinda shamefully clear at this point that the influence of the Russian ad campaign has been repeatedly overblown here. The most recent and egregious instance being the propaganda spread here about thousands of people attending a rally organized by Russians through these twitter/facebook ads (basically the single largest example of their most effective ad known publicly to date). If you want to lump ALL the Russian interference together that's a bit of a different story than one about the effectiveness of crappy ads that made up a remotely tiny fraction of the media viewed. EDIT: You guys seem totally oblivious to how this whole "just say it a lot" is exactly what the media has been doing to you.
Would it be possible for the government to force Twitter and Facebook to release Russian influence figures? I saw P6 mention that they probably could get it and I'm sure they could too, but I want to know exact details of just how many people interacted with these ads and accounts. The examples you posted only had <100 interactions and I have no real idea if that's just an outlier or if that's typical
|
I found this thread to be an entertaining look at just how much work the Russians put in and how much work the investigation went through to break it down. Entertaining and troubling. They exploited every crack in our regulatory system to funnel money through.
|
On February 17 2018 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 09:30 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2018 09:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:21 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2018 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:06 hunts wrote:
Russia literally made/paid for pro bernie and anti hillary ads. You can very literally say they helped make some people into never hillary bernie bros, and that not only did those people make bernies numbers look better than he otherwise would've had, but they also helped trump by refusing to vote for hillary, because of the anti hillary and pro bernie ads that russia sponsored. I'm pretty sure you've been told this before and still refused to understand. It's so unbelievably stupid that any dumbass facebook/twitter ad turned people into "never hillary bernie bros" I can't believe you're still trying it. Show me some ads that did what you said, I'm sure the few hundred retweets (probably mostly from their own botnet) were totally not because they posted something people already agreed with and was in no way novel, or significant. This is so ridiculous it's hard to even try to treat it seriously. Every leftist movement from environmentalists to racial justice are all just Russian agitprop now and liberals are at the front of the pack cheering this on... I almost worried Congress might actually do "something" on gun control and find bipartisan agreement on whitening up gun ownership with a modern version of the crime bill. It's not ridiculous. It's just the exact same mechanisms advertising agencies use to condition people. The psychology of spamming certain images/ideas/phrases is well understood and is exactly what was/is being done. No one is saying the entire left movement is from Russia. People *are* saying Russia's various methods of spamming achieved a significant number of views and that the psychology associated with this type of ad campaign is used in a lot of non-political situations. He was definitely pushing it farther than some and it is ridiculous. It wasn't even a significant number of views though. That's one of several aspects of this that seems to not really solidify in people's minds. For instance, the overwhelming number of tweets about the DNC leak were from real people and yet twitter intentionally censored them, same with facebook, and CNN told everyone it was a crime to read them. You guys will give some random shitty russian ads so much credit but ignore lying headlines like "Thousands attend protest organized by Russia on facebook" or CNN telling people not to read the leaks because it's illegal, and so on. You point out rightly how advertising works, you and others seem to be completely oblivious to how it's being used on you in this instance. What number of views are you saying is insignificant? The ads weren't shitty. They were good ads. Why are you saying they are shitty? This entire post feels like a weird attempt at deflection. Why is what he said ridiculous? You are just kinda stating things as if you are an authority on the subject. Russian ads as they relate to election related impressions. The ads were most definitely shitty/basic af. + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +That marketing was actually rated AAA by Moody's! It's ridiculous for the reasons I mentioned and that it's trying to be maintained in the same mind that also thinks the DNC didn't affect the primary.
I've seen both of those liked, shared, and retweeted by actual bernie bros that I know, so I guess they weren't as shitty as you think. And don't try to pretend like you weren't influenced by russian bernie/anti hillary ads, GH. To try and deny it is just silly and ignorant.
|
On February 17 2018 10:22 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:30 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2018 09:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:21 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2018 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:06 hunts wrote:
Russia literally made/paid for pro bernie and anti hillary ads. You can very literally say they helped make some people into never hillary bernie bros, and that not only did those people make bernies numbers look better than he otherwise would've had, but they also helped trump by refusing to vote for hillary, because of the anti hillary and pro bernie ads that russia sponsored. I'm pretty sure you've been told this before and still refused to understand. It's so unbelievably stupid that any dumbass facebook/twitter ad turned people into "never hillary bernie bros" I can't believe you're still trying it. Show me some ads that did what you said, I'm sure the few hundred retweets (probably mostly from their own botnet) were totally not because they posted something people already agreed with and was in no way novel, or significant. This is so ridiculous it's hard to even try to treat it seriously. Every leftist movement from environmentalists to racial justice are all just Russian agitprop now and liberals are at the front of the pack cheering this on... I almost worried Congress might actually do "something" on gun control and find bipartisan agreement on whitening up gun ownership with a modern version of the crime bill. It's not ridiculous. It's just the exact same mechanisms advertising agencies use to condition people. The psychology of spamming certain images/ideas/phrases is well understood and is exactly what was/is being done. No one is saying the entire left movement is from Russia. People *are* saying Russia's various methods of spamming achieved a significant number of views and that the psychology associated with this type of ad campaign is used in a lot of non-political situations. He was definitely pushing it farther than some and it is ridiculous. It wasn't even a significant number of views though. That's one of several aspects of this that seems to not really solidify in people's minds. For instance, the overwhelming number of tweets about the DNC leak were from real people and yet twitter intentionally censored them, same with facebook, and CNN told everyone it was a crime to read them. You guys will give some random shitty russian ads so much credit but ignore lying headlines like "Thousands attend protest organized by Russia on facebook" or CNN telling people not to read the leaks because it's illegal, and so on. You point out rightly how advertising works, you and others seem to be completely oblivious to how it's being used on you in this instance. What number of views are you saying is insignificant? The ads weren't shitty. They were good ads. Why are you saying they are shitty? This entire post feels like a weird attempt at deflection. Why is what he said ridiculous? You are just kinda stating things as if you are an authority on the subject. Russian ads as they relate to election related impressions. The ads were most definitely shitty/basic af. + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +That marketing was actually rated AAA by Moody's! It's ridiculous for the reasons I mentioned and that it's trying to be maintained in the same mind that also thinks the DNC didn't affect the primary. I've seen both of those liked, shared, and retweeted by actual bernie bros that I know, so I guess they weren't as shitty as you think. And don't try to pretend like you weren't influenced by russian bernie/anti hillary ads, GH. To try and deny it is just silly and ignorant.
Or maybe the "bernie bros" you know are idiots? Or maybe they don't exist? Or maybe they just don't matter to the point at all?
I've given you the opportunity to put even the slightest meat to the bones of that accusation and here we are with you having nothing.
|
On February 17 2018 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 10:22 hunts wrote:On February 17 2018 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:30 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2018 09:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:21 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2018 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:06 hunts wrote:
Russia literally made/paid for pro bernie and anti hillary ads. You can very literally say they helped make some people into never hillary bernie bros, and that not only did those people make bernies numbers look better than he otherwise would've had, but they also helped trump by refusing to vote for hillary, because of the anti hillary and pro bernie ads that russia sponsored. I'm pretty sure you've been told this before and still refused to understand. It's so unbelievably stupid that any dumbass facebook/twitter ad turned people into "never hillary bernie bros" I can't believe you're still trying it. Show me some ads that did what you said, I'm sure the few hundred retweets (probably mostly from their own botnet) were totally not because they posted something people already agreed with and was in no way novel, or significant. This is so ridiculous it's hard to even try to treat it seriously. Every leftist movement from environmentalists to racial justice are all just Russian agitprop now and liberals are at the front of the pack cheering this on... I almost worried Congress might actually do "something" on gun control and find bipartisan agreement on whitening up gun ownership with a modern version of the crime bill. It's not ridiculous. It's just the exact same mechanisms advertising agencies use to condition people. The psychology of spamming certain images/ideas/phrases is well understood and is exactly what was/is being done. No one is saying the entire left movement is from Russia. People *are* saying Russia's various methods of spamming achieved a significant number of views and that the psychology associated with this type of ad campaign is used in a lot of non-political situations. He was definitely pushing it farther than some and it is ridiculous. It wasn't even a significant number of views though. That's one of several aspects of this that seems to not really solidify in people's minds. For instance, the overwhelming number of tweets about the DNC leak were from real people and yet twitter intentionally censored them, same with facebook, and CNN told everyone it was a crime to read them. You guys will give some random shitty russian ads so much credit but ignore lying headlines like "Thousands attend protest organized by Russia on facebook" or CNN telling people not to read the leaks because it's illegal, and so on. You point out rightly how advertising works, you and others seem to be completely oblivious to how it's being used on you in this instance. What number of views are you saying is insignificant? The ads weren't shitty. They were good ads. Why are you saying they are shitty? This entire post feels like a weird attempt at deflection. Why is what he said ridiculous? You are just kinda stating things as if you are an authority on the subject. Russian ads as they relate to election related impressions. The ads were most definitely shitty/basic af. + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +That marketing was actually rated AAA by Moody's! It's ridiculous for the reasons I mentioned and that it's trying to be maintained in the same mind that also thinks the DNC didn't affect the primary. I've seen both of those liked, shared, and retweeted by actual bernie bros that I know, so I guess they weren't as shitty as you think. And don't try to pretend like you weren't influenced by russian bernie/anti hillary ads, GH. To try and deny it is just silly and ignorant. Or maybe the "bernie bros" you know are idiots? Or maybe they don't exist? Or maybe they just don't matter to the point at all? I've given you the opportunity to put even the slightest meat to the bones of that accusation and here we are with you having nothing.
You are disagreeing with agencies we trust a lot more than you. The burden is on you to convince us we should trust you.
|
On February 17 2018 10:35 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 10:22 hunts wrote:On February 17 2018 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:30 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2018 09:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:21 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2018 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:06 hunts wrote:
Russia literally made/paid for pro bernie and anti hillary ads. You can very literally say they helped make some people into never hillary bernie bros, and that not only did those people make bernies numbers look better than he otherwise would've had, but they also helped trump by refusing to vote for hillary, because of the anti hillary and pro bernie ads that russia sponsored. I'm pretty sure you've been told this before and still refused to understand. It's so unbelievably stupid that any dumbass facebook/twitter ad turned people into "never hillary bernie bros" I can't believe you're still trying it. Show me some ads that did what you said, I'm sure the few hundred retweets (probably mostly from their own botnet) were totally not because they posted something people already agreed with and was in no way novel, or significant. This is so ridiculous it's hard to even try to treat it seriously. Every leftist movement from environmentalists to racial justice are all just Russian agitprop now and liberals are at the front of the pack cheering this on... I almost worried Congress might actually do "something" on gun control and find bipartisan agreement on whitening up gun ownership with a modern version of the crime bill. It's not ridiculous. It's just the exact same mechanisms advertising agencies use to condition people. The psychology of spamming certain images/ideas/phrases is well understood and is exactly what was/is being done. No one is saying the entire left movement is from Russia. People *are* saying Russia's various methods of spamming achieved a significant number of views and that the psychology associated with this type of ad campaign is used in a lot of non-political situations. He was definitely pushing it farther than some and it is ridiculous. It wasn't even a significant number of views though. That's one of several aspects of this that seems to not really solidify in people's minds. For instance, the overwhelming number of tweets about the DNC leak were from real people and yet twitter intentionally censored them, same with facebook, and CNN told everyone it was a crime to read them. You guys will give some random shitty russian ads so much credit but ignore lying headlines like "Thousands attend protest organized by Russia on facebook" or CNN telling people not to read the leaks because it's illegal, and so on. You point out rightly how advertising works, you and others seem to be completely oblivious to how it's being used on you in this instance. What number of views are you saying is insignificant? The ads weren't shitty. They were good ads. Why are you saying they are shitty? This entire post feels like a weird attempt at deflection. Why is what he said ridiculous? You are just kinda stating things as if you are an authority on the subject. Russian ads as they relate to election related impressions. The ads were most definitely shitty/basic af. + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +That marketing was actually rated AAA by Moody's! It's ridiculous for the reasons I mentioned and that it's trying to be maintained in the same mind that also thinks the DNC didn't affect the primary. I've seen both of those liked, shared, and retweeted by actual bernie bros that I know, so I guess they weren't as shitty as you think. And don't try to pretend like you weren't influenced by russian bernie/anti hillary ads, GH. To try and deny it is just silly and ignorant. Or maybe the "bernie bros" you know are idiots? Or maybe they don't exist? Or maybe they just don't matter to the point at all? I've given you the opportunity to put even the slightest meat to the bones of that accusation and here we are with you having nothing. You are disagreeing with agencies we trust a lot more than you. The burden is on you to convince us we should trust you.
Disagreeing with what agencies that you deem trustworthy based on what evidence? You don't have to trust me, I don't want you to trust me, I want you to take what's in front of you and think critically about it and arrive at your own conclusion. But if I think I can demonstrate to a theoretically neutral observer that your conclusion is lacking I'm going to make that effort.
Sure I'd like people to arrive at the same conclusions I have, but you can't make a horse drink. But if they keep wandering into the Siberian Desserts I can keep trying to pull them back to the trough.
|
On February 17 2018 10:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 10:35 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2018 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 10:22 hunts wrote:On February 17 2018 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:30 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2018 09:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:21 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2018 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:06 hunts wrote:
Russia literally made/paid for pro bernie and anti hillary ads. You can very literally say they helped make some people into never hillary bernie bros, and that not only did those people make bernies numbers look better than he otherwise would've had, but they also helped trump by refusing to vote for hillary, because of the anti hillary and pro bernie ads that russia sponsored. I'm pretty sure you've been told this before and still refused to understand. It's so unbelievably stupid that any dumbass facebook/twitter ad turned people into "never hillary bernie bros" I can't believe you're still trying it. Show me some ads that did what you said, I'm sure the few hundred retweets (probably mostly from their own botnet) were totally not because they posted something people already agreed with and was in no way novel, or significant. This is so ridiculous it's hard to even try to treat it seriously. Every leftist movement from environmentalists to racial justice are all just Russian agitprop now and liberals are at the front of the pack cheering this on... I almost worried Congress might actually do "something" on gun control and find bipartisan agreement on whitening up gun ownership with a modern version of the crime bill. It's not ridiculous. It's just the exact same mechanisms advertising agencies use to condition people. The psychology of spamming certain images/ideas/phrases is well understood and is exactly what was/is being done. No one is saying the entire left movement is from Russia. People *are* saying Russia's various methods of spamming achieved a significant number of views and that the psychology associated with this type of ad campaign is used in a lot of non-political situations. He was definitely pushing it farther than some and it is ridiculous. It wasn't even a significant number of views though. That's one of several aspects of this that seems to not really solidify in people's minds. For instance, the overwhelming number of tweets about the DNC leak were from real people and yet twitter intentionally censored them, same with facebook, and CNN told everyone it was a crime to read them. You guys will give some random shitty russian ads so much credit but ignore lying headlines like "Thousands attend protest organized by Russia on facebook" or CNN telling people not to read the leaks because it's illegal, and so on. You point out rightly how advertising works, you and others seem to be completely oblivious to how it's being used on you in this instance. What number of views are you saying is insignificant? The ads weren't shitty. They were good ads. Why are you saying they are shitty? This entire post feels like a weird attempt at deflection. Why is what he said ridiculous? You are just kinda stating things as if you are an authority on the subject. Russian ads as they relate to election related impressions. The ads were most definitely shitty/basic af. + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +That marketing was actually rated AAA by Moody's! It's ridiculous for the reasons I mentioned and that it's trying to be maintained in the same mind that also thinks the DNC didn't affect the primary. I've seen both of those liked, shared, and retweeted by actual bernie bros that I know, so I guess they weren't as shitty as you think. And don't try to pretend like you weren't influenced by russian bernie/anti hillary ads, GH. To try and deny it is just silly and ignorant. Or maybe the "bernie bros" you know are idiots? Or maybe they don't exist? Or maybe they just don't matter to the point at all? I've given you the opportunity to put even the slightest meat to the bones of that accusation and here we are with you having nothing. You are disagreeing with agencies we trust a lot more than you. The burden is on you to convince us we should trust you. Disagreeing with what agencies that you deem trustworthy based on what evidence? You don't have to trust me, I don't want you to trust me, I want you to take what's in front of you and think critically about it and arrive at your own conclusion. But if I think I can demonstrate to a theoretically neutral observer that your conclusion is lacking I'm going to make that effort. Sure I'd like people to arrive at the same conclusions I have, but you can't make a horse drink. But if they keep wandering into the Siberian Desserts I can keep trying to pull them back to the trough.
Are you saying we have more evidence to trust you over intelligence agencies?
|
On February 17 2018 10:53 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 10:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 10:35 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2018 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 10:22 hunts wrote:On February 17 2018 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:30 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2018 09:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:21 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2018 09:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
It's so unbelievably stupid that any dumbass facebook/twitter ad turned people into "never hillary bernie bros" I can't believe you're still trying it.
Show me some ads that did what you said, I'm sure the few hundred retweets (probably mostly from their own botnet) were totally not because they posted something people already agreed with and was in no way novel, or significant.
This is so ridiculous it's hard to even try to treat it seriously.
Every leftist movement from environmentalists to racial justice are all just Russian agitprop now and liberals are at the front of the pack cheering this on...
I almost worried Congress might actually do "something" on gun control and find bipartisan agreement on whitening up gun ownership with a modern version of the crime bill. It's not ridiculous. It's just the exact same mechanisms advertising agencies use to condition people. The psychology of spamming certain images/ideas/phrases is well understood and is exactly what was/is being done. No one is saying the entire left movement is from Russia. People *are* saying Russia's various methods of spamming achieved a significant number of views and that the psychology associated with this type of ad campaign is used in a lot of non-political situations. He was definitely pushing it farther than some and it is ridiculous. It wasn't even a significant number of views though. That's one of several aspects of this that seems to not really solidify in people's minds. For instance, the overwhelming number of tweets about the DNC leak were from real people and yet twitter intentionally censored them, same with facebook, and CNN told everyone it was a crime to read them. You guys will give some random shitty russian ads so much credit but ignore lying headlines like "Thousands attend protest organized by Russia on facebook" or CNN telling people not to read the leaks because it's illegal, and so on. You point out rightly how advertising works, you and others seem to be completely oblivious to how it's being used on you in this instance. What number of views are you saying is insignificant? The ads weren't shitty. They were good ads. Why are you saying they are shitty? This entire post feels like a weird attempt at deflection. Why is what he said ridiculous? You are just kinda stating things as if you are an authority on the subject. Russian ads as they relate to election related impressions. The ads were most definitely shitty/basic af. + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +That marketing was actually rated AAA by Moody's! It's ridiculous for the reasons I mentioned and that it's trying to be maintained in the same mind that also thinks the DNC didn't affect the primary. I've seen both of those liked, shared, and retweeted by actual bernie bros that I know, so I guess they weren't as shitty as you think. And don't try to pretend like you weren't influenced by russian bernie/anti hillary ads, GH. To try and deny it is just silly and ignorant. Or maybe the "bernie bros" you know are idiots? Or maybe they don't exist? Or maybe they just don't matter to the point at all? I've given you the opportunity to put even the slightest meat to the bones of that accusation and here we are with you having nothing. You are disagreeing with agencies we trust a lot more than you. The burden is on you to convince us we should trust you. Disagreeing with what agencies that you deem trustworthy based on what evidence? You don't have to trust me, I don't want you to trust me, I want you to take what's in front of you and think critically about it and arrive at your own conclusion. But if I think I can demonstrate to a theoretically neutral observer that your conclusion is lacking I'm going to make that effort. Sure I'd like people to arrive at the same conclusions I have, but you can't make a horse drink. But if they keep wandering into the Siberian Desserts I can keep trying to pull them back to the trough. Are you saying we have more evidence to trust you over intelligence agencies?
You're saying you're agreeing with a somewhat ethereal group of agencies about a hazy conglomeration of assertions based on some vague and relatively inconsequential evidence and appealing to the authority and integrity of said agencies/"The Government".
I'm simply asking you to provide your reasoning and contesting what I see as lacking. It's not about trusting me over some notoriously untrustworthy agencies. It's about your beliefs and assertions wilting in the light of close examination.
You guys all love doing this to the right leaning posters, but a little dose of your own medicine from your left makes you all squirm like worms on a hook. Primarily because you can't pin stupid Republican crap on me like you can them. So instead you guys went after my more controversial views, but when actually pushed on it you all realized you had nothing there as well.
This whole shoot the messenger/partisan prioritization cycle you guys go through day after day should at least have the benefit of you all taking notice of the similarities between you.
|
On February 17 2018 11:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 10:53 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2018 10:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 10:35 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2018 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 10:22 hunts wrote:On February 17 2018 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:30 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2018 09:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:21 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
It's not ridiculous. It's just the exact same mechanisms advertising agencies use to condition people. The psychology of spamming certain images/ideas/phrases is well understood and is exactly what was/is being done.
No one is saying the entire left movement is from Russia. People *are* saying Russia's various methods of spamming achieved a significant number of views and that the psychology associated with this type of ad campaign is used in a lot of non-political situations. He was definitely pushing it farther than some and it is ridiculous. It wasn't even a significant number of views though. That's one of several aspects of this that seems to not really solidify in people's minds. For instance, the overwhelming number of tweets about the DNC leak were from real people and yet twitter intentionally censored them, same with facebook, and CNN told everyone it was a crime to read them. You guys will give some random shitty russian ads so much credit but ignore lying headlines like "Thousands attend protest organized by Russia on facebook" or CNN telling people not to read the leaks because it's illegal, and so on. You point out rightly how advertising works, you and others seem to be completely oblivious to how it's being used on you in this instance. What number of views are you saying is insignificant? The ads weren't shitty. They were good ads. Why are you saying they are shitty? This entire post feels like a weird attempt at deflection. Why is what he said ridiculous? You are just kinda stating things as if you are an authority on the subject. Russian ads as they relate to election related impressions. The ads were most definitely shitty/basic af. + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +That marketing was actually rated AAA by Moody's! It's ridiculous for the reasons I mentioned and that it's trying to be maintained in the same mind that also thinks the DNC didn't affect the primary. I've seen both of those liked, shared, and retweeted by actual bernie bros that I know, so I guess they weren't as shitty as you think. And don't try to pretend like you weren't influenced by russian bernie/anti hillary ads, GH. To try and deny it is just silly and ignorant. Or maybe the "bernie bros" you know are idiots? Or maybe they don't exist? Or maybe they just don't matter to the point at all? I've given you the opportunity to put even the slightest meat to the bones of that accusation and here we are with you having nothing. You are disagreeing with agencies we trust a lot more than you. The burden is on you to convince us we should trust you. Disagreeing with what agencies that you deem trustworthy based on what evidence? You don't have to trust me, I don't want you to trust me, I want you to take what's in front of you and think critically about it and arrive at your own conclusion. But if I think I can demonstrate to a theoretically neutral observer that your conclusion is lacking I'm going to make that effort. Sure I'd like people to arrive at the same conclusions I have, but you can't make a horse drink. But if they keep wandering into the Siberian Desserts I can keep trying to pull them back to the trough. Are you saying we have more evidence to trust you over intelligence agencies? You're saying you're agreeing with a somewhat ethereal group of agencies about a hazy conglomeration of assertions based on some vague and relatively inconsequential evidence and appealing to the authority and integrity of said agencies/"The Government". I'm simply asking you to provide your reasoning and contesting what I see as lacking. It's not about trusting me over some notoriously untrustworthy agencies. It's about your beliefs and assertions wilting in the light of close examination. You guys all love doing this to the right leaning posters, but a little dose of your own medicine from your left makes you all squirm like worms on a hook. Primarily because you can't pin stupid Republican crap on me like you can them. So instead you guys went after my more controversial views, but when actually pushed on it you all realized you had nothing there as well. This whole shoot the messenger/partisan prioritization cycle you guys go through day after day should at least have the benefit of you all taking notice of the similarities between you.
This post is amazing.
You're saying you're agreeing with a somewhat ethereal group of agencies about a hazy conglomeration of assertions based on some vague and relatively inconsequential evidence and appealing to the authority and integrity of said agencies/"The Government".
The CIA, FBI, and NSA are notably ethereal and insubstantial agencies of the US government.
The hazy conglomeration of assertions can be found here. The hazy conglomeration includes these statements:
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US
presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.
We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence
in this judgment;NSA has moderate confidence. Moscow’s approach evolved over the course of the campaign based on Russia’s understanding of the electoral prospects of the two main candidates. When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign began to focus more on undermining her future presidency.
You claim these assertions are based on "vague and relatively inconsequential evidence." You accuse us of "appealing to the authority of said agencies / 'The Government' " instead of trusting your authority to claim that everything in that report is overblown or false keeping an "open mind."
Finally you claim It's not about trusting me over some notoriously untrustworthy agencies. It's about your beliefs and assertions wilting in the light of close examination.
I don't find my beliefs, based on the unclassified reports of US intelligence agencies, to be wilting very much under close examination. But I definitely won't be trusting your random claims over those "notoriously untrustworthy" agencies.
|
On February 17 2018 11:28 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 11:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 10:53 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2018 10:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 10:35 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2018 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 10:22 hunts wrote:On February 17 2018 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2018 09:30 Mohdoo wrote:On February 17 2018 09:26 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
He was definitely pushing it farther than some and it is ridiculous.
It wasn't even a significant number of views though. That's one of several aspects of this that seems to not really solidify in people's minds.
For instance, the overwhelming number of tweets about the DNC leak were from real people and yet twitter intentionally censored them, same with facebook, and CNN told everyone it was a crime to read them.
You guys will give some random shitty russian ads so much credit but ignore lying headlines like "Thousands attend protest organized by Russia on facebook" or CNN telling people not to read the leaks because it's illegal, and so on.
You point out rightly how advertising works, you and others seem to be completely oblivious to how it's being used on you in this instance. What number of views are you saying is insignificant? The ads weren't shitty. They were good ads. Why are you saying they are shitty? This entire post feels like a weird attempt at deflection. Why is what he said ridiculous? You are just kinda stating things as if you are an authority on the subject. Russian ads as they relate to election related impressions. The ads were most definitely shitty/basic af. + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +That marketing was actually rated AAA by Moody's! It's ridiculous for the reasons I mentioned and that it's trying to be maintained in the same mind that also thinks the DNC didn't affect the primary. I've seen both of those liked, shared, and retweeted by actual bernie bros that I know, so I guess they weren't as shitty as you think. And don't try to pretend like you weren't influenced by russian bernie/anti hillary ads, GH. To try and deny it is just silly and ignorant. Or maybe the "bernie bros" you know are idiots? Or maybe they don't exist? Or maybe they just don't matter to the point at all? I've given you the opportunity to put even the slightest meat to the bones of that accusation and here we are with you having nothing. You are disagreeing with agencies we trust a lot more than you. The burden is on you to convince us we should trust you. Disagreeing with what agencies that you deem trustworthy based on what evidence? You don't have to trust me, I don't want you to trust me, I want you to take what's in front of you and think critically about it and arrive at your own conclusion. But if I think I can demonstrate to a theoretically neutral observer that your conclusion is lacking I'm going to make that effort. Sure I'd like people to arrive at the same conclusions I have, but you can't make a horse drink. But if they keep wandering into the Siberian Desserts I can keep trying to pull them back to the trough. Are you saying we have more evidence to trust you over intelligence agencies? You're saying you're agreeing with a somewhat ethereal group of agencies about a hazy conglomeration of assertions based on some vague and relatively inconsequential evidence and appealing to the authority and integrity of said agencies/"The Government". I'm simply asking you to provide your reasoning and contesting what I see as lacking. It's not about trusting me over some notoriously untrustworthy agencies. It's about your beliefs and assertions wilting in the light of close examination. You guys all love doing this to the right leaning posters, but a little dose of your own medicine from your left makes you all squirm like worms on a hook. Primarily because you can't pin stupid Republican crap on me like you can them. So instead you guys went after my more controversial views, but when actually pushed on it you all realized you had nothing there as well. This whole shoot the messenger/partisan prioritization cycle you guys go through day after day should at least have the benefit of you all taking notice of the similarities between you. This post is amazing. Show nested quote +
You're saying you're agreeing with a somewhat ethereal group of agencies about a hazy conglomeration of assertions based on some vague and relatively inconsequential evidence and appealing to the authority and integrity of said agencies/"The Government".
The CIA, FBI, and NSA are notably ethereal and insubstantial agencies of the US government. The hazy conglomeration of assertions can be found here. The hazy conglomeration includes these statements: Show nested quote +We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US
presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.
We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence
in this judgment;NSA has moderate confidence. Moscow’s approach evolved over the course of the campaign based on Russia’s understanding of the electoral prospects of the two main candidates. When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign began to focus more on undermining her future presidency. You claim these assertions are based on "vague and relatively inconsequential evidence." You accuse us of "appealing to the authority of said agencies / 'The Government' " instead of trusting your authority to claim that everything in that report is overblown or false keeping an "open mind." Finally you claim Show nested quote +It's not about trusting me over some notoriously untrustworthy agencies. It's about your beliefs and assertions wilting in the light of close examination. I don't find my beliefs, based on the unclassified reports of US intelligence agencies, to be wilting very much under close examination. But I definitely won't be trusting your random claims over those "notoriously untrustworthy" agencies.
let's go through that.
What's ethereal (though upon review I could choose a better word) is the way he appealed to their findings/authority without specifically saying which agency and which findings. I also didn't call the agencies insubstantial.
Their findings (as far as what is public) is vague and relatively inconsequential based on what we've seen presented here upon the several requests made for the biggest and best examples you all have.
Those US agencies have all been caught egregiously lying and/or helping to illegally assassinate/intimidate/spy on US citizens within the lifetimes of most of it's leadership. Say what you will about my credibility, but you you can't blame the skeptic for being skeptical of such a group.
As to your selected quote I don't generally disagree with it.
When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign began to focus more on undermining her future presidency.
Even Moscow was so convinced by US propaganda, that they conceded that they would be working across from President Clinton and aimed their propaganda toward such an outcome.
The part that's a bit questionable is just how much they wanted/expected Trump to win when they didn't even stick with it through the election and the largest event attributed to them through US propaganda was an anti-Trump event that they didn't even organize and was primarily attended by Hillary supporters.
|
United States42821 Posts
I feel like this is so obvious it ought not to need saying but whatever, I'll say it anyway. A theory that involves a conspiracy is not the same thing as a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory is generally a theory that a small group of people secretly control events to do evil things or whatever. Normally considered far fetched. A theory involving a conspiracy is any theory where a group of people conspired.
Examples:
Bush did 9/11 is a conspiracy theory
Al Qaeda did 9/11 is a theory involving a conspiracy (to attack the WTC using planes)
Both contain conspiracies, but both are not conspiracy theories.
Trump accepting Russian aid in the election is a theory involving a conspiracy, not a conspiracy theory. The Russians sent emails stating that they wanted to meet as part of their government support of his campaign. The meeting took place. Minutes after the meeting Trump was tweeting about hacked emails for the first time. A quick study of Trump's tweeting habits will confirm that whenever he learns something new that affirms his worldview, such as every morning when he watches Fox and Friends, he immediately tweets about it.
The 9/11 Al Qaeda did it theory is "things basically went down more or less the way it looks like to any casual observer". So is the Trump Russia theory.
Trump tweeted about Hillary's hacked emails minutes after the representatives of the government who hacked the emails met his son to offer state support just metres from the office where Trump himself was sitting at the time. The theory that he tweeted about the emails because his son just told him about them doesn't require a secret group of Jewish elders running the world to be true, it's the same kind of reach as "maybe the WTC fell down because it was on fire".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/11/02/us/politics/02dc-ads-lgbt-united/02dc-ads-lgbt-united-superJumbo.png?quality=100&auto=webp)
![[image loading]](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/11/02/us/politics/02dc-ads-army-of-jesus/02dc-ads-army-of-jesus-superJumbo.png?quality=100&auto=webp)
