Post-match: Vancouver Whitecaps FC - San Jose Earthquakes Knockout Round (Wednesday, 10/25) postgame thread [R]

Have facebook ads ever helped you decide your vote?

 

The threat to free speech, in its core role within the political arena, from the proposed legislative response to Russian facebook ad buys is vastly greater than the threat that a foreign government will utter falsehoods on the internet. In other words, the cure will be far worse than the disease. Russian lies are not any more pernicious than all the other lies we necessarily tolerate as part of political campaigns.

 

Why would anyone place a facebook ad if it had no effect on a "purchase" decision? And if it had no value why did the Trump and Clinton campaigns spend $81million on facebook ads? And we haven't even gotten to the army of twitter bots the Russians created with fake identities made to appear to be midwesterners, used to spread links to fake news articles.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics...lection-including-many-controlled-by-russia/#

And we haven't gotten either to the hacked emails.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/ne...36836468/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

 

I don't know about that, but the "bigger problem" to me is the misinformation problem in general, and the bubbles that are created where folks are spoon-fed information that they want to hear. Where / how does one get objective information anymore? We are losing our grasp on truth.

 

Correct me if im wrong, but this is a soccer forum right?

 

Well, it was...

 

Ask the Quakes. I cannot go anywhere on the internet without a Quakes ad following me there. It has yet to influence my ticket-purchasing behavior.

 

A purchase decision is affected by a complex set of factors. Brand awareness / brand perception can have an effect. An ad like that may not affect you, but it may plant a small seed in someone's mind or create an awareness, and then when an opportunity arises, there is possibly just enough there to put them over the top. If there was no value in it, there would be no ad business on facebook, or no ad business in general.

Similarly, someone may be somewhat on the fence about the election, and an ad showing HRC to be the devil's choice and DJT God's choice may have an effect on them. And we're dealing with a very broad electorate. Some people are more gullible than others.

 

http://observer.com/2017/09/it-turns-out-canvassing-and-political-ads-have-zero-effect-on-voters/

 

This is the heart of your argument. YOU would never be influenced by a facebook ad or "twitter bot," but those dumb folks in flyover country ("midwesterners," in your description) sure could. I think that is unconscious bias on your part born from a coastal bubble.

 

As for online and TV advertising, they also estimate an effect of “zero,” though evidence is not as conclusive as fewer studies have been done.

Further, even at their 1 in 175 estimate for non-targeted traditional advertising, that is about .6%. DJT beat HRC in Pennsylvania by 2%. .6% is then well worth it, and we have not even gotten to online / targeted ads yet.

And we haven't even gotten to twitter bots and fake news, that even made their way into traditional media like Washington Post and Miami Herald.

And we haven't even gotten to hacked and released emails yet.

I feel comfortable in saying that some people are more gullible than others. I did not say who. You said that.

So the heart of your argument is, you would not be influenced, therefore no one would be influenced. A data sample of one.

 

No, my data sample so far is not one, but two -- both of us, unless you're saying you voted based on a facebook ad or twitter bot. Double the pleasure, double the fun.

And I defy you to find me anyone, anywhere, who admits to casting a vote based on a facebook ad or tweet.

Hence, until further notice, it's dos a cero.

 

Fallacy of the lonely fact. Example of one or two, out of 126 million.

Again, a purchase / vote decision is based on many factors. I refer back to my Quakes example. You or I would not be influenced by a Quakes facebook ad. But imagine someone who saw a Quakes ad on facebook, and it created a brief impression - oh yeah, haven't been to a Quakes game in a while - I heard they opened a new stadium. Few days later there is a message at their company - some Quakes tickets available for the big game this weekend. The ad and the impression was enough to put them over the top to get the tickets.

This is just one of countless ways that an ad might make an impression that could eventually affect a purchase / vote decision. If such were not the case there would be no advertising industry period. It is not enough to think in "direct" terms as in "I voted this way or that or I made this purchase decision because of this ad." It may be much more indirect and complex than that.

BTW in the twitter example, it is not the content of the tweet so much but the fact that the tweet linked to fake news. In the case of "Pizzagate", a fake news story born out of the content of a stolen Clinton campaign email grew into a conspiracy theory that was propagated by a number of conspiracy theorists, including Michael Flynn's son and Alex Jones, and actually led to someone going into the restaurant and firing a rifle.

 

May want to take your own advice. Quakes05 started the political sh*t and you got the ball rolling with your own statement right here:

In response to your statement, I would say that last I checked, we live in America. We are innocent until proven guilty. As a Sanders fan, I am beyond livid at what Brazile was spewing this whole week, but I am going to give the target parties a benefit of the doubt. You should too.

 

Doubt it. Full house against Loons the day we punched our way in. If anything this season I've been able to get folks to go with me, due to us constantly winning at home in a reasonably good-looking style.

All the numbers of this season has bared out that he does indeed deserve his DP level signing. And if he does the same next season, at the same rate of production, he would be playing beyond his DP level salary.

Vako does not even need to score 15 goals next season to justify his $1.5M/season. If he can do 12-13 goals and 6 assists, then the money is already well spent.

Please remind yourself: Vako is a low-salaried DP. He is making $1.5M a year, that's chump change when compared to other DPs, especially core DPs.

 

Better or not, it didn't get us to the playoffs. So I don't give a Fcuk.

During Dom's years, we did not get blown out, but we also did not make the playoffs.

Getting blown out but making the playoffs vs not getting blown out and missing the playoffs? You would have to be Fcuked up in the head to choose the latter option...

 

". . . It can certainly be menacing for Russian bots to disseminate divisive messaging on Twitter. But it’s at least equally menacing if journalists with the loudest claim to authoritative credibility are using that platform constantly to entrench falsehoods in the public’s mind."

https://theintercept.com/2017/11/05...witter-in-the-last-week-alone-that-are-false/

(And for the censors, this is a tangient about shoddy journalism, not politics. )

 

First sentence is true.

Second is generally true (I don't think a midseason firing was appropriate).

Third is wrong. I don't know the guy and will never meet him. Couldn't care less of what he might think of me personally.

fawn
(of a person) give a servile display of exaggerated flattery or affection, typically in order to gain favor or advantage.
"congressmen fawn over the President"
synonyms: be obsequious to, be sycophantic to, curry favor with, flatter, play up to, crawl to, ingratiate oneself with ....

 

“typically in order to...” meaning not necessarily part of the description. So yes, fawn is an appropriate word. Hello from a few weeks ago!

 

Read the synonyms.

 

Thank You!