Still not But yeah it is interesting in terms of the lies they todl Man - it is funny though that it took 18 months for this obvious bullshit to get torn down.
This remains the biggest bullshit of all. "Micro targeting" - i.e. paid advertising - is exactly the same as what Hildawg was doing and every other consumer advertiser. The reason they went to selling 80k per day or getting 74m views is because they paid for them. e.g. 74m views for 10-15m dollars would make total sense in terms of their overall spending. Big deal. If we check, I am sure we will find hildawg also has millions of viewers at a very similar cost per view. As for the human billboards and generating revenue - this is what all campaigns do. Spend $1 to raise > $1 Obama was massive on that. Except now we have the proof that CA was really the data op. As usual key vendors provided media buys. Big yawn.
It's about people casting around for an explanation. Here's a simple one: there were two unappealing candidates from the major parties, and one of them narrowly won. Those who believe the winner was the only terrible candidate have to either re-examine that assumption or find an alternate hypothesis.
At the very least, try to understand why many people thought Hillary was a terrible candidate and then pick a candidate who is Not Those Things
I admit, I'm in a bit of a bubble, but I don't know anybody who thought Clinton was a good candidate. She was better than 45, better than B Sanders, and the most qualified of all the candidates...since Bush 41 (maybe Kerry), but she also had a hell of a lot of baggage and had lots of problems both as a candidate and as a democrat. Remove her from the 2016 election cycle group of candidates, and she is not very good.
Candidate no, she was definitely not a good candidate, but I think she would have been a good President (perhaps not great, but good). I think that if we had a Parliamentary system, H Clinton could have been PM, I mean if Teresa May can do it, why not Clinton.
Good? I think she would have been above average, but she is far too much a technocrat and not really dynamic enough to enact that really changing legislation. Diploma wise, she would have been quite good, that is certain.
@American Brummie might be able to translate this study on the impact of Twitter bots. http://www.nber.org/papers/w24631
The outcome is horrifying. Within two hours, all of Twitter receives a packet of information (news, gossip, etc). ALL. OF. IT.
A few months ago, you were claiming that we shouldn't panic and that this kind of thing can be fixed at the ballot box. We're WAY beyond that.
It's a bit more nuanced than that. It means that people who buy into fake news are still receiving real news. It means that Earth 2.0 people get Earth 1.0 information. They're choosing to ignore it, rather than selectively filter it out entirely. That's the horrifying part. The good news is that the Earth 1.0 people see Earth 2.0 stuff and reject it.
Isn't that the something? Both groups see eachothers news but reject the news that does not conform with their preconceived ideas.
It may be a temporary thing that could change with a change in the media environment, but at this moment, it ain't a both sides thing. One side is vastly more misinformed.
Sure but the story about the Russian Bots is that they did target some lefty groups, like black live matters with fake stories, studies that I have seem (I think you posted some) do indicate that conservatives are more likely to believe in those fake stories, but liberals or lefties are not immune to them.
I'm not sure if they were bots or not, but Facebook was used extensively specifically to pit left and the right against each other.