collapse

* Recent Posts

Where is Marquette? by Badgerhater
[Today at 03:01:06 PM]


2024 Transfer Portal by lawdog77
[Today at 03:00:24 PM]


2024 NCAA Tournament Thread by tower912
[Today at 02:57:23 PM]


10 years after “Done Deal” … It’s Happening! by Uncle Rico
[Today at 02:48:12 PM]


Sweet 16 presser by tower912
[Today at 02:40:05 PM]


2024 Coaching Carousel by TAMU, Knower of Ball
[Today at 02:24:16 PM]


Dallas bars tonite by Jay Bee
[Today at 02:05:40 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!


Author Topic: Does Facebook (or other social media) deceive/influence individuals?  (Read 8775 times)

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
Re: Does Facebook (or other social media) deceive/influence individuals?
« Reply #50 on: February 17, 2018, 09:57:34 PM »
Heisy has either shifted the goal posts, or shifted the topic of conversation in this thread at least 3 times already.

Mutaman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 763
  • "Technically this is true."
Re: Does Facebook (or other social media) deceive/influence individuals?
« Reply #51 on: February 17, 2018, 10:13:25 PM »
Even the indictment yesterday went out of its way to say "no evidence" that it affected the outcome.



I skimmed through the 37 pages pretty quickly, but I don't see any allegation regarding the effect on the outcome. You also quote the words  "no evidence". Where does this quote come from? Which paragraph of the indictment are you referring to, maybe I missed it.

TSmith34, Inc.

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5083
Re: Does Facebook (or other social media) deceive/influence individuals?
« Reply #52 on: February 17, 2018, 10:19:07 PM »
I skimmed through the 37 pages pretty quickly, but I don't see any allegation regarding the effect on the outcome. You also quote the words  "no evidence". Where does this quote come from? Which paragraph of the indictment are you referring to, maybe I missed it.

Hannity perhaps?

From the WaPo:

"In his remarks to reporters, Rosenstein also specified that the indictment doesn't determine whether Russia's interference effort changed the results of the 2016 election. He said there was “no allegation in the indictment of any effect on the outcome of the election.”

Some Trump allies quickly got excited about that, thinking that it meant Russia didn't win the race for Trump. But that's not what Rosenstein said. He was merely saying that the indictment doesn't make a determination — just as  the intelligence community's report back in January 2017 made no determination. (Nor would we expect either the special counsel or the intelligence community to make such a determination, given that it's almost completely unknowable what impact Russian interference had.)"

If you think for one second that I am comparing the USA to China you have bumped your hard.

Mutaman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 763
  • "Technically this is true."
Re: Does Facebook (or other social media) deceive/influence individuals?
« Reply #53 on: February 17, 2018, 10:23:46 PM »
Hannity perhaps?

From the WaPo:

"In his remarks to reporters, Rosenstein also specified that the indictment doesn't determine whether Russia's interference effort changed the results of the 2016 election. He said there was “no allegation in the indictment of any effect on the outcome of the election.”

Some Trump allies quickly got excited about that, thinking that it meant Russia didn't win the race for Trump. But that's not what Rosenstein said. He was merely saying that the indictment doesn't make a determination — just as  the intelligence community's report back in January 2017 made no determination. (Nor would we expect either the special counsel or the intelligence community to make such a determination, given that it's almost completely unknowable what impact Russian interference had.)"

Neither Tugg nor I were referring to what Rosenstein or anybody else  said, we were both referring to the document itself. And the document speaks for itself.  :)

Tugg Speedman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8836
Re: Does Facebook (or other social media) deceive/influence individuals?
« Reply #54 on: February 18, 2018, 05:00:14 AM »
Goalpost shift, again.  You keep arguing that the attempt to influence wasn't successful.  Why does it matter whether or not it was successful?

Because Posting mean thoughts about Hillary on Facebook is not a crime and did not sway the outcome of the election.  The crime was identity theft.  Everything else is the fantasy of unstable people wanting a different outcome to the election.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2018, 05:05:36 AM by Tugg Speedman »

Tugg Speedman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8836
Re: Does Facebook (or other social media) deceive/influence individuals?
« Reply #55 on: February 18, 2018, 05:16:03 AM »
I skimmed through the 37 pages pretty quickly, but I don't see any allegation regarding the effect on the outcome. You also quote the words  "no evidence". Where does this quote come from? Which paragraph of the indictment are you referring to, maybe I missed it.

Go back and read Pukuni’s posts, the one where he said the foreigners broke campaign contributions laws. Where was that in the 37 pages? 

This is a Rorschach Test, everyone sees in this what they want, not actually what is there.  So, this thread has nothing to do with the case and everything to do with posters showing their personal illnesses to everyone.


« Last Edit: February 18, 2018, 06:43:56 AM by Tugg Speedman »

Tugg Speedman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8836
Re: Does Facebook (or other social media) deceive/influence individuals?
« Reply #56 on: February 18, 2018, 05:40:12 AM »
When is Hillary going to jail? She paid her hatchman David Brock to do the same thing.  Oh wait, Brock did not steal anyone’s identity.... because that is the only crime announced on Friday.


April 25, 2016
The New York Daily News
Hillary Clinton camp now paying online trolls to attack anyone who disparages her online
https://archive.fo/wn6Lg

As head of the Correct The Record Super PAC for Hillary Clinton, David Brock has launched something called Barrier Breakers — an online mob of paid trolls designed to attack any and every person who says one cross word about Hillary Clinton on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Reddit, or elsewhere.

This isn't a conspiracy theory. They openly spin their strategy on the Correct The Record website and state that they are putting over $1 million behind their efforts.
As you likely know, Super PACs are allowed to raise and spend unlimited money on these types of efforts.

What's ugly is that we have no idea who these paid operatives are online. According to Correct The Record, many will be former reporters, PR executives, bloggers, and others. We have no idea if they truly say what they mean or mean what they say. Are they even using their actual identities? The Sanders campaign openly stated that they have never paid for any online comments.


The Los Angeles Times
Be nice to Hillary Clinton online — or risk a confrontation with her super PAC
https://archive.fo/ZagLg

When the Internet’s legions of Hillary hecklers steal away to chat rooms and Facebook pages to vent grievances about Clinton, express revulsion toward Clinton and launch attacks on Clinton, they now may find themselves in a surprising place – confronted by a multimillion dollar super PAC working with Clinton.

Hillary Clinton's well-heeled backers have opened a new frontier in digital campaigning, one that seems to have been inspired by some of the Internet's worst instincts. Correct the Record, a super PAC coordinating with Clinton's campaign, is spending some $1 million to find and confront  social media users who post unflattering messages about the Democratic front-runner.


The New York Times
September 22, 2016
Inside Hillary Clinton’s Outrage Machine, Allies Push the Buttons
https://archive.fo/f1D76

Beyond creating a boisterous echo chamber, the real metric of success for Shareblue, which Mr. Brock said has a budget of $2 million supplied by his political donors, is getting Mrs. Clinton elected. Mr. Daou’s role is deploying a band of committed, outraged followers to harangue Mrs. Clinton’s opponents.

“The pond scum of American politics,” is how Tad Devine, a senior strategist to Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, described the website in March for its frequent attacks on Mr. Sanders.

TSmith34, Inc.

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5083
Re: Does Facebook (or other social media) deceive/influence individuals?
« Reply #57 on: February 18, 2018, 09:25:03 AM »
Because Posting mean thoughts about Hillary on Facebook is not a crime and did not sway the outcome of the election.  The crime was identity theft.  Everything else is the fantasy of unstable people wanting a different outcome to the election.
Sigh.  I don't know if you are intentionally/pretending to not understand or are just dense, but I'll try to break it down for you:

1) The indictments on Friday had nothing to do with "posting mean thoughts" on Facebook.  I know that, you know that, everyone knows that, yet you keep trying to pretend this shows there was no crime.  You admit the indictments were for breaking other laws; ranting that posts on Facebook aren't crimes, while technically true, has no bearing on the indictments.

2) You then stated that colluding with Russia to run a troll farm is not a crime.  Pakuni pointed out that accepting material aid from a foreign country is a crime.  You claimed there was no such law.  Both Pakuni and I linked to the specific statutes.  So you shifted your argument to say those laws didn't apply to the indictments on Friday.  Well no sh!t Sherlock, that's why they weren't in the indictment.  But presuming your understood that (and I suspect you do, you were simply trying to change the argument), the statute linked show what Americans can be indicted for.

3) So then it was time to change your argument again, and say it doesn't matter because the Russian attempts to sway the election weren't effective-- a statement our intelligence agencies have NOT made.  But, as I've tried to explain to you repeatedly, whether it was effective or not has no bearing on whether a crime was committed.  If it did, there would be no charges for attempted murder or attempted robbery.

4) Then you claimed we were "inventing laws".  As if we didn't link you directly to the statutes.

5) Then you claimed that Friday's indictments specifically said there was no evidence the Russia influence campaign altered the outcome of the election.  Setting aside the fact that it doesn't matter if it was successful or not, you were shown the document doesn't say that.  And instead of acknowledging that you were dead wrong, you implied Pakuni claimed the indictment talked about campaign finance laws.  Which of course he didn't.

6) And then you finished off with your usual hysterical spittle-flecked claim that anyone that disagrees with you is mentally ill.

In summary, you can't say that the indictments weren't for lying on Facebook (true), ask what crimes were committed re Russian troll farms, and when told the answer claim that it is wrong because they weren't in the indictments. Also, you can't claim there is no crime if it wasn't successful.  Well, you can claim this, but with your usual accuracy.
If you think for one second that I am comparing the USA to China you have bumped your hard.

jesmu84

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6029
Re: Does Facebook (or other social media) deceive/influence individuals?
« Reply #58 on: February 18, 2018, 09:29:54 AM »
Sigh.  I don't know if you are intentionally/pretending to not understand or are just dense, but I'll try to break it down for you:

1) The indictments on Friday had nothing to do with "posting mean thoughts" on Facebook.  I know that, you know that, everyone knows that, yet you keep trying to pretend this shows there was no crime.  You admit the indictments were for breaking other laws; ranting that posts on Facebook aren't crimes, while technically true, has no bearing on the indictments.

2) You then stated that colluding with Russia to run a troll farm is not a crime.  Pakuni pointed out that accepting material aid from a foreign country is a crime.  You claimed there was no such law.  Both Pakuni and I linked to the specific statutes.  So you shifted your argument to say those laws didn't apply to the indictments on Friday.  Well no sh!t Sherlock, that's why they weren't in the indictment.  But presuming your understood that (and I suspect you do, you were simply trying to change the argument), the statute linked show what Americans can be indicted for.

3) So then it was time to change your argument again, and say it doesn't matter because the Russian attempts to sway the election weren't effective-- a statement our intelligence agencies have NOT made.  But, as I've tried to explain to you repeatedly, whether it was effective or not has no bearing on whether a crime was committed.  If it did, there would be no charges for attempted murder or attempted robbery.

4) Then you claimed we were "inventing laws".  As if we didn't link you directly to the statutes.

5) Then you claimed that Friday's indictments specifically said there was no evidence the Russia influence campaign altered the outcome of the election.  Setting aside the fact that it doesn't matter if it was successful or not, you were shown the document doesn't say that.  And instead of acknowledging that you were dead wrong, you implied Pakuni claimed the indictment talked about campaign finance laws.  Which of course he didn't.

6) And then you finished off with your usual hysterical spittle-flecked claim that anyone that disagrees with you is mentally ill.

In summary, you can't say that the indictments weren't for lying on Facebook (true), ask what crimes were committed re Russian troll farms, and when told the answer claim that it is wrong because they weren't in the indictments. Also, you can't claim there is no crime if it wasn't successful.  Well, you can claim this, but with your usual accuracy.

Yup. He seems to be stuck on calling people mentally unstable. And unable to deal with the pure facts of the situation, instead saying everyone is just upset about the election outcome.

If I try to rob a bank and get caught, I still committed a crime, even though my act was not effective. Same for literally every law in existence.

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: Does Facebook (or other social media) deceive/influence individuals?
« Reply #59 on: February 18, 2018, 09:33:47 AM »
Sigh.  I don't know if you are intentionally/pretending to not understand or are just dense, but I'll try to break it down for you:

1) The indictments on Friday had nothing to do with "posting mean thoughts" on Facebook.  I know that, you know that, everyone knows that, yet you keep trying to pretend this shows there was no crime.  You admit the indictments were for breaking other laws; ranting that posts on Facebook aren't crimes, while technically true, has no bearing on the indictments.

2) You then stated that colluding with Russia to run a troll farm is not a crime.  Pakuni pointed out that accepting material aid from a foreign country is a crime.  You claimed there was no such law.  Both Pakuni and I linked to the specific statutes.  So you shifted your argument to say those laws didn't apply to the indictments on Friday.  Well no sh!t Sherlock, that's why they weren't in the indictment.  But presuming your understood that (and I suspect you do, you were simply trying to change the argument), the statute linked show what Americans can be indicted for.

3) So then it was time to change your argument again, and say it doesn't matter because the Russian attempts to sway the election weren't effective-- a statement our intelligence agencies have NOT made.  But, as I've tried to explain to you repeatedly, whether it was effective or not has no bearing on whether a crime was committed.  If it did, there would be no charges for attempted murder or attempted robbery.

4) Then you claimed we were "inventing laws".  As if we didn't link you directly to the statutes.

5) Then you claimed that Friday's indictments specifically said there was no evidence the Russia influence campaign altered the outcome of the election.  Setting aside the fact that it doesn't matter if it was successful or not, you were shown the document doesn't say that.  And instead of acknowledging that you were dead wrong, you implied Pakuni claimed the indictment talked about campaign finance laws.  Which of course he didn't.

6) And then you finished off with your usual hysterical spittle-flecked claim that anyone that disagrees with you is mentally ill.

In summary, you can't say that the indictments weren't for lying on Facebook (true), ask what crimes were committed re Russian troll farms, and when told the answer claim that it is wrong because they weren't in the indictments. Also, you can't claim there is no crime if it wasn't successful.  Well, you can claim this, but with your usual accuracy.


I enjoyed reading this.

Mutaman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 763
  • "Technically this is true."
Re: Does Facebook (or other social media) deceive/influence individuals?
« Reply #60 on: February 18, 2018, 09:43:09 AM »
Go back and read Pukuni’s posts, the one where he said the foreigners broke campaign contributions laws. Where was that in the 37 pages? 

This is a Rorschach Test, everyone sees in this what they want, not actually what is there.  So, this thread has nothing to do with the case and everything to do with posters showing their personal illnesses to everyone.

I don't read Pukuni's posts , i read yours. I repeat, what  paragraph of the Indictment alleges an effect on the outcome, and what paragraph contains the quote ""no evidence".

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9875
Re: Does Facebook (or other social media) deceive/influence individuals?
« Reply #61 on: February 18, 2018, 09:50:38 AM »
Go back and read Pukuni’s posts, the one where he said the foreigners broke campaign contributions laws. Where was that in the 37 pages? 

1. Went back and read my posts. Never said that once.
2. You continue to show your utter ignorance of the legal process. Remember the old saying about how it's sometimes better to remain silent? You'd do well to follow that advice here.

TSmith34, Inc.

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5083
Re: Does Facebook (or other social media) deceive/influence individuals?
« Reply #62 on: February 18, 2018, 01:28:16 PM »
To circle back to jesmu's original question, "does social media influence individuals", IMO that answer is clearly yes.

Does advertising influence peoples' opinions, attitudes, purchases, etc.?  Or course it does...unless you believe that companies have wasted all their money on advertising campaigns throughout the entire history of commerce.  If advertising didn't result in changed consumer behavior companies would stop doing it.

Russia was engaged in the same process, an attempt to sway opinions, attitudes, and behavior.  It is extremely difficult to know to what degree they were successful, and our intelligence agencies have not offered an opinion as to whether the results actually changed the election outcome.  But we know they used extremely accurate and sophisticated targeting* in positioning their messaging, and because of the vote margins in key states--0.8% in Wisconsin, 0.2% Michigan, 0.7% In Pennsylvania--even a tiny effect would have been enough to flip the states.

* Speculation on my part, but I believe Cambridge Analytica feed them the information with help from Jared.
If you think for one second that I am comparing the USA to China you have bumped your hard.

GooooMarquette

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9489
  • We got this.
Re: Does Facebook (or other social media) deceive/influence individuals?
« Reply #63 on: February 18, 2018, 01:43:43 PM »
Sigh.  I don't know if you are intentionally/pretending to not understand or are just dense, but I'll try to break it down for you:

1) The indictments on Friday had nothing to do with "posting mean thoughts" on Facebook.  I know that, you know that, everyone knows that, yet you keep trying to pretend this shows there was no crime.  You admit the indictments were for breaking other laws; ranting that posts on Facebook aren't crimes, while technically true, has no bearing on the indictments.

2) You then stated that colluding with Russia to run a troll farm is not a crime.  Pakuni pointed out that accepting material aid from a foreign country is a crime.  You claimed there was no such law.  Both Pakuni and I linked to the specific statutes.  So you shifted your argument to say those laws didn't apply to the indictments on Friday.  Well no sh!t Sherlock, that's why they weren't in the indictment.  But presuming your understood that (and I suspect you do, you were simply trying to change the argument), the statute linked show what Americans can be indicted for.

3) So then it was time to change your argument again, and say it doesn't matter because the Russian attempts to sway the election weren't effective-- a statement our intelligence agencies have NOT made.  But, as I've tried to explain to you repeatedly, whether it was effective or not has no bearing on whether a crime was committed.  If it did, there would be no charges for attempted murder or attempted robbery.

4) Then you claimed we were "inventing laws".  As if we didn't link you directly to the statutes.

5) Then you claimed that Friday's indictments specifically said there was no evidence the Russia influence campaign altered the outcome of the election.  Setting aside the fact that it doesn't matter if it was successful or not, you were shown the document doesn't say that.  And instead of acknowledging that you were dead wrong, you implied Pakuni claimed the indictment talked about campaign finance laws.  Which of course he didn't.

6) And then you finished off with your usual hysterical spittle-flecked claim that anyone that disagrees with you is mentally ill.

In summary, you can't say that the indictments weren't for lying on Facebook (true), ask what crimes were committed re Russian troll farms, and when told the answer claim that it is wrong because they weren't in the indictments. Also, you can't claim there is no crime if it wasn't successful.  Well, you can claim this, but with your usual accuracy.

I doff my cap to you, sir!  Eloquent, succinct, and spot on.

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
Re: Does Facebook (or other social media) deceive/influence individuals?
« Reply #64 on: February 18, 2018, 02:36:54 PM »
Sigh.  I don't know if you are intentionally/pretending to not understand or are just dense, but I'll try to break it down for you:

1) The indictments on Friday had nothing to do with "posting mean thoughts" on Facebook.  I know that, you know that, everyone knows that, yet you keep trying to pretend this shows there was no crime.  You admit the indictments were for breaking other laws; ranting that posts on Facebook aren't crimes, while technically true, has no bearing on the indictments.

2) You then stated that colluding with Russia to run a troll farm is not a crime.  Pakuni pointed out that accepting material aid from a foreign country is a crime.  You claimed there was no such law.  Both Pakuni and I linked to the specific statutes.  So you shifted your argument to say those laws didn't apply to the indictments on Friday.  Well no sh!t Sherlock, that's why they weren't in the indictment.  But presuming your understood that (and I suspect you do, you were simply trying to change the argument), the statute linked show what Americans can be indicted for.

3) So then it was time to change your argument again, and say it doesn't matter because the Russian attempts to sway the election weren't effective-- a statement our intelligence agencies have NOT made.  But, as I've tried to explain to you repeatedly, whether it was effective or not has no bearing on whether a crime was committed.  If it did, there would be no charges for attempted murder or attempted robbery.

4) Then you claimed we were "inventing laws".  As if we didn't link you directly to the statutes.

5) Then you claimed that Friday's indictments specifically said there was no evidence the Russia influence campaign altered the outcome of the election.  Setting aside the fact that it doesn't matter if it was successful or not, you were shown the document doesn't say that.  And instead of acknowledging that you were dead wrong, you implied Pakuni claimed the indictment talked about campaign finance laws.  Which of course he didn't.

6) And then you finished off with your usual hysterical spittle-flecked claim that anyone that disagrees with you is mentally ill.

In summary, you can't say that the indictments weren't for lying on Facebook (true), ask what crimes were committed re Russian troll farms, and when told the answer claim that it is wrong because they weren't in the indictments. Also, you can't claim there is no crime if it wasn't successful.  Well, you can claim this, but with your usual accuracy.

Perfect recap of pretty much every Smuggles argument ever, and certainly this one. Well done, sir!

I also have noticed that his latest default action is to call anybody who disagrees with him mentally unstable. Pot, meet kettle!
“It’s not how white men fight.” - Tucker Carlson

Tugg Speedman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8836
Re: Does Facebook (or other social media) deceive/influence individuals?
« Reply #65 on: February 19, 2018, 07:50:24 AM »
To circle back to jesmu's original question, "does social media influence individuals", IMO that answer is clearly yes.

Does advertising influence peoples' opinions, attitudes, purchases, etc.?  Or course it does...unless you believe that companies have wasted all their money on advertising campaigns throughout the entire history of commerce.  If advertising didn't result in changed consumer behavior companies would stop doing it.

Russia was engaged in the same process, an attempt to sway opinions, attitudes, and behavior.  It is extremely difficult to know to what degree they were successful, and our intelligence agencies have not offered an opinion as to whether the results actually changed the election outcome.  But we know they used extremely accurate and sophisticated targeting* in positioning their messaging, and because of the vote margins in key states--0.8% in Wisconsin, 0.2% Michigan, 0.7% In Pennsylvania--even a tiny effect would have been enough to flip the states.

* Speculation on my part, but I believe Cambridge Analytica feed them the information with help from Jared.

Advertising and social media is just a confirmation bias.

Extreme examples ... if Alex Jones never existed, how many of them would have voted for Hillary?  If moveon.org never existed, how many of them would have voted for Trump.  Point is all they are doing is feeding people predisposed to what they want to hear.  This is the big criticism of social media, it silos people off from other opinions outside their belief system.  It does not “advertise“ people into a “foreign” belief system.

It is not extremely difficult to know if it affected the outcome.  Obama said it did not, the FBI said it did not (and again made that point in last week’s indictment) and homeland security said it did not.  Your inability to accept this reflects on your biases.  This is part of your confirmation bias of what you already believe, and no amount of Russian Facebook posts is going to change your mind.

What information did you think Cambridge Analytica fed Jared?  And how does engaging a data mining company to provide information break the law?  How is it different from the post above with the 2016 stories noting David Brock was bragging he was doing the exact same thing for Hillary?

Regarding WI, MI and PA ... you really believe some Facebook posts turned those states?  How about these factoids, they did not matter?

* Hillary did not campaign once in WI during the general election

* primary polling began in 1976.  The biggest “miss” ever recorded was Hillary losing to Bernie in the Michigan primaries.  All the polls had her up 22% to 25% and she lost.  Did the Wizards in the Hillary campaign see that as a problem and send her to Michigan 25 Times in the general.  The answer is no.

* the Saturday before the election Hillary held a rally in Philly that was well attended and covered extensively in PA.  It featured black lives mattered disparaging the police and Katy Perry singing “I kissed a girl” and going out of her way saying how great Hillary would be for the LBGTQ community.  Make the case for me this was a good idea.  How do you think this “motivated” the 50+% of the state that is White Christian?  Where they too busy reading Russian Facebook posts to notice?

Finally go see what Michael Moore said before the election. He not only got it right, but was right for the right reasons. (Scott Adams, the Dilbert creator, was also right on the election for the right reasons).

https://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/

So yes anyone, like you, truly believing a bunch of Russian Facebook posts turned the election, despite David Brock doing exactly the same for Hillary, is mentally unbalanced.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2018, 08:16:37 AM by Tugg Speedman »

Tugg Speedman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8836
Re: Does Facebook (or other social media) deceive/influence individuals?
« Reply #66 on: February 19, 2018, 08:12:02 AM »
If I try to rob a bank and get caught, I still committed a crime, even though my act was not effective. Same for literally every law in existence.

The problem with your analogy is bank robbery is illegal, Russian posts on Facebook is legal.

Better analogy... you were walking down the street and found a bag of money.  Instead of turning it in, you kept it?  Is what you done illegal?  No? Does it reflect badly on you?  Probably?

So once the police found out you had the bag of money, they arrested you on identity theft charges.

TSmith represents you in court and argues Cambridge Analytica put the bag of money on the street, they should be arrested even though putting a bag of money on the street is not illegal. Pakuni testifies on your defense that a bunch of Russian Facebook posts told you where to find it.  Arrest them.

So you demand the Mayor of the town be removed and replaced with Hillary.

mu_hilltopper

  • Warrior
  • Global Moderator
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 7403
    • https://twitter.com/nihilist_arbys
Re: Does Facebook (or other social media) deceive/influence individuals?
« Reply #67 on: February 19, 2018, 08:32:17 AM »
Liberalism, and voting/supporting the current make up of the Democratic Party is not an ideology, it is a mental disease.

Keep taking your Zoloft.

This is why we can't have nice things.

 

feedback