Slashdot Mirror
Your Political Facebook Posts Aren't Changing How Your Friends Think (qz.com)
An anonymous reader writes:It may be hard to resist airing political grievances or appealing to voters on social media during a U.S. presidential race as heated as this one. But no one wants to hear about your politics, least of all on Facebook. Those long rants about how Trump is a bully and a buffoon, Hillary is a crook, and conspiring against Bernie Sanders has doomed America forever aren't changing voters' minds, a new study found. A staggering 94% of Republicans, 92% of Democrats, and 85% of independents on Facebook say they have never been swayed by a political post, according to Rantic, a firm that sells social media followers. The firm surveyed 10,000 Facebook users who self-identified as Republicans, Democrats, or independents. The only thing those opinionated election posts are doing is damaging your friendships. Nearly one-third of Facebook users surveyed said social media is not an appropriate forum for political discussions. And respondents from each political affiliation admitted they've un-friended people on Facebook because of their political posts.
But they are changing how your friends think ABOUT YOU!
All the more opportunity to serve you advertisements you also don't want to see.
Republicans won't listen to science, you think Facebook posts are going to make a difference?
I submit to you that the vast majority of the many millions that the parties spend during the campaign is wasted money. Rallies are attended mostly by the faithful, who want to worship their heroes - but essentially no one is going to be converted by attending a rally. Ditto for ads - they make those already convinced feel good, but that is all.
Your Political Facebook Posts Aren't Changing How Your Friends Think
This study is just a rip-off of earlier research into human psychology--specifically, of all previous research into human psychology--which has proven pretty conclusively that nothing anyone says has ever changed anyone's mind about anything ever.
>>>A staggering 94% of Republicans, 92% of Democrats, and 85% of independents on Facebook say they have never been swayed by a political post
I think it is appropriate to state that majority of people are never swayed by an argument coming from out-group. That is, trying to reason with people that made up their mind is highly ineffective in all circumstances.
... that's different. My posts change everyone's mind. -A.C.
Those politispam posts don't change my opinion on the nature of the politicians, but they do change my mind about the intellect of my Facebook associates,
They're looking at the wrong number by using the 94%.
If 6%, 8%, and 15% of people are swayed, and the vote is nearly 50/50, then these posts are in fact potentially effective...
Nearly one-third of Facebook users surveyed said social media is not an appropriate forum for political discussions.
Then where is the appropriate forum? Seriously, what does this third of users think it's for?
And by the way ...
... a firm that sells social media followers
That makes me sad.
Nope, no sig
I don't say anything political on Facebook because as the study says, whose mind would it change? In the end it's only virtue signaling at best, semi-trolling at worst. And there's the potential of friends I like going cold because they can't handle different political views (even though that's a flaw in people it's the kind of flaw I forgive friends for, even if a little sad).
That doesn't stop everyone ELSE on Facebook ramping up political expressions though, which is why I've pretty much stopped reading Facebook (and Twitter) until after November.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Go ahead and criticize the hell out of Trump. Any friend who supports him isn't worth keeping anyway.
Negative advertising (and ranting in general) reduces a person's motivation to vote for their candidate. They won't change their mind and vote for the other person, but they might stay home on election day.
Can darn sure change peoples opinions. Saying you hate Hillary because "insert subjective drivel" won't change anyone's minds. Posting the damning email evidence that she is lying crook will change the minds of any sensible people. The problem is how little your vote really matters and how you're forced into a two party competition rather than a real candidate competition.
In other words, 6% - 15% of the people reading have a chance of being swayed. I think this result will only encourage people who want to get their side elected to continue to rant.
In debates about Christianity, there are two groups: those looking for answers, and those looking to just ask questions.
"a firm that sells social media followers" is that a group we can trust to do actual surveys with proper questioning? Or to have even done a survey? What followers do they sell? Or is "selling followers" an euphemism for "we make them up" and if so, are the made up followers the ones surveyed?
It's true - In 2008 I changed a person's stance on the Israel/Palestine conflict after a reasoned discussion, in-person.
Most political "discussions," including Facebook posts, don't change minds because they are rhetorically weak. Indeed, it isn't hard to conclude that most of them have no persuasive rhetorical content. Authors of such posts are venting their opinions, or preaching to the choir, in total absence of actual dialogue.
Now, if one was able to restrict the study to conversations containing even attempted persuasive rhetoric, I doubt the majority of them would be effective. But it would be more than reported in TFA.
.:Semper Absurda:.
Believe it or not, politics (as well as religion) is largely an emotional topic. It's hard to sway emotion with logic, least with an FB post.
Those incessant political Facebook posts have certainly changed the way I think.
First, they have changed my opinion of many of my Facebook friends due to their endless attempts to shove political arguments (of all persuasions) in my face (thank God for the "unfollow" button).
Second, they have changed my opinion of Facebook and social media as a whole. Social media continues to devolve into more yelling, screaming, threats, trolling, guilt by association, and mob justice. And what makes it bad for Facebook is that the harder they try to "fix" things, the worse it becomes.
I learned long ago to be extremely careful about discussing politics or religion, especially with friends. I sincerely wish more people would take that lesson to heart.
That's not quite a fair assessment of their stance. In general they believe that the profit motive applies to scientists as well as business-persons such that scientists will bias their results to get more money just like any salesperson would. You could argue they are projecting their own greed into scientists, but they can claim that human nature is human nature, and most humans are naturally greedy (which is the basis of capitalism's feedback mechanism).
You can argue specific climate facts, but they can always find a scientist (or a shill acting like a scientist) to poke holes in such facts.
It's true that the Earth is a complex system with lots of "moving parts" such that its climate is the aggregate result of jillions of factors.
You could point out that in most models, more CO2 warms the earth, and we know the CO2 increase is largely man-made due to the isotope signature.
But they may reply that not all models show CO2 warming the Earth and/or the temperature readings are rigged by those "greedy scientists" I mentioned above such that there is no excessive warming beyond the normal natural ebb and flow.
How does one prove scientists didn't rig temperature readings? There were no cameras following them 24/7. Ultimately it relies on trust, and if they believe scientists don't deserve our trust, there's not much one can do.
Unfortunately we may have to wait until their tushies bake off or their houses are under the sea until they get a clue. Reality is merely poking them right now, but they'll only notice it when it kicks them in the nuts/cunt.
Table-ized A.I.
I'm a Gary Johnson supporter, but I have a few friends that are always posting smoking gun posts from fringe conservative sites that claim "Hillary's going to be indicted any day now!" or "Hillary's campaign is over when this gets out!" I keep telling them these are just clickbait links and don't offer any substance.
They're in La-La Land if they think they're going to change anyone's mind. Hillary Clinton's supporters know she's a corrupt liar, but they don't care, just like everyone knows Trump is a crass, narcissistic bully, and his supporters don't care.
By the way, is it getting any more obvious to anyone that Trump is a Hillary plant? Every day he's shooting his mouth off with some preposterous remark, making his campaign tank. No serious candidate would act the way he does. Sure, it worked great in the primaries to bring out the Redneck/Juggalo/Tea Party vote, but that's a small minority of the electorate. The whole thing has the feeling of a setup.
If Johnson and/or Stein don't get into the presidential debates, this is going to be the most lopsided election Since Reagan/Mondale in 1984.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Regardless of political affiliation and dislike, I think the blurb is in the wrong when claiming that political posts will only harm your friendships. I think it's more right to say that it will help expose unworkable friendships.
If anyone really have faith in [insert extremist party or politician], I truly want to know about it, because that's people I cannot trust. Whether they're stupid or evil, they're not friendship material.
You can't even post some things if they don't fit the ideology of the times. Just look at Germany.
"94% of Republicans, 92% of Democrats, and 85% of independents on Facebook"
THINK that they have never been swayed. They are wrong. Maybe no individual post has ever swayed them; however, multiple people posting opinions almost certainly has. There's a reason why WWII Germany, modern day Russia, and political parties worldwide put out propaganda. IT WORKS.
Look at all the politicians who were against LGBT rights 10 years ago compared to now. Someone has changed their mind. It is the gradual acceptance of people and the political zeitgeist. People preaching acceptance have made a difference on their audience. A single post may not change anyone's mind. Dozens of people expressing an opinion might change someone's mind without them even knowing it.
Sure, some things may never change. Trump's die hard supporters are never going to give him up- and Hillary's won't either; however, chances are at some point in our lives EVERYONE has changed their opinion on something- and it might have been the opinion of another that changed our opinion but we just didn't realize it.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
It's hard to imagine the Bernie Sanders campaign growing like it did, without people posting on Facebook about him and his ideas.
#1 point of exposure for me -- was seeing things my friends posted on FB.
Incidentally have you tried Cuke? It's like heaven in a can!
#DeleteChrome
Of course they don't change most peoples opinions. I live in Ohio and the Olympics are inundated with Hillary ads. They will not change my mind one iota.
That being said, I did change my mind about someone because of a response he gave. Cam Newton said recently that the reason people don't like him is NOT about racism. He went way up in my mind. I didn't particularly care for his celebrations (or anyone else's showboat celebrations for that matter - over the top celebrations generally lower my opinion of someone). But he is correct in that it had nothing to do with his race. For him to come out and say such a non-PC thing made him go up in my estimation.
Well, fuck you then! Your opinion is wrong and you suck!
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
>>>> A staggering 94% of Republicans, 92% of Democrats, and 85% of independents on Facebook say they have never been swayed by a political post But in a close run race, that 6 or 8% can make all the difference.
My UID is prime!
People don't even let FACTS change their political opinion. Why should random rants they call "friends" only cause facebook doesn't offer "moron" as a status work?
bickerdyke
Just like how all these I LUV HILLARY and TRUMP 4 LYFE posts aren't making me change my mind that the two of them are complete fuckwits, I assume that the people voting for them are too stupid to realize that they are fanboying for complete fuckwits.
Most of my friends follow the same political path I do. Facebook is generally not about changing minds but about things people talk about as friends at a bar or a group breakfast. The old guys solving problems at breakfast, or the blue collar guys after work. It's clear liberals stick with liberals and conservatives stick with conservatives. Same as people get news from liberal sources or conservative ones. Facebook at least follows a social pattern of people finding others who have similar beliefs, ideology and interests. News media though is terribly biased these days, with very little journalistic reporting and unbiased stories. They generally don't even try to cover up their bias anymore and frankly it's a disservice to the public who don't get news but rather opinionated biased stories from one perspective.
It's why voters make poor choices because most lack any ability to base their vote on reliable information on the candidates. Facebook doesn't help this, but again it's become such a tainted form of a news source that really is just more rumor and hearsay.
Wait, you're saying a staggering 6% of Rs, 8% of Ds, and 15% of Is have been swayed at least once? I'd call that amazingly effective.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
"A staggering 94% of Republicans, 92% of Democrats, and 85% of independents" In a system where single digit percentages are the difference between success and failure I would say this is more of an endorsement of political speech on FB than a discouragement.
"All those moments, will be lost in time...like tears in rain..."
I like to get in a good discussion, but I would be daft if I thought everything I have ever written on the internet would change how people think.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Your Political Facebook Posts Aren't Changing How Your Friends Think
This study is just a rip-off of earlier research into human psychology--specifically, of all previous research into human psychology--which has proven pretty conclusively that nothing anyone says has ever changed anyone's mind about anything ever.
That's certainly true in the studies, and of course the scientists couldn't think of any other avenue to research so it must be true.
OTOH, listening to Brian Tracy's "The Psychology of Selling" gave me the chills because, listening to him explain the methods, I got the distinct feeling that these methods would work on me *and* I can recall many times when they were used on me.
The audio is downright scary at times, but I highly recommend it simply because it'll help you put your guard up against some of the techniques.
He points out, quite correctly, that you can't get someone to change their mind without first pulling them out of heuristic mode and into systemic mode. The easiest way to do this is to ask a question, but there are other methods.
Then you need to phrase the concept in a way that's important to the listener. You don't come in to an office and say "our copiers make xxx copies per minute, and are very reliable", you say "our copiers can save you $2000 per month in expenses, would you like to know how?". The $2000 is something the listener is interested in, and the question pops them into systemic mode. It's how you start a successful sales call.
Most political screeds don't do this - they just state the position, and mostly it's not very convincing to begin with. Donald Trump has been called every bad name in the book, but I don't see how any of that would be persuasive or even make him a bad president. Donald Trump is behind in the polls *if the election were held today*, that's not persuasive *and* I don't even see the point of posting something like that.
So if I wanted to convince people to vote for Trump, I might point out that amnesty for 14 million illegals will bring unemployment to 20% and decrease job security, then ask if there's any other issue that's more important to them than their own job security.
(Is there? I'd be interested to know.)
So if I wanted people to vote for Hillary, I might suggest that Trumps policies will cause economic decline in the US, and companies will flee to other countries or go out of business, then ask if there's any other issue that's more important to them than the economy.
(Is there? I'd be interested to know.)
And then there's people like Scott Adams, who has put a completely original spin on everything about the election, and predicted everything that actually happened from the viewpoint of hypnosis. (Even Nate Silver mis-interpreted Trump's popularity, which is what you get when you look solely at the numbers and not at the situation.)
So no, I don't think it's quite correct to say "nobody has ever changed anyone's mind about anything ever". It happens all the time... in sales.
(Here's Scott Adams talking about trying to purchase a vehicle. It's quite an interesting story, and shows a first-person view of one of the techniques of sales.)
I keep writing about Presidential candidate Gary Johnson, who is neither Trump nor Clinton, and he is coming close to being at 15% in the polls and should be in the Presidential debates...
... could decide the race. The race is largely boiling down to which party can get more of their followers to vote for their candidate based on endorsement alone (look at how many republicans don't like Trump but will vote for him because he is the republican candidate and how many democrats don't like Hillary but will vote for her because she is the democratic candidate), and then pick up enough of the independent vote.
Donald Trump could be beaten severely by any random democrat except Hillary Clinton (who brings out massive amounts of GOP hatred based on her name). Hillary Clinton could be beaten severely by any random republican except Donald Trump (who sabotages his own campaign on a daily basis). It almost seems as if neither of the two parties actually want to win this election.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Seriously, what other form of media changes the minds of 6% of Republicans and 8% of Democrats? I'd bet this is at least as successful as most any other kind of media, and seen far more often.
Thank you for Correcting The Record! A sum of $0.02 has been deposited to your account.
leave the word "Political" out of that and the percentages would likely still be about the same:
"Your Facebook Posts Aren't Changing How Your Friends Think"
If you're only looking at the Presidential general election, then it's probably true that Facebook posts aren't going to be flipping votes. But that's not the only election. Political posts can make a huge difference in primaries. Political posts can also make a difference in down-ticket races.
Several times people have told me that my posts have convinced them to change their vote in a primary to a different candidate in the same party. I once had someone tell me that they flipped their vote to a candidate in a different party in a general election (down-ticket) based on my Facebook post (in what turned out to be the closest state-wide race on the ballot).
For example:
If you're in Massachusetts, please vote in the state primary on September 8th. If you take a Democratic ballot, I've met the Middlesex Sheriff, Peter Koutoujian, several times, and he's working on important criminal justice reforms. Please vote for him. Also, Bob Jubinville is doing an excellent job on the Governor's Council--please reelect him (I could go on and on and on as to the reasons why). If you're in Tom Sannicandro's district, he's stepping down, and Brett Walker is the best of the three seeking to replace him; I was briefly running myself and withdrew to support him--I'm that convinced he's the best candidate.
Because I think that's where the big bucks really are.
Of course, the people who are already stupid would claim the stupid vaccine would cause autism.
But then, they're stupid, which is why we need a vaccine.
Only people who want their minds to be changed can change their minds. You can't do it for them.
This is garbage. Measuring the effect based on simply asking people if they have been swayed by a Facebook post is a laughable approach and misses how this actually does happen. Yes, nobody (or very few) reads a post containing a logical argument for why Politician X shouldn't have your support and then changes their mind. But many people, especially those who might consider themselves apolitical, absolutely are influenced by their friends mocking Politician X and supporters of Politician X.
Most people do not vote based on a logical viewing of issues. Most people don't even know the positions their candidate claims to hold on an issue, and candidates often switch positions post-election to little or no punishment. People vote mostly based on how a candidate makes them feel and that absolutely is influenced by whether you will have to suffer ridicule from your social circles.
They don't change how people think, eh? Then why the hell did everyone flip their shit over a stupid fake social experiment? Kony 2012. Most people ignore the political posts from their friends, but they pay full attention to well-produced video productions from Facebook pages that appear legitimate.
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
I'm not so much worried about people trying to change opinions, because I know how hard that is to do, especially with stupid Facebook memes and copy-pasted propaganda. The thing I don't like is that, ironically, people having access to such a huge microphone in the form of social media makes it harder to hear a different opinion. I argue that if you're a die hard liberal or conservative, there exists an echo chamber that will prevent any opinions you don't like getting through, and make it impossible for the less intelligent among us to form an unbiased opinion of the state of things.
Facebook knows everything you like, click on, share, etc. They know who your friends are and what they like, click on and share. Because they know what you like, they'll only show you things you like. It used to be that people thought AOL was the Internet, that's largely replaced with Facebook and Twitter these days. Anything that pops up on the average idiot's news feed is going to be taken at face value, and oh look, all my friends liked and shared it too. Hillary must be a crook/Trump must be a buffoon.
I know I'll immediately get panned for this, but I do think having 24-hour news cycles, instant social media outrage generators, and other constant surveillance of government officials/candidates makes the country harder to govern. Most politicians are now too paralyzed with fear to do anything that might potentially upset the public even if it might be what's needed -- and this is both on the left and right wings. Fox News or other outlets would be poking fun at FDR's polio and wheelchair if they were around back then. The only reason he ever stood a chance of being elected was that there wasn't widespread, instant coverage of every single syllable every politician utters, followed by hours of analysis and talk. The positive is that corruption is harder to hide, but the negative is that civil political discourse is down the toilet. It must have been a whole lot easier when there were only a few newspapers of record and 3 TV networks with a single national newscast per day.
Maybe I shouldn't impulse post, but wow, that's significantly higher than I thought! Political posts are almost always emotional tirades, rarely including any new facts or analysis, and are extremely repetitive, and you're telling me ~ 8% of the population can be swayed by this? That's enough to convert some swing states, and for how little effort they require, that's a massive gain. On the contrary, if you could snatch 8% of your opponent's supporters, by investing as little as half an hour per day in a post, then I'd be inclined to label this as quite possibly the single most effective method for garnering votes then - even conventions are usually filled with people who already support you, and TV audiences are likewise rather polarized. For how much more these cost, somebody should see what percentage of people are swayed by political ads...
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
https://slashdot.org/journal/2...
" say they have never been swayed by a political post"
And they also never were influenced in any way by TV ads, right? Those morons just throw money away.
Just because you _think_ you're not swayed, doesn't make it so.
Science 101 should have taught you that with any chaotic system, it is not possible to make predictions about the future state of said system.
That is a misunderstanding of deterministic chaos based on oversimplified popular science.
Some things can be predicted in a deterministic system, some cannot. But, in general, you very often predict the average properties of the system, even if you cannot predict the exact path through the phase space. In a chaotically dripping faucet, you can predict the average number of gallons per hour, even if you cannot predict the exact pattern of the drops. In a weather system, you can predict that July in Bismarck North Dakota will be warmer than January, even though you can't predict whether July 12 2019 will be rainy or dry. In a climate system, you can predict that radiative input equals radiative output, even if you cannot predict the exact temperature in Bismarck on July 12.
Chaos is well defined. It does not mean "anything at all can happen."
If I post a link to this /. summary to facebook will my friends stop posting political posts? Or is that covered too?
Don't discuss either politics or religion with anyone you want to keep as a friend unless you could give them a gut shot punch and they would still remain your friend. The discussion could be as damaging to the friendship as the punch.
A staggering 94% of Republicans, 92% of Democrats, and 85% of independents on Facebook say they have never been swayed by a political post, according to Rantic, a firm that sells social media followers.
I am shocked that the number of people claiming to have their mind changed is so high (~10%). These margins of people who polled that they can be swayed is larger than any margin of victory in a presidential election in recent history.
And that's just the people that admit that they are being swayed.
Your Political Facebook Posts Aren't Changing How Your Friends Think
Who are you talking to? I don't make political Facebook posts. I don't make Facebooks at all. And I certainly don't have any friends!
Honestly.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
from among my Facebook friends and initially I was by far the only one making them. They're picking it up from somewhere....
"Don't teach a man to fish, feed yourself. He's a grown man. Fishing's not that hard." - Ron Swanson
...are you suggesting that Facebook is just a giant exercise in pointless narcissism? /unpossible.
-Styopa
2+2=4 is a matter of stipulation. It isn't a matter of observation, nor of faith, but of agreement to the convention.
The scientific method is firmly founded upon a set of metaphysical assumptions which have proven to have high practical value, but cannot themselves be demonstrated (such as: the outer world actually exists, and is not an elaborately-crafted illusion). So, there is belief involved. But it is much less belief than what is involved in religious doctrines.
They are actually posting a story... on Slashdot... about what politics Facebook users care about.
Are you fucking kidding me? Top story on front page was Windows.
FUCK THE FBI.
Your government is communist. It exists to sell you communism for bribes from the rich. The rich get capitalism, the poor get communism. And you're too yellow to do anything about it.
Sounds like a specifically targeted psyop to silence dissent on facebook to me....
At least for me, I don't expect to change anyone's mind with such posts. They are typically meant to educate people about what is going on, and trigger people who *already agree* to pay attention and even to get active. Not to mention urging people to contact their representatives to voice their opinion about important issues they may not know about.
Regarding the "damaging friendships" bit...as far as I'm concerned, that is a good thing. Why would I want to be friends with the kind of worthless people that would be opposed to my typical post? Seriously...friendships are based on mutual respect and admiration. People who say politics aren't appropriate on Facebook or other social media are just far too apathetic in my view.
I think where I have true fear and respect for "sales" is when they convince someone to buy something they didn't even want and they're happy about doing it (I'm specifically excluding outright fraud here, sham products or tricks).
Go listen to Brian Tracy's explanation of the "four walls" sales technique. It's so effective that it was banned in several states.
It's the method historically used by encyclopedia salesmen to dupe people into buying encyclopedias that they didn't really want.
The explanation is disconcerting to the point of frightening, because the technique works so well. And it *was* used in many, many instances of encyclopedia sales.
The firm surveyed 10,000 Facebook users who self-identified as *Republicans*, *Democrats*, or *independents*
With all the forced pretend-gender acceptance online and in the news, it's a shame that some phrases are hijacked this often. The above is the first time this past year that I've heard the expression used *properly* and I'd forgotten it could be used *that* way.
The reverse-dissonance was so unexpected, yet so sweet... Sappir-Whorf was so right about language shaping thought. There's a line between feeling compeled to be a member of a gender group, and being. We now return you to your regular-scheduled post chain.
I post political stuff regularly but not because I'm trying to convince someone to change their position. I post things that get glossed over or ignored by the MSM. My friends can think for themselves.
For example, everyone heard the story of Alton Sterling, but how many people heard about Abdullah Muflahi? He's the guy who filmed the shooting on his cell phone. He also owns the convenience store where this happened. After the shooting, the cops took his phone, locked him in a police car for several hours and seized the security camera footage from his store without a warrant and without permission. That element of the story won't get much coverage in major media outlets. I think it's even more outrageous than the shooting itself and I wanted people outside small circles of civil liberties activists to think about it.
I see a lot of vitriolic hate towards trump on my facebook feed. against my better judgement, i'm tempted to vote for him just out of curiosity. Somewhere in my head, 12 year old me is begging me to go through with it.
I recognize this urge. Traveling in the rear facing seat of my parent's station wagon, after my brother had defined the edge of his sovereign territory, i just couldn't resist the tempation to wave my hand defiantly in his airspace.
I'm sure i'll get in trouble, but i just want to see how much squealing will happen.
People who post political crap on Facebook like anyone gives a dam creates an immediate change in my mind about the person doing the posting. This is typically followed by blocking from my feed.
Already seeing changes among friends becoming more aware of the things they should be paying attention to.
There might be SOME friends who don't care, but in the end, they don't matter - it's the one's who do care that bring change.
I refuse to believe that over 90% of people aren't swayed or challenged by these posts on Facebook. I post a lot of political stuff on FB (because it matters to me more than posting pictures of my dog) and I constantly check the validity of items posted - regardless of my political bias.
These posts definitely change how you think, even if you don't admit it. It makes you ask yourself if you really want to vote for an asshole like Trump, a blatant liar like Hillary, or terrible libertarian like Johnson.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
And the "dumb" are attempting to compensate and failing. I've seen a similar phenomenon amongst my FB acquaintances and friends, particularly those who aren't technically minded or have an advanced education (vocational or college). Every single one of them is either a Trump or Bernie supporter and makes outlandish claims based on FB memes from propaganda sites that carefully edit actual news to fit the narrative being sold. When I point this out, I end up shaming said person (no matter how I phrase it, telling these people that they are proveably wrong doesn't go well) and they only harden their stance. It took me a while to realize this is bigger than Trump or closed borders, this is humanity purging it's less efficient and effective due to innovation, and they are fighting against extinction as best they can.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
My posts have gotten me unfriended by bigots and anti-intellectuals, and their posts have clued me in to who to unfriend.
It's really improved the signal:noise ratio in my feed!
You need to learn how to reach people from different backgrounds and with different value systems.
I just post stuff like "Voting for Bush will cause you to gain 10 pounds" and it works like a charm.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Facebook is the place for these types of things...that's what Twitter's for!
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
When you realize how shallow and closed-minded they are in their little "social media" bubble.
If your "friends" on facebook change the way they think about you based on some political posting, then one or more of the following is true:
1. They've suddenly changed who they are and their values (not likely)
2. You've suddenly changed who you are and your values (not likely)
3. They were typical social media "friends" who actually just were interested in some aspects of some things you posted on a web site but were never very interested in YOU and what YOU thought/believed.
4. They were superficial "friends" who only cared about overlapping superficial interests, until your political post drew attantion to your actual humanity.
5. They never really knew you and were "friends" with who they mistakenly thought you were.
So, in YOUR book:
A Person whose entire adult life has been of political corruption and misbehaving on the public dime and while under oath to serve the public and reading prepared remarkes from teleprompters is better than a person whose spent his entire adult life working hard employing people and building things but who says uncomfortable things or speaks in an unpolished and non-poll-tested way?
- wow -
For decades, people all across the political spectrum have said they wanted an outsider, hated the polled and manicured phony self-serving politicians, wanted a person who was socially liberal but fiscally more conservative, was NOT elected using a mountain of special interest money etc. Along comes Donald Trump, who seemingly fits that bill better than any candidate in over a hundred years (probably need to go back to Teddy Roosevelt for a better fit) and he is unacceptable.
Hillary Clinton is the pinnacle of every bad thing in American politics. Anybody supporting her is clearly worthless (see how that works??? (nudge)).
However, my political Facebook posts have been about how the world ruling class composed of Hobbesians, Hamiltonians and Muslims believe that Mankind is an ultraviolent monster that needs all-powerful government put upon it in order to survive and you have to be the biggest monster in order to impose said government and how we need to replace it and them, and I get likes from people who I am fairly certain never thought about it that way before, so there's the distinct possibility that I am the exception.
My opinion is that the only "viable" choice is to ignore all this for the most part and commit to working on a replacement for the Hamiltonian government foisted upon us. The Hamiltonians cheated like crazy to foist their government upon us from getting a rule that the Constitution be passed not unanimously as important pieces of legislation before it, to bullying and con language in The Federalist Papers.
Ok, lets be real you never even read the post. Subject looks like its inflammatory you just skip it.
This is more an indication of the type of people that use face book...
Seriously, you all still use social media?
I think that technique is this: Post in Internet forums that you know a sales technique that is sooo effective it's forbidden. Don't go into any specifics! Just give enough pointers that people can find the book. Sold!
Really, the website I found after actually googling your hints had no useful content whatsoever, and did not talk about any ingenious sale strategy. What it said could be on any generic sales newsletter.
"A staggering 94% of Republicans, 92% of Democrats, and 85% of independents on Facebook say they have never been swayed by a political post"
Like before they have never swayed by the advertisements!
Anti-vax, anti-gmo, and anti-promiscuity, are all driven by the same moral imperative of "bodily purity". If you are the kind of person who puts a high value on purity (a puritan) then you are likely to subscribe to one or more of those views. People on the left are drawn to anti-gmo because it fits in with the environmental movement, people on the right are drawn to anti-promiscuity because of its religious links. Anti-vax tend to be from the left because it fits the "big pharma" narrative but the politics is not as clear cut as the other two forms of puritanical nonsense since anti-vax and some religious beliefs go together like ham and cheese..
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Which is the quick reply. The fact that you never hear from your mother or your child doesn't prove that they don't exist. They may have stopped communicating, or you aren't listening.
Given that if God does exist He will require major changes in your life, then it's not a surprise if you choose to interpret the data that is there to exclude the possibility of His trying to communicate with you. If you are insistent that He doesn't exist, then nothing will convince you.
The best single piece of evidence is the resurrection of Jesus. Those who try to prove it didn't happen by engaging with the evidence tend to get convinced it did. Of course those who rule it out a priori - dead men don't rise from the dead therefore Jesus didn't rise from the dead - need to be aware of the impossible things that many generations of scientists have denied as possible, only to see them come along.
Also it is totally irrational to be confident that somewhere among the stars there is no race whose technology is such that if we encountered a member of the species, it would seem to be a god to us. We are nowhere near equipped to make that search; to assume to know the result is foolish!
Well known sources that the same people that you are arguing with will say are fake news sites because they aren't posting articles that doesn't support their narrative. While those same people used to use those very same sites regularly when they posted content that they did agree with...
The shaping of political opinion must be left to responsible media (i.e. TV, newspapers) answering to the legitimate parties. And no, neither the UKIP or Pirate Party are "legitimate parties". If we could have such travesties banned, their leaders arrested and their members fined, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now. One more thing is clear: mob rule must end. Only unelected officials free of the costraints and whims of the "public opinion" and unsaddled by the worry of having to be elected again by a heap of know-nots can steer us out of this troubled era. We need experts in places of power, and the populace must learn what is its place. Now.
They give it likes because they think it's satire...
The summary states that nearly one third of people don't think that social media is a place for political posts. This means that two thirds don't mind that much or think that it is. Further, unfriending for political posts because a friend is in a different party just means that you are going to live in a bubble.
The source dataset for the poll is made up of people who are probably getting a lot more political postings on their feed, which means that they are likely inundated with them. The amount of political postings you see likely affects how much you would be swayed by any given post.
In the data, it looks like the people who are more likely to be swayed are the ones who don't mind the postings (independents). Also, the summary is blatantly wrong on the conclusion that nearly one third of Facebook respondents surveyed stated they unfriended someone for a political posting. The data doesn't lead to that conclusion. It's more like 15%, which is only about half of one third.
An interesting bit of insight there is that the people who express their opinions the least (independents) are most likely to be swayed by others' postings.
Has a beer ad wanted to make you buya certain beer? Has a pepsi ad wanted to make you purchase more pespsi? Most people would answer no to these questions, but if advertising had no influence, there wouldn't be advertising.
You gotta run that Trump Truck (and/or Hillary Hummer) right over your friend's front lawn, garden, and porch - carve out some nice, deep ruts in the rain. You do not have to be very sophisticated about it.
A staggering 94% of Republicans, 92% of Democrats, and 85% of independents on Facebook say they have never been swayed by a political post
It is well known that it is far easier to be a critic than somebody who actually does things. I think at the end of the day, most people are more willing to listen to somebody who has the ability to set out a positive, but plausible vision. Don't we all prefer to hear how we can build something better over hearing how everything should be torn down? I sure do. It's a shame that Mr Sanders didn't get the nomination - I like him - but looking at what we have got, pragmatically, as I think anybody with an analytical mind should, who is more likely to be able to build and find solutions? I don't particularly like Ms Clinton - I don't hate her either - but she seems capable of delivering realistic policies and to me, that is what matters. If Mr Trump had seemed able to deliver the same or better, I would have considered him as well, but all he has come up with is stupid insults and vague fluff. Comparing the two, you get the feeling that if you asked them a concrete question, like "How do you intend to tackle [whatever], going forward?", Clinton would have at least a plausible outline of an answer, whereas I don't think Trump would be able to come up with anything you could hang your hat on.