Slashdot Mirror
Donald Trump Won Because of Facebook (nymag.com)
Max Read makes his case via New York Magazine for how Facebook was the reason for Donald Trump's surprise victory on November 8th. Though, to be fair, "Facebook" is called out specifically due to its large online presence, but in reality all the "large and influential boards and social-media platforms where Americans now congregate to discuss politics" are to blame. The main reason why has to do with Facebook's "inability (or refusal) to address the problem of hoax or fake news" that is spread rampantly and effortlessly across the platform: Fake news is not a problem unique to Facebook, but Facebook's enormous audience, and the mechanisms of distribution on which the site relies -- i.e., the emotionally charged activity of sharing, and the show-me-more-like-this feedback loop of the news feed algorithm -- makes it the only site to support a genuinely lucrative market in which shady publishers arbitrage traffic by enticing people off of Facebook and onto ad-festooned websites, using stories that are alternately made up, incorrect, exaggerated beyond all relationship to truth, or all three. Many got hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of shares, likes, and comments; enough people clicked through to the posts to generate significant profits for their creators. The valiant efforts of Snopes and other debunking organizations were insufficient; Facebook's labyrinthine sharing and privacy settings mean that fact-checks get lost in the shuffle. Often, no one would even need to click on and read the story for the headline itself to become a widely distributed talking point, repeated elsewhere online, or, sometimes, in real life. When roughly 170 million people in North America use Facebook every day and nearly forty-four percent of all adults in the U.S. say they get news from Facebook, the spread of "fake news" is all the more detrimental. The problem is that Facebook seems "insecure about its power, unsure of its purpose, and unclear about what its responsibilities really are." Earlier this year, Facebook acted on what was right and wrong by censoring the iconic "napalm girl" photograph, later issuing a statement saying "These are difficult decisions and we don't always get it right." Of course, lies and exaggerations have always been central to real political campaigns; Facebook has simply made them easier to spread, and discovered that it suffers no particular market punishment for doing so -- humans seem to have a strong bias toward news that confirms their beliefs, and environments where those beliefs are unlikely to be challenged.
has such control of this country. We didn't want him, but Facebook shoved him down our throats. Down our throats.
that's why. it couldn't be the candidate or the policies that lost.
I at least as many anti-Trump memes as anti-Hilary memes.
Some even accusing Trump of raping a 13 year old girl (which we may suppose is likely not true given the fact that she withdrew her lawsuit against Trump)
that's why. it couldn't be the candidate or the policies that lost.
Trump won because of facebook?
I've lost track of the rationalizations, the reasons why Trump won.
Anyone have a list?
...that Trump won because the media could not control the narrative despite their best efforts.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Using Facebook as a scapegoat for popular votes doesn't really make for a valid argument. This is speculative at best unless you proof without a shadow of a doubt. This article is nonsensical at best.
Hillary is almost the perfect foil to her husband in politics. If Bill divorced her and ran as a Republican he'd probably have crushed her 70/30 that is how unpopular she is.
Look at her stats. She is damn near in McCain/Palin territory. She is the Nickelback of Democratic candidates.
Please stop living in a bubble and you will realize why it could have never been anyone else. How many established Republicans ran against him? Dozens, he slaughtered them for the same reason he destroyed Hillary. If you are looking around for a reason why he beat your establishment crook, don't look at Facebook, try the mirror.
We're supposed to be smart, right? The tech community, for the most part, is watching the strategy of kowtowing to business interests for their money fight go directly against their social views, and the most cowardly amongst them are hiding behind the banner of "unbiased platforms."
Fuck unbiased platforms; every individual, every group, and every organization has biases. The inability or unwillingness to admit that is what winds you up in a "post-racism" world.
Have an opinion. If the other side can build a platform as successful and wide-reaching as Facebook, more power to them. But they can't. And that's a sad fact.
Yeah, don't blame the fools using Facebook. Let's be honest, if they didn't get their biased news from Facebook it would have been from the Washington Post, Fox news, CNN, or a large source of other traditional infotainment money makers.
american's are incredibly gullible and stupid
Hoaxes were always there.
Trump won because Hillary lost. She lost it because she mistakenly took SJW outrage for actually what people think. Turns out, there was/is silent majority and they don't care one bit about SJW issues but do care about corruption, warmongering, foundation profiteering, and DNC machine rigging.
Show the proof, in detail, or its more SJW BS... FYI that SJW BS... Is what lost the election. Not to mention a Traitor in the pocket of Saudi Arabia for a Candidate :-)
Hitlery for PRISON 2016!
Did you finally put your bumper sticker on today?
Clinton wasn't completely destroyed because of Facebook and other social media hiding the real news.
But please try again! Btw, Putin and FBI have already been used.
blah blah TRUMP wheeze cry pout mean baad man baad man sniff momma
People are asking, what happened? Has everyone gone crazy?
Trump supporters have been watching people go crazy for awhile now. We could draw you a map.
Hope 'yall come back, time to fix things.
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
this morning, trying to figure out why Hillary lost. It was because the same party candidate after a two President usually loses. It was because she was a woman. It was because the current President is black. Now it was because of Facebook.
Absolutely any possible reason except that the voting public do not like and do not trust Hillary Clinton. She lost because Trump was less distasteful.
(And because he beat her at her own game, on her home turn. Her whole political career has been based on being so vicious and nasty that no one would dare cross her. And it turns out Trump was even more vicious and nasty. And Americans love that shit.)
Of course, lies and exaggerations have always been central to real political campaigns
Why do we allow this? There are regulations regarding false advertising, why are there no (or insufficient) regulations regarding false campaigning?
Give a spineless imp a "safe space" to post and they come up with this tripe.
Sheesh. Trump won because people voted him into office, and were tired of the establishment, being lied to and taken advantage of.
So it is all Facebook's fault, nothing to do with decades of politicians ignoring the the people. Telling them what they should be doing instead of listening to what is important to them. Likely few people actually voted for Trump because they thought he was the best that America could offer, but rather in protest for not bing listened to for such a long time. We are living in interesting times.
Reddit would like to disagree with this, considering all of the work done uncovering Hillary's crookedness done there. They definitely cost her a great deal of votes.
Non sequitur: Your facts are uncoordinated.
Clinton lost because Clinton was an awful candidate. This was known, despite what the damage control might say, and blaming the disenfranchised that your candidate fucking disenfranchised is not, surprisingly, helping. All the DNC had to do was put out a candidate who could avoid being as unpalatable to liberals as they are to conservatives. They failed, spectacularly. Now we're going to pay for it, and in four years we can see if the dems learned anything from this.
Trump won because Clinton is a corrupt, warmongering, globalist sociopath. It's insulting suggesting that social media is to blame for 'fake' stories when corporate news sources are, by far, the worse offenders.
I say this as someone who loathes Fakebook.
So let me get this straight, the problem is that there wasn't enough control over the news by the Democratic party?
Never mind how Wikileaks shows us that CNN leaked all the debate questions to Donna Brazille to help them cheat. Never mind how the Washington Post held a clandestine fundraiser with the DNC with services in kind that they kept off the books, much to the lawyers' dismay. And we have Correct the Record's "nerd virgins" (their words, not mine) shilling for dough on every social medium possible, etc., etc., etc.
I wonder when they'll realize that their own propaganda machine is half the problem?
They don't know why they lost and that's why they lost.
Without him, and if Johnson voters had gone for Clinton, that would have flipped MI, WI, PA and FL.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Couldn't have said it better. They lost control of the narrative and were defeated. Fuck the media.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Does Slashdot want to post more material for me to send to Rush Limbaugh today?
Trump won because Americans don't trust the government to consider their best interests any more. I mean, I see it in your comments here all the time. Clinton didn't do enough to separate herself from the institution, I mean, did she even try at all? Trump took it because it's America's attempt to fight fire with fire. You feel betrayed, so send in the betrayer, a bull dog.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
When did the preposition "off" itself develop the need for the spurious preposition "of"?
She still rules the Party so that is proof she did nothing wrong.
she and the Democrats abandoned the Rust Belt. Michael Moore described election night back in July: Donald Trump was going to take Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, plus the Romney states, and win. That's pretty much what happened, except Trump also got Florida. Hillary conceded Ohio, paid only a little attention to Pennsylvania, took Michigan and Wisconsin completely for granted, and lost.
There is no evidence CTR exists or ever did.
And they get the government morons deserve, don't they?
Bla bla bla bla.
....because enough people couldn't stand the criminal Hillary.
Trump won because not enough people voted against him.
Or actually the LACK of the Donald's access to his Twitter feed for that last month...
Think about it. Every time he got into a Twitter war at 3AM over some foolishness that irked him, it got out of hand and he fell in the polls. So that last month where he stopped being stupid on Twitter is what cost Clinton the election.... Well, that and the fact that she had some serious flaws to overcome....
So, the next election cycle we make all the candidates debate on Twitter. Either side can initiate a debate on a question by posting it with a given tag. Points are given for the wittiest come back with difficulty points for quick responses before they can be fully vetted and focus grouped, as well as a bonus given for the time of day. All responses MUST be posted by the candidate themselves and they must personally craft every answer without outside help.... It will be a blast, trust me, and Trump will LOOSE BIGLY for sure.
The problem wasn't Facebook... It was Twitter...
sarc off
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Given the overwhelming amount of Trump-bashing, hateful posts and pics posted on Facebook in the last couple of weeks (and the number of likes and re-posts they got), it sure wasn't Facebook that got him elected. Unless it was in reaction to all that anti-Trump bile.
Not a huge Trump fan either, but in my FB network, the deplorables were nearly all on the Clinton side.
Just like Michael Moore.
Here's a list of the things Trump has promised to do in the first 100 days.
Of particular note is this item in the 3rd grouping:
Additionally, on the first day, I will take the following five actions to restore security and the constitutional rule of law:
* FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama(*)
That is something the president can do on his own, without getting permission from congress. That alone is probably worth the price of admission.
Additionally, Ben Carson said he's willing to help Trump find a replacement for Obamacare.
Dr. Carson is smart and has first-hand knowledge of the healthcare system. He's not a career politician, and would make a good HHS secretary or surgeon general.
Check out the comments to that 2nd article, and see what people are saying about Carson.
(*) He doesn't say how he will determine whether something is unconstitutional, but in my view any reasonable method would work. Such as getting a consensus from a panel of legal scholars, or simply cancelling anything that orders the government to do something. We'll have to wait and see.
That's silly, but about as meaningful as leaked questions for a driving test. Everyone knows what they are going to be.
Of course, lies and exaggerations have always been central to real political campaigns; ...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
No way in hell would Johnson (Libertarian) voters go for a statist big-government Democrat candidate like Hillary.
Without Johnson, the Trump margin would have been even more decisive.
The fake news that we enabled is a big reason, I agree.
No, the problem is that ya'll were too busy reading about how the moon landing was faked to bother to find out how much of a con man Trump is.
Someone had to do it.
Everyone knows it was /pol/, r/the_donald, and the magic of Pepe memes.
Whites getting religiously persecuted, insulted, blamed for everything and anything, every second of every day.
White males getting religiously insulted and persecuted by feminists, being told they don't have a right to preference, to opinions, to life in some cases, being treated like animals, being showered in hate.
Social justice evangelists using any way possible to mask their hate and crusade against white men as a "righteous cause" only so they can justify being even more condescending and abhorrent in their high-horse inquisition.
The past half a decade of this, every fucking day. Whether on the Internet or on campus or on rallies.
Every fucking day.
Now the white people, and white men, have had it. If a percentage of white men were against, or even apathetic towards Trump, Trump may not have happened.
But white men keep being insulted and hated, so are we surprised that they finally got to give a middle finger?
The safespace professional victim and offense brigade brought it upon themselves.
The devs at reddit had a special algorithm running that artifically suppressed the trump discussion page from appearing on the front "most active" page list.
This came to light about a week ago, when the algorithm had a bug and stopped working, and the trump pages started showing up.
It was quickly corrected, though...
Morons want to clap and whoop, that's their right. But let's not pretend this is some great mandate. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.
Anyone who wants to take bets that classified email protocol will be the least of Trump's worries? Didn't think so.
> There is no evidence CTR exists or ever did.
https://correctrecord.org/
The DNC had a strong foothold online behind Bernie. Large amounts of youth waited in lines for hours to vote for Bernie, do you think they did the same for Hillary? Trump had the bored, young, white, male demographic if for no reason other than it pissed off someone they knew.
And that demographic hangs out on Facebook, Reddit and 4Chan. Tada, you now 'control' online.
Meanwhile when Bernie voters logged into facebook they were told they weren't wanted in the DNC or in November from a few people there to correct the record.
You, sir, win the internets.
That was the funniest thing I've read in awhile.
Great post!
Dealing with this problem that the news most people get these days hasn’t been carefully vetted as it was (or at least they tried) back in the days of Uncle Walter Cronkite is important. The Internet, with it’s ability to spread unfounded rumor at a wildfire pace, has broken America. I’m not talking about this current election, this has been going on for some time now. The question comes down to how does an organization like Facebook help keep down the levels of total bullshit without censorship problems. And I’m talking both sides of the political spectrum here. One way might be to take on a vetting responsibility in which bullshit posts aren’t removed but are edited by adding a statement something along the lines of “this statement is the most puro of bullshit” along with a link to something like Snopes where the issue is explained.
This won’t fix this problem, but it might help people see that there’s more to a story than what their good buddies or BFFs are posting on Facebook. And no, it’s not perfect, but it’s also not censorship. You can post whatever nonsense you feel like, but the owner of the site has the right AND THE OBLIGATION to watch for and flag nonsense. It would be nice if everyone had a working bullshitometer, but the newer models of People seem to have dropped that module.
Instead of sharing and watching/reading Fox's.
CNN booted her for that: http://www.politico.com/blogs/...
Of course, this was just weaseling out, because Donna isn't the only one who was involved in this. But no, it's not fair to give one side a copy of the test in advance, that's just cheating. If they want to do that kind of thing fairly, they should just publish the questions in advance, so it's about ideas and policies, not about the media trying to tell us what to think. And yes, they were lying in that clip.
But I ain't gonna tell you the answer either.
Next guess, please.
Have gnu, will travel.
Have had too many of my female friends who are women of color, who are all in STEM occupations, tell me about personal attacks on them by these people.
This is what came out of Germany in the 30s.
Let's by Crystal about that
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The only conspiracies I've read about were those hatched by the DNC, which we learned about in their own DKIM validated emails. I note that everyone who posts things like this never bothers to give examples, citations or links.
Free thinking is about examining the sources yourself and coming to your own conclusion, including sources you're predisposed to disagree with. If you cannot even interact with ideas you disagree with, you simply blind yourself and you're in for a rude awakening when your filter bubble suddenly bursts.
Now that's some funny bullshit!
Nice job 'correcting the record'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Ha!
Facebook had nothing to do with it.
... for foreign powers to influence the elections, which the Kremlin now admitted: http://www.mobypicture.com/use...
Transparent call for censorship is transparent.
the "large and influential boards and social-media platforms where Americans now congregate to discuss politics" are to blame.
Sounds to me like they should be crediting Facebook and other forums with helping people become more involved in the process. For decades voter apathy was bemoaned. Now we have people taking an interest. That's a good thing. Unless you're a loser...
It would have been because of the fake news in the MSM.
You mean like telling people one thing while the TRUTH is really something else? Now THAT would be a terrible thing to do wouldn't? Good thing governments don't do that, eh?
In a real article, an actual article! Someone actually typed that.
Wow.
The extreme left and the media narrative have buried themselves, no one takes them seriously. It's incredible and hilarious.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Hilla... This is BEAUTIFUL right now.
Its not a matter of "control" but getting the truth out there.. so much of what he said was pretty slanderous (blantent lies) and would under any normal circumstances (including him) be actionable in the court of law.. but no one did that.. and rather than keep FAKE news out, it was a matter of, let the disinformation flow.
If I started a campaign against you and lied (literally) at every turn, you would be firing up your axe and had your lawyers on speed dial. If I called out your flaws (not a lie, but kept calling out the actual flaws in you as a candidate) then that would be a different thing.
Virtually every fact-checking site has shown that 98% of what he uttered was a lie (most medium, quite a lot large, and some small), which is being regurgitated as "news". And Facebook (the "news" site it is (even though they keep claiming they are not) is doing nothing to stem the tide. And I say this not just for campaigns but also in general.. (my wife gets more scams and just false stories about so many things that even a single check the link shows its all false.. BUT.. most people don't).
God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board -- Mark Twain Look for http://Thebar.steelbeachca
Does this mean Sheryl Sandberg will get a seat on Trump's cabinet?
#DeleteChrome
Feel free to make memes of this and share on Twitter under #whyshegottrumped or share on /r/T_D, I'm just a lurker over there.
I almost forgot that fracking in Flint poisoned the water supply of Michigan with red pills.
> That only confirms the headers. The bodies of the emails are Russian fabrications.
Okay, so click here and then the "view source" link and you can read the DKIM signature yourself. I'll save you some trouble and copy paste it:
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=hillaryclinton.com; s=google;
h=from:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:date:message-id:subject:to
bh=EHIyNFKU1g6KhzxpAJQtxaW82g5+cTT3qlzIbUpGoRY=;
b=JgW85tkuhlDcythkyCrUMjPIAjHbUVPtgyqu+KpUR/kqQjE8+W23zacIh0DtVTqUGD
mzaviTrNmI8Ds2aUlzEFjxhJHtgKT4zbRiqDZS7fgba8ifMKCyDgApGNfenmQz+81+hN
2OHb/pLmmop+lIeM8ELXHhhr0m/Sd4c/3BOy8=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:date
bh=EHIyNFKU1g6KhzxpAJQtxaW82g5+cTT3qlzIbUpGoRY=;
b=dEYKdN2vH085sl/02zUgJ1Lr66LV8lRV9Lrqx9SIpfiF1bOLLbIr1Au6AAY5vwg1vS
klK/TvacKT0j8aYADGNWP6BtG5XZ+IME6ydojlufQ3jqksqLkycSJ2ahYhxw4LmCii8n
kja2EKzRFcKGPnfhYnfwBCmIk/D5FWN6+yvpAYSmmZlxsR4b7mTJ8r/NmB7dKRIHeq8b
Ersjyl8edCTfC6nGbUrEEV7C6uQE3N16B5m2XPnRATWSuWj/Nz7ZsM/9snj+rlTjJx5e
wI5Epet9ADtlAWqJw/L/5HCNaAFqyR3QK1/AFjsTk+Q2METC3+0Eo+yMaArw2viFZLu4
hvoQ==
What does that mean? Let's check Wikipedia:
Now, would you like to go back and look at the b and bh parameters in the signature and tell me what those mean? Right, they cover contents (headers and body) as well as the body hash. If you want to make a serious claim that this is fake, give me a link to the blockchain transaction when you win 1 BTC from Erratasec for breaking DKIM.
I'm waiting.
She was caught working with the DNC and Media to rig her primary against Sanders along with all the stuff that actually happened at the polling stations.
Her leaks prove she worked with the media to prop up Trump for an easy target to beat and to pull the GOP laughably to the right.
Then end up losing against her own patsy she put up as the easy win.
And the lost because the voters she screwed surprise surprise, didn't vote for her.
During the primary, he had 46% of the democrat votes not including huge numbers of independents who couldn't vote even with their crap. Then they cheated to win, then snubbed his voters for wanting him.
A lot of them stayed home.
A lot of them voted 3rd party or wrote Sanders name in like I did. The 3rd party and write-in votes are about 4.5% combined with much of them were Sanders voters.
Some of them even voted Trump in protest of the DNC cheating them.
The 3rd party votes alone would have put her over the top, let alone the rest.
She screwed the DNC out of a sure win with Sanders and then ended up screwing the DNC when they did and snubbed them when they then refused to vote for her.
Clinton and the DNC lost themselves this election personally every step of the way trying to put Clinton up front when the people didn't want her and then shit talking them for not accepting her. Trump didn't even win this election so much as Clinton and the DNC threw it for them trying to ignore and shit talk their voters.
Facebook didn't cause Trump to win. Clinton and the DNC screwing their voters cost them to lost them the election. The DNC and the media working to make sure to put Trump at the top just decided who she managed to lose to.
Trump won because all the millennials and minorities did not bother to vote. Under 30 voting rates were criminal.
Hey all you lazy college students that made the biggest whining noises. Trump is 100% your fault because you could not put the hash pipe down long enough to go fucking vote.
The media painted a picture that Hillary had the race won weeks before voting began, which didn't create any sense of urgency among moderate voters. So why not make a trendy protest vote for write-in Bernie Sanders, or Gary Johnson. It's not like Trump has any real chance of winning, right?
I had a thought earlier today: The internet is the primary vector for the worst epidemic of mental disease ever to strike humanity, on par with the Old World plagues that wiped out New World peoples upon first contact. Here's what I wrote about it elsewhere:
Fuck 4chan. They're responsible for this Trump victory. Actually, fuck the internet in general as it is today, but 4chan is where that shit first gained a foothold.
Trump winning this election happened because of the continuous shitfest of frothing-at-the-mouth rabid drivel that now circulates around 24/7 nonstop. The internet is what lead my dad to turn into a crazy conspiracy theorist who thinks that 9/11 was a coverup for the then-recently-revealed existence of extraterrestrial life awaiting our spiritual awakening ever since the fall of Atlantis at the end of the Pleistocene. It's also what's convinced my original-generation-hippy, lifelong-Democrat, now-disabled mom, who survives entirely off of social programs likely to be cut under Trump, that Obama is a Muslim building a Mosque at Ground Zero, and that Hillary is part of the Illuminati who apparently worship Satan on some hill in Oregon (according to the obviously doctored photos someone posted online), and made her vote Trump for her first Republican president ever.
Once upon a time I was under this blissful delusion that instant worldwide communication would lead to a new enlightenment for the populace in general, but it's become abundantly clear that the only thing keeping an echochamber of the worst, craziest, lowest-common-denominator "truthy" bullshit from drowning what few braincells most people have to rub together was the physical difficulty in that kind of craziness spreading.
I think there's an analogue to be made with biological disease here. Back in the days before modern medicine, cities were about the least healthy places you could live, because being in close physical proximity to so many other people (and animals) made it so much easier for disease to spread; you weren't air-gapped from most people like you would be in the country. I think the same is true of what I guess we'd call "memetic" diseases of the mind: nasty, destructive, viral ideas spread and mutate far more quickly now that everyone is plugged into the internet 24/7, than they could back in the day when they would be contained to whoever Joe McNutbar was ranting to at the local pub.
A further hypothesis: When the Old World first met the New World, the New World people died of Old World plagues but not vice-versa because the Old World had lots of previous exposure to plagues, having had lots of big dense cities for a long time and developing strong immune systems piecemeal over time enough that those plagues could just be everywhere in the Old World and most people were unaffected by them, while New World peoples with their sparser populations had no history of plagues (none that had any survivors to adapt to them at least) and so had both no resistance to the European ones and none to offer in return. I wonder if the earliest netizens, those of us who remember when UseNet was the happening place, are like the Europeans in that analogy. Those of us who grew up with trolls and flamewars and the kinds of crazy that the internet could breed... we got inoculated to it. That crazy was always still around but you know, don't feed the trolls and you'll be fine. We grew up knowing not to believe everything you read because the internet is full of lies.
But now the whole goddamn world is very suddenly connected to that cesspool of lies and madness, and they have no defense against it, so it's spreading like wildfire, mutating into ever-more virulent strains, and wiping out (the minds of) the population at large.
I just hope there are survivors enough to adapt a herd immunity to it some day.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Nobody complained when Facebook elected Obama.
There was some hullabaloo about Trump flipping Wisconsin and Michigan. Those states voted for Bernie in the primary.
I have to wonder: did Trump really flip those states, or did Hillary fail to flip them?
Next your going to blame the onion.
The people who believe whatever shit they read on facebook would otherwise have believed whatever crap their neighbors told them about something they heard from a friend of a friend.
Donald Trump won because of Clinton. There is no way around that.
If a person with decades of experience runs against someone who has no experience in politics and has no organized campaign (according to the media at least), and still loses, there is no one else to blame.
Clearly this was NASA's fault.
Perhaps among the false noise, just one story was true. Let's say for instance one dealing with a cryptographically authenticated email exposing internal partisanship. Once the voter's mind is made up, why not indulge in the rest of the fluff?
Trump won because he got more electoral votes than the other guys. Stop pointing fingers media, you're not doing yourself any favors.
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
The red pill and its opposite, the blue pill, are popular culture symbols representing the choice between embracing the sometimes painful truth of reality (red pill) and the blissful ignorance of illusion (blue pill). -wp
Fits the red vs blue thing in politics surprisingly well.
DONT TREAD ON ME MOÎΩN ÎABÃ
The demographic of voters that voted for Trump, most likely cant use a computer.. these people are not on Facebook. They were all over 50 years old...
> Its not a matter of "control" but getting the truth out there.
They had a paid organization named Correct the Record working to do that constantly. Half the problem was that people didn't believe them due to all the times they could be proven to have lied (see my posts above for some examples). Most people didn't trust her to begin with and the provable scandals, like the leaked debate questions, hurt her with things like the bogus entries on the kill list.
> was pretty slanderous (blantent lies) and would under any normal circumstances (including him) be actionable in the court of law.
She's a public figure, so you have to prove actual malice.
> Virtually every fact-checking site has shown that 98% of what he uttered was a lie
Ask yourself instead why people didn't believe them, even when they were right. They also covered items that were matters of opinion (this comes into play anywhere we discuss motives) rather than fact, as well as predictions about the future.
> And Facebook (the "news" site it is (even though they keep claiming they are not) is doing nothing to stem the tide.
I don't even have a Facebook, but I wouldn't call it "news" and if they want to pick and choose what people can and cannot say there, they'll just drive people to other services. You're advocating censorship here and you don't appear to realize it. Sure, their site, their rules, but they're a business too and you shouldn't be shocked when people choose the highway instead of their way.
So let me get this straight, the problem is that there wasn't enough control over the news by the Democratic party?
Never mind how Wikileaks shows us that CNN leaked all the debate questions to Donna Brazille to help them cheat. Never mind how the Washington Post held a clandestine fundraiser with the DNC with services in kind that they kept off the books, much to the lawyers' dismay. And we have Correct the Record's "nerd virgins" (their words, not mine) shilling for dough on every social medium possible, etc., etc., etc.
I wonder when they'll realize that their own propaganda machine is half the problem?
They don't know why they lost and that's why they lost.
The Democratic party didn't control the news.
Rather reporters are typically educated and self-critical, and in the US political climate these characteristics skew sharply left.
I'm sorry but the right wing media is an absolute joke. Fox News is notorious for pushing flat out lies among its viewership, many of their leading anchors have been caught lying multiple times. But Fox is a minority, most mass media is actually fairly good.
In the past if you wanted to convince people to give you a platform you needed to be smart and have integrity to pass the gatekeepers who had the time and expertise to take a good hard look. So the only mass media the public saw came from people who went through a fairly rigorous vetting process.
Now with social media the gatekeeper is wrong, you can make up an infographic that is complete BS, but as long as it's internally consistent it's just as convincing as an infographic that's completely true.
That being said in this election the mass media failed spectacularly, they got caught feeding the slow drip of a couple minor Clinton scandals while letting multiple major Trump scandals slide by.
I stole this Sig
You funny man. Reporters are people who got a college degree in something that pays less than a living wage so they can either A) change the world, or B) be on TV. Neither of those, in any way, lead to an educated or credible press corps.
Donald Trump won for the following reasons.
1. The Mainstream media (MSM) kept telling everyone HRC was going to win, so everyone in rural America and flyover country made 100% sure their vote counted, and wow, did it!
2. The MSM would repeat anything and everything Donald tweeted or posted to Facebook for ratings and the hopes of discrediting him as a clown. This only gave him free press and brought things that were previously politically correct to the forefront for discussion.
3. Trump won, not because everyone wanted Trump, but because the people are collectively sick of the Federal Government constantly intruding in everything from small business to healthcare to trans-gendered high school locker-rooms. The people are sick of being called racist, biggoted, hatemongers or worse anytime they exercise their right to free speech and speak out against the never ending Federal Government Mandates. Trump won because he talked about all the unpopular things like illegal immigration, unfair trade deals, and the collapse of the middle class. Trump and Pence visited rural America and flyover country. They spent time there campaigning, yelling, screaming, brawling, and listening. Trump spent the last hours of election eve in Grand Rapids, Michigan a city with little political power and one that barely matters due to it's geographic proximity to rural northern michigan.
That is why Trump won. It is not because of Facebook.
Just like the UK, it was a full out revolt. This is how a democracy is supposed to work when they feel they aren't being heard. "The People" of the United States were heard this election.
It's all going to be ok. Trump will not destroy America. There is no need to move to Canada. The president is not king and only has a limited amount of power. The pendulum will swing back the other way for awhile and it will either work and benefit the USA or it won't.
In any case, it is time to stop fighting, yelling, screaming and come together to run the country again for the benefit of all. It will all be ok.
why trump why ? -_-
Obat Asma
Hillary underestimated Trump, badly. She thought he was a buffoon, that she didn't need to appear in public as much as he did because she assumed that given everything he was saying, given enough time, he'd be his own downfall. She followed the "Give someone enough rope and he'll hang himself" philosophy, ignoring the fact that he was actually working than she was to try to connect with voters, to give them a reason to support him over her.
Hillary assumed Trump was an idiot and would blow himself out of contention. Trump instead showed that as an outsider he could beat someone with decades of political experience by being astonishingly astute about what people actually worry about. Of course, it's more likely he's just saying what people want to hear and will not be capable of doing nearly as much as people expect, or hope. But he's president now, so as far as he's concerned the hard part's done.
Trump won because too many people think HRC should be in jail, not on the campaign trail. After losing to Obama 8 years ago she had 8 years to keep her nose clean. But no, she had to set up a private email server to ensure her email wouldn't be subject to legal actions.
8 years. She had to stay clean 8 fucking years and she would be POTUS. Instead, she used her horrible judgement and put a private email server in her bathroom while secratary of state, fucking knowing classified email would be flowing through it. She figured she could legalise her way through anything that came her way, which led to her downfall.
Be honest. If Biden or Sanders had been the nominee do you think Trump would have won? Hell no, the guy was unelectable as could be. Says a lot for an HRC loss.
I'm sorry but the right wing media is an absolute joke. Fox News is notorious for pushing flat out lies among its viewership, many of their leading anchors have been caught lying multiple times. But Fox is a minority, most mass media is actually fairly good.
I think we can quite confidently state this is false based on what we just saw during the last 8 months of this election. The MAJORITY of the mainstream media outlets were all working directly for the DNC. They weren't performing investigative journalism. They weren't fact checking or checking their biases. They were unabashedly promoting hillary every step of the way and bashing Trump with things taken out of context, alleged and taken for truth, twisted, and sometimes just outright lies.
The media in general and many social sites like slashdot censored the real news that were being shown about Hillary. At the same time it was proven they were working with her.
Now they are claiming it was the fake news in Facebook that made Trump win.
First, I believe it was the real news that made him win. Even with the media working in her favor and hiding the real news, talking about DNC gossip instead of electoral crimes (like getting money from foreigners and laundering it), people somehow got informed of who she is. There was no motivation for democrats to vote for a candidate that is a warmonger that rigged their primaries. There was real motivation for people who needed jobs and/or were against war or terrorists to go vote for Trump (not because he is decent, because he was the alternative).
Second, if the real news were provided by traditional means, people wouldn't be running away from them. Having to read Wikileaks twitter feed and subreddits (cause reddit was censoring too) to know what people were finding, despite the magnitude of the revelations, is shameful for Slashdot (that did post about someone calling Chelsea a brat, about the Russian hackers fiction, despite of intelligence agencies claiming there was no way to say it was them, but not about money laundering, about the proposed no-fly zone killing a lot of Syrians or about getting money from terrorist supporting countries and increasing the weapons sales for them).
Third, if Hillary had won, it would be mainly to the MSM's hiding of news and collusion with her that would be to blame, and that wouldn't be such wild speculation like this shitpost TFA was. That together with how bad Trump is (something we know). Even if the "fake news made him win" was true, I'm not sure if that would be much worst than "MSM manipulation that included fake news made her win".
From the curriculum. You reap what you sow.
i am so very tired....
This is at must half the story. Social media puts everyone in echo chambers with velvet hand cuffs. We like it like this, when we don't have to see crazy uncle bob's rants, but we can claim we are in touch because we are still Facebook friends. Politics is not acceptable conversation at dinner. The other side are disgusting and have nothing to add of value.
If you feel like that, you are are part of the reason for the bobble, and thus part of the reason Trump was elected.
" are to blame" nice tell you let slip, how about "are to thank"
http://us11.campaign-archive1.com/?u=781d962e0d3dfabcf455f7eff&id=0cf2803aa8&e=b1bb144916
Ahhh yes, that bastion of journalistic integrity from Gawker is definitely the one we need to point out the consequences of inaccurate reporting on the internet.
https://www.theguardian.com/us...
Nobody bought that one, not even Jezebel.
That aside, the Epstein thing in there is actually interesting. Yes, it's true that Trump was on that guys plane once, long before it came out that he was a pedo. Tons of celebrities have also been on that guy's plane, including Bill Clinton (20+ times).
As far as I know Trump has had nothing to do with the guy after knowing he was convicted as a pedo. Not everyone can say that...
It shouldn't be much of a surprise that he won. Did nobody see the wikileaks emails where they were taking about intentionally over-polling likely Hillary voters? She obviously never had the double digit lead that was claimed.
So what you're saying is, despite them being far-right anti-authoritarians, Johnson voters would be more likely to vote for the candidate whose stated positions are even more authoritarian and further to the left?
Just for shits and giggles, let's use the distance formula to provide the approximate ideological distance from Johnson (9.5, -1.5) to each other candidate on that political compass graph, sorted by proximity:
Clinton (7.5, 5.0): 6.80
Trump (6.5, 9.0): 10.92
Stein (-2.5, -2.5): 12.04
And now let's mirthfully equate the candidates to their nearest counterparts on a graph of a few famous historical figures (eyeballed, due to lack of graph lines):
Johnson ~= Milton Friedman, almost exactly
Clinton ~= Thatcher, more or less
Stein ~= Gandhi's less-cool, more-right-leaning cousin
Trump ~= Hitler and Thatcher's secret lovechild
I said that Newsweek's analysis does not appear to have included that document, not the FBI's. I do not have any reason to believe that Newsweek had early access to Wikileaks, nor was it mentioned in their analysis. Frankly, they're a bit slow to catch up with the times. For a bit of humor about that, see also: http://nypost.com/2016/11/09/n...
I've explained separately why I don't think the FBI will charge her: it would be pointless. So they came up with a self-contradictory statement about why they didn't file charges and simply explained what they found.
No, I'm not biased att all!
This post breaks down in so many ways. Premise in a nutshell: FB allows the spreading of fake news, and this is why HRC lost. Immediate irrefutable response: Assume FB allows the spreading of fake news. Since they don't enforce any partisan content restrictions (on personal status updates), this makes it equally easy for any political position to spread fake news benefiting their narrative. During this election cycle, I spotted fake news from both sides of the race. So let's start by tossing out the implication that fake news came only from Trump's supporters. Then we can easily toss out the notion that it had any measurable impact on one side's propaganda versus the other's. Secondary point: Snopes has been accused of operating under a political agenda of its own. The implication that they constitute an example of objectivity introduces a flaw into the chain of logic. Tertiary point: IMHO a much more honest/impartial discussion might arise from the new proliferation of primary sources online for people to do their own fact-checking. As an example, I went straight to Wikileaks to find out what was there when the story broke. Many acquaintances of mine (from one side of the race) only ingested editorialized, filtered reports about Wikileaks; and many others (from the other side) know almost nothing about the content, dismissing it as the propaganda of a malicious foreign power. In both cases, the stories being ingested are once-removed from the original facts because of an editorializing intermediary. If anything, social media's role in this election served as an agent of confirmation bias - on both sides. Just as partisans choose media outlets that reinforce preconceived notions (CNN, FOX, NYT, etc), social media users accept self-reinforcing memes as fact , and reject those that contradict.
Shitposting FTW!
Facebook only helps stupid ppl to comunicate with each other and spread stupid ideas.
As a european i can't really understand the big butt hurt, it's not like Hillary was ever a good candidate.
Why the f* did only about 3% vote third party?
Propaganda for "nerds". Articles insinuating the advent of censorship in facebook, how nice.
No, that's not what I took from this story at all.
The problem with social media that this election illustrates on both sides is that because of its nature it seeks to maximize views and shares, it doesn't care whether or not an article comes from a satirical news site, a blog, or a scientific journal. All it cares about is maximizing eyeballs and clickthrough rates. This creates an environment that's ideal for bubbles to form and as people on both sides of the political field share stuff - factual or not - that supports their view.
For democracy to work properly the populace needs to be informed about the state of affairs. When they're not, and when the channels of information they use don't offer them factual information but emotionally appealing content, the result is that populism becomes easier and easier. It's only a day after the election and Trump has started pivoting into his actual positions already. He's stopped talking about jailing Clinton, and his so called 'plan' to ban all muslims just disappeared from his website without any explanation.
As a foreigner I'm not so much worried about Trumps actions as president, but what his run is signalling: you can now lie openly and blatantly and make claims that are so wildly absurd everyone with 2 brain cells or more knows them to be bullshit, and still get elected as the president of the most powerful nation on Earth.
If we want better candidates, step one on that road is to make the voters more aware of how to discern truth from fiction, and the media does play a role in that, especially the social media.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
well you got your Trump and Taliban Pence. good luck.
No, the problem is that ya'll were too busy reading about how the moon landing was faked to bother to find out how much of a con man Trump is.
The only good thing to come about the next four years is the mental gymnastics of the twat trump voters trying to spin every insane thing he does as a great idea.
I'm a bit worried by all the online content trying to 'explain' why Trump won or why Clinton lost.
I see some Clinton supporters (And most of my social circle seems to be) going through different stages of the kubler-ross model. Finding out 'why' is a logical part of such a process. But I also see a lot of people already dismissing the notion that maybe their worldview isn't shared by the voters for the other candidate for rationalizations that are easier on the ego. (Dismissing Trump votes/voters, blaming facebook, etc..)
That just doesn't feel psychologically healthy. A form of huge cognitive dissonance that prevents this real divide in american society to be properly adressed.
tl:dr;
rationalizations to not have to think outside existing preconceptions.
Yep. The strategy now is:
1. Tell them whatever the fuck they want to hear (ban muslims, mexicans are rapists, etc)
2. Get elected
3. Do whatever the fuck you want
We don't seem to have anybody who creates a policy based on what they think is best, and trying to sell it. Instead, they want to know what people want, so they can vacuously promise it.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Sounds like #Brazil, where in week leading up to impeachment, 3/5 of most shared articles on Facebook were false http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/p..."
Facebook is the fair haired child of corporate America. DJT beat the rigged system by using it to his advantage.
Hi, I just want to remind you to enjoy your life, don't take things to seriously and socialise - in real life :) ..and be careful you might be on the wrong side of a conspiracy. Not all conspiracies are obvious and those that are, might very well be planted to appeal to your ego. That you know more than others, would serve as a motivation for you to spread mis-information that serves the hidden conspiracy. Just some food for thought, a strong ego can be a weakness. Whenever you pass on information as "facts" you are likely being used. Question your opinions and their origin.
I have no reason to try and prove that you are wrong, but you have not proved that you are right. I've only ever met nice people, but that's probably because I never judge them and I don't judge you. I'm certain that you are a nice and caring person, why else would you say what you said if not to protect or help someone?
People voted for the bad guy because they were being lied to!
"They were unabashedly promoting hillary every step of the way and bashing Trump with things taken out of context, alleged and taken for truth, twisted, and sometimes just outright lies."
can you provide us with evidence of that?
My gosh! Never before have we seen so many people butt-hurt at one time. It's glorious I say, Glorious!!
"Trusting every aspect of our lives to a giant computer was the smartest thing we ever did.." Homer Simpson
Trump won because a majority of the American people are under-educated - because of the appalling educational system - dumb shits who live in their personal echo-chamber and know very little of the world outside. Had they known more about Hitler, and what tactics he used to gain power, they would have been immune to Trump.
The primary lesson from this election is that this is what happens when you play at democracy, while treating eduction as something optional and mostly for the well off. We can only hope the Americans don't get the same kind of awakening as the Germans once did.
Sigh
When I come to Slashdot for Tech and Science news, I don't expect articles with political bias. Please stop writing these stories so we can all geek out without political division.
yeah, not like CNN which shows a street full of protestors from a closeup camera, while an AP news crew, further away, shows the same street empty, except for the 30 - 40 people surrounding the CNN crew, and most people sitting drinking tea in surrounding cafe's ... and then CNN reports the city is 'up in arms' over some issue or other.
Naw, that's not fake news.
Never mind that the FBI resorted to October Surprise, and then buried the "oopsie" on a late Sunday, too lat to undo the criminal damage
Obama, do something good. Fire Comey and have him arrested for conspiracy to defraud the American people.
Make Trump pay him off with a pardon.
It seems the premise of this article is that Trump won because Facebook was used to distribute false news, lies, and fake stories.
Please, please, if you believe this, stand firm. Do not give in.
You are missing the revolution, and you maybe, possibly, can stop it. So please, do not think for a moment that people actually WANT what Trump is proposing.
Oh, and while you are at it, take a moment and contact some member of the Republican Establishment. Encourage them to continue to work with you. They are the single greatest threat to the revolution, but do not, please ever breathe a word of that to them.
Thank you. We may yet save this nation if you persist in your delusion. And you will, despite your delusion, benefit from our renewed nation.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
His head might assplode (then again, maybe that would be a good thing). It's bad enough that he thinks he's all that and a bag o' chips.
e mail marketing Turbine suas vendas com e-mail marketing e potencialize suas oportunidades de negócio!
Name one con? Oh look, you can't. Typical Democrat all noise and no substance.
The alternative was Hillary's: I'm going to hide in Obama's shadow and not do anything other than what older men tell me to do, like a good little girl. Trump saved us.
SAID NO ONE EVER
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Considering they won't address fake reviews in their place review section being done by a PR company that sells an on-line review why is anyone shocked that 'fake' "news" which reinforces a bias is spread by the people with the same bias? 'Drama' sells and the longer someone stays on Facebook the more money Facebook can make. (The CEO of the PR firm had quit the business now experiencing the fake reviews. Said CEO has self-published books with reviews saying things like: "Calling some of the topics âoeunconventionalâ, I couldnâ(TM)t help but wonder if this was really code for âoecontroversialâ. [redacted name] has a reputation for pushing the envelope")
This is inane. Both sides spewed that kind of nonsense. To say that trump won because of misinformation is to look at the election through a pretty narrow view. I’ve been called a sexist, racist, homophobic idiot for voting for Trump. But yeah, only the Trump people spread misinformation.. Right..
when people trust the "news" articles on their Facebook feeds more than the vetted stories published by the mainstream media. I don't know that this is a problem that the media itself can deal with, but it's a problem for the country.
For example, we've taken it for granted that illegal immigration has been out of control during the Obama administration. These stories are on everybody's Facebook feeds. The actual numbers tell a different story. The number of illegal immigrants has been flat since 2009.
Dubs in uid confirm praise Kek.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Dear Democrats, Read This If You Do Not Understand Why Trump Won
https://medium.com/@trentlapinski/dear-democrats-read-this-if-you-do-not-understand-why-trump-won-5a0cdb13c597#.9h0nsfcj6
What a whiner. You had CNN broadcasting every speech from Donald, you got Fox News (no explanation necessary). Every news show in the nation spending more time on Clinton's email non-scandal than any other topic, including all substantive issues combined, with the FBI itself giving the final twist of the knife.
And people voted Republican because of the propaganda? I dare say they did. As our new pres would say: Sad. Very sad.
Play Command HQ online
Hilary has been getting poisoned by FOX and other socially conservative mouth pieces for DECADES.
This alone made her a terrible candidate to run. Never run someone that toxic, no matter what you had to tell her, to get her to stick by you during your presidency.
The "intellectually incurious" (nice words for "moronic") social conservatives would vote for anyone living, dead, or mythical before they would vote for her.
This is a fight Hilary lost long before she got elected in New York.
Social Vengeance Warriors crying wolf and leading witch hunts for years also hurt Hilary, as normal people do not like witch hunts (when they are the target) and neither do witches. Calling people "CIS Scum" for years and then asking them to support your candidate is not a smart long game.
On the upside these victimists are further empowered by being victimized by this election and will never see their part in the loss.
What they mean was that Trump won because mainstream media lost their ability to control the message.
But the fact-checking sites are partisan propaganda, too, that nitpick anything a Republican says but gloss over anything a Democrat says because "we know what they really meant."
Jeb Bush could say "my name is Jeb Bush" and politifact would go "PANTS ON FIRE! His real name is John Ellis Bush." But Hillary could say "I personally killed Adolf Hitler" and politifact would go "well, she would have if she could have so mostly true!"
We need less people pretending to be "unbiased" and more adversarial media. There's no such thing as unbiased. Humans have biases. I read Breitbart and I know what I'm getting, I read Mother Jones and I know what I'm getting. But I turn on CNN and they're just lying to my face.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
It may be vital but the US Media "establishment" is going to change. If they don't, they will become increasingly irrelevant and out of touch, eventually going out of business (or existing on the margins).
Parent post is right - the media shredded all of the trust they had left when they went in the tank against Trump. They didn't even try to hide it so now they can't claim "we're objective seekers of truth" anymore. Everyone - and I mean everyone - knows the gig is up. Change is a comin'
Didn't you learn anything from the election? If you keep denigrating the other 50% as crazy, you're gonna have a bad time. But don't let me stop you.....please, by all means, keep going. That'll just make it easier for the rest of us to dismiss you when it comes time to compromise.
This is poppycock, Trump won because many viewed him as a true outsider and was literally the lesser of two evils. The Republican primaries were flooded with candidates that were pretty much drowned out by Trump's noise. They were just more of the same, for the most part, of the elite ruling class. Hillary was the embodiment of the ruling class, who honestly believed that those pesky laws were for us mere peons, not for the likes of her greatness. I hated both candidates, and voted for neither. My vote wasn't stolen, I wouldn't have voted for either of them, even if there wasn't a third party option. The electorate is pretty clear, they're tired of two things. They're tired of 8 years of failed policies implemented in the infant years of Obama's presidency, but more importantly, they're tired of a ruling elite so out of touch with at least half (if not more) of society that they wanted to throw a giant wrench in the gears that was Washington. To blame this on fake news, or any other 'social media phenomena' is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who is capable of higher brain function.
Might want to look at the vote totals again, because they're still counting votes and Trump is now ahead in the popular vote, too.
You lose.
Again.
After viewing all the lies and distortions made against Donald Trump on Facebook I came to realize that the Democratic Party has nothing of substance to offer the American People. I suppose many others came to the same conclusion.
It has been a given that almost all Republicans hate the Clintons. It is also a given that the majority of Democrats hate Trump, and what he has been saying. So, you now have a contest about who is disliked by more people, rather than how much people actually like the candidate. Add to all of this that the Democratic primaries were effectively stolen, and the DNC establishment rigged the primaries, so that the one candidate with genuine energy and enthusiasm was pushed out.
I blame Debbie and the rest of those Clinton-loving people in the DNC who rigged the process.
> There's just no "there" there, since she forwarded pertinent records onto the government servers.
Hillaryclintonemail.com is not a "government server" in any meaningful sense. Nor are Yahoo & Gmail.
One of the emails they were worried about (which they discuss with all the uncleared people in the Podesta email chain...) was a classified picture of North Korea. Huma has been known to communicate with Wiener using Hillary's account. (Now do you see how she got sucked into the Wiener probe?)
You would know this if you researched this yourself. But that takes thinking. That takes work. You're not just wrong, you're provably wrong. Just how many new theories have we had saying Hillary did nothing wrong? Clinton has continually lied about what was found based on the evidence available at the time. Those theories of why she wasn't wrong keep getting blown out of the water as new leaks drip out. And the leaks keep coming out. They weren't just for this election.
Read them, or remain ignorant. Your choice.
Article is wrong.
"facebook" is nothing more than text and images transmitted over a computer network.
If there was no internet, idiots would share bogus news and idiotic opinions other ways
repeat: idiots will share idiotic information to other idiots no matter what the channel, be it HTTP, clipped out and copied magazine articles, postcards, voice, and semaphore code and smoke signals.
Idiots are why Trump got elected
Idiot Democrat voters who nominated Hillary over Bernie - delusionally ignoring that Hillary was incredibly unpopular for at least half the electorate
Idiot Republicans for being Republican
Idiot Sanders voters who voted for Jill Stein or other
Idiot 'libertarians' who are Democrats by policy but think their balls will fall off if they just vote Democrat
Idiot sexists who didn't vote for Hillary b/c she was a woman
Idiot minorities who voted for Trump, in direct opposition to their own interests
Idiot poor people who voted for Trump, in direct opposition to their own interests
That's why Trump won: idiots...broken down by type of idiot.
Thank you Dave Raggett
I agree, Trump won because Hillary is a deeply unpopular candidate, and not only because of sexism but because she *actually* is deeply flawed, though less than Trump.
Idiots are to blame for Trump's victory. Idiot democrats who voted for her in the primary, idiot minorities and poor people who voted against their own interests, idiot bigots and sexists, idiot republicans for being republican...
Facebook is not to blame either. I'm sure they are worthy of criticism (Remember Romney's phantom 'likes'???) but the fact is, idiots will share information with other idiots using all channels of information available: HTTP, magazine clippings copied on the office copier, voice, post card, semaphore code, ASL...every way humans communicate, idiots will use to spread idiotic information to other idiots.
Thank you Dave Raggett
...but sort of. People using FB as a point of blame for their not getting what they want is humorous, as they didn't get what they want because of the electoral college system. She DID win the popular vote, so why not blame the electoral college?
I guess that they think there will be something they somehow gain from finger pointing a corporation rather than a government process that's been in play since..well.. the beginning. They used to have to take tallied vote totals and rush them by horseback to districts, etc etc to the actual central point of decision. It's unnecessary nowadays due to telecom and other forms of near-instant communication, but people aren't really attacking that. I'm not pro-Clinton, BTW. I'm not pro-Trump, either. I was pro-NON OF THE ABOVE on this election. None. No party. Nobody. I'm not speaking in support of a party, is what I'm getting at.
The media which told us Trump couldn't win can suddenly explain how he did it within 48 hours.
Well I did goof, it's actually clintonemail.com. Funny you didn't mention that. Still, classified docs, non-gov server, so you can't very well leave that part out if you're going to say she didn't mishandle classified info. There are people in jail for less and intentionally negligent is a literal contradiction in terms if you bother to look at the definitions.
Now, I'm not perfect. I never said I was. I just said that I looked at the actual sources of evidence and came to my own conclusions. I don't read media articles for their opinion, I pull the factual statements out of them and then look for their sources. You can tell a whole lot of different stories about the same source material. I don't give a damn about their stories, I care about what facts they can bring to the table. And which ones they forget to mention.
That's why I can and h ave backed up my assertions with sources and facts. You'll never be satisfied with the evidence I put out there, I know that. It doesn't matter. Your problem either that you can't or you won't do the same. You and most others just sit there and insult me and never back a single one of your claims. That's mere contradiction, not argument, you're in the wrong department.
Now, I don't know how things will be in four years and neither do you. All I can tell you is that they're currently heading in absolutely the wrong direction to convince independents like myself. They will, in fact, just harden the opposition. But 4 years is a long time. They could learn their lessons by then. Honestly though? I wouldn't hold my breath, they're already doubling down on the things that helped them snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Now then, quick test of your filter bubble: how many references do you understand in this manga? Can you link to the relevant Wikileaks emails for the many references related to it? Can anyone claim to be an informed voter if you don't understand most of those references, even if you vehemently disagree with them? If you can do more than just rage, try proving it to me.
(You can take that in both of it's meanings.) Facebook just delivers the messages that users put on it. A decade ago people were using email to send these stupid stories and images.
The real problem is that the majority of people have stopped thinking. They come across a story about Trump killing a yeti family while they were vacationing in Colorado and they accept it at face value as an example of how he'll keep America safe from immigrants. People have turned off their critical thinking and will believe what they are told to. If you are brought up believing that a certain party is the right one then nothing is going to change that.
These people like living in their bubbles with simple answers being fed to them, even if those simple answers are wrong and bring about dangerous consequences.
Who uses Facebook most? Young people. Who voted for Clinton? Mostly young voters who use Facebook. If Facebook had any effect, it supported Clinton rather than Trump.
Facebook stats: Age 25 to 34, at 29.7% of users, is the most common age demographic. (Source:Emarketer 2012)
http://www.cnn.com/election/re...
18-29 Clinton 55% Trump 37%
30-44 Clinton 50% Trump 42%
I am getting pretty sick of this whole election outcome being labeled an "error", "evidence of people being stupid", or "something that must be prevented".
I see articles on Huffington Post talking about how the Electoral College was designed to prevent an "error" like a Trump presidency, and a bunch of other tripe.
To all the tearful rioters burning peoples' cars and disrupting lives: YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN HEARD. YOUR VOTE WAS COUNTED. YOUR GUY LOST. THE OTHER GUY WON. THAT IS HOW IT FUCKING WORKS. DEAL WITH IT and quit trying to fix something that isn't broken, you arrogant little whiny fucking assholes.
Hillary almost lost the Democratic nomination to Bernie. In fact, many believe she actually would have lost if the DNC hadn’t hamstrung him.
So, does that mean Bernie must also have been spreading dis-information on social media?
Hillary Clinton lost for the same reason that George I lost in 1992: she didn’t listen to the electorate. What Bernie’s team achieved in the Democratic primaries should have been an education for her. Instead, what did she do the week after the Democratic Convention? She jetted off to Malibu and the Hamptons to peddle influence for $200,000 a plate.
To adapt a catchphrase from the 1992 election, “it’s the corruption, stupid.”
The people who were susceptible to false or misleading stories in social media are the same people who would never have voted for her anyway. It was the centrists and independents – the people who actually evaluate candidates based on their merits, rather than just flip the D or R lever – that she needed to win over. Most of those people stayed home because they were so disgusted with both choices.
So, no, she did not lose because of Facebook. Hillary Clinton lost because she is an puppet of the ultra-rich and was too arrogant to even try to hide that fact.
I think there was a substantial influence from something the media isn't discussing at all. How many moderate Republicans, Independents and center leaning Democrats support the second amendment? Anyone voting their conscience in supporting the constitutional protections for gun rights isn't going to be able to vote for Hillary. Being anti-gun might play well to the democrats base in the primary, but it does serious harm in the general election. You might get a Republican to cross party lines and vote for a moderate democrat, but that isn't going to happen if that vote is going to come at the cost of liberty.
Whereas, fake news distributed by government-approved broadcasters was perfectly OK?
And the missing news not distributed by government-approved broadcasters was perfectly OK to omit?
I'm going to say "No" and "No", on those two. YMMV.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
lol
orley ? why not because of the illuminati or area 51 ?
im still surprised at the initial disbelief and surprise at the most likely outcome, its a global anti-establishment period and thats what he is, left right, black white or not
opposed to ms. clinton he is the anti-establishment
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?