Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Social Media and Elections

3 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1Social Media and Elections Empty Social Media and Elections 12/13/2017, 9:39 am

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost

Interesting opinion article in The Hill this morning from Gov Gary Johnson.

I'll quote it in it's entirety & save you all having to go to the link.

http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/364332-when-pro-clinton-trolls-went-after-me-during-the-election?rnd=1513028415 wrote:

When pro-Clinton trolls went after me during the election

A few weeks ago, executives from Facebook, Google and Twitter were called to Capitol Hill to testify about Russian “meddling” in last year’s election. There was a lot of hand-wringing and outrage from the politicians in the room — from both parties. And there was even a bit of acknowledgment from the representatives of the social media and Internet companies that their platforms were powerful delivery mechanisms for a focused, intense and perhaps even effective campaign to manipulate public opinion.

To me, it was a bit of déjà vu.

The outrage about the use of Facebook, Twitter, et al., to create and broadcast vote-swaying messages is, of course, because it was the Russians who did it.

And it’s probably appropriate, as the tech community itself is suggesting, to have greater disclosure of where the messages are coming from and whose money is paying for them.  Disclosure of such things is a fundamental part of our campaign laws.

To be clear, as a free market, First Amendment guy, I get very nervous about the notion of government attempting to get in the business of controlling, restraining or otherwise influencing content.


But on a personal note, I have to say it was a little ironic to watch the politicians bemoan the idea that someone could dump a few million dollars onto social media and the Internet and almost immediately push poll numbers one way or another.

Yes, it’s probably bad when Russians do it. But what about when Democrats or Republicans do it?  I ask because ... it was done to me. Specifically, it was done to me by the same Hillary Clinton loyalists who are today so outraged that the Russians spent millions “against” Ms. Clinton.

It was mid-September of 2016. A couple of polls were released showing that the Johnson-Weld ticket was doing well with young voters — voters Ms. Clinton was counting on. A New York Times/CBS poll showed 26 percent of young voters leaning toward us — as many as were supporting Trump and rivaling Clinton’s numbers among that group.

That poll, along with similar results in an ABC/Washington Post survey, prompted a spate of news stories about Clinton’s weakness among millennials and the relative strength of Johnson-Weld. A couple of those articles included quotes from staffers at Priorities USA, the principal pro-Clinton super PAC, pledging a “multimillion-dollar digital campaign that talks about ...how a vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for Donald Trump.”

Who knows how many millions of dollars were actually spent on that effort? Political junkie grape-vine estimates ranged from $10 million to $50 million — even on the low end, the amount probably equalled the total amount spent by our entire campaign.

It was a nuke, and the fallout was both immediate and significant.
Almost overnight, a virtual army of trolls suddenly discovered our Facebook pages and Twitter feeds — eerily parroting the “a vote for Johnson is a vote for Trump” line. Mysteriously, a number of pro-Clinton and progressive “news” sites all appeared to find and distort the same out-of-context Gary Johnson quotes from years before, treating them as new revelations.


Of course, with a few million dollars' worth of digital “campaigning”, it wasn’t long before the mainstream media got in on the act, parroting the parrots.

I stopped Googling myself. I didn’t recognize the guy I had become on the Internet. Sure, I did some of the damage myself. But it was truly impressive what a “multimillion-dollar digital campaign” was able to do with a couple of gaffes and few decade-old, out-of-context quotes — none more damning than those readily available from Clinton or Trump.

From what one would read on an iPhone when the Clinton campaign was finished, it’s a miracle the state of New Mexico survived eight years with Gary Johnson as governor.

I was fair game. That’s what you sign up for when you run for president. I get it. That’s not the point.

The point is this: When it comes to election manipulation via social media and the Internet at the hands of organized, well-funded “campaigns,” let’s put it in perspective. If the Russians do it, I guess that’s bad. If the Republicans or Democrats do it, I guess it’s OK.

One thing I can verify: A few million dollars spent on Facebook, Twitter and Google can certainly leave a mark.

Johnson served as governor of New Mexico from 1995-2003. He was the 2016 Libertarian Party nominee for president.

2Social Media and Elections Empty Re: Social Media and Elections 12/13/2017, 10:20 am

Telstar

Telstar

EmeraldGhost wrote:Interesting opinion article in The Hill this morning from Gov Gary Johnson.



http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/364332-when-pro-clinton-trolls-went-after-me-during-the-election?rnd=1513028415 wrote:


From what one would read on an iPhone when the Clinton campaign was finished, it’s a miracle the state of New Mexico survived eight years with Gary Johnson as governor.


Johnson served as governor of New Mexico from 1995-2003. He was the 2016 Libertarian Party nominee for president.








3Social Media and Elections Empty Re: Social Media and Elections 12/13/2017, 11:00 am

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost

Telstar wrote:


Was not my intention for this thread to be a referendum on Gary Johnson.

How about we discuss the message in the article ... rather than attack the messenger?

4Social Media and Elections Empty Re: Social Media and Elections 12/13/2017, 11:05 am

Telstar

Telstar

EmeraldGhost wrote:



Was not my intention for this thread to be a referendum on Gary Johnson.

How about we discuss the message in the article ... rather than attack the messenger?




Nah, it's easier to keep pointing out what a kook Gary Johnson is. He is a funny guy. Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy

5Social Media and Elections Empty Re: Social Media and Elections 12/13/2017, 11:16 am

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost

Telstar wrote:

Nah, it's easier to keep pointing out what a kook Gary Johnson is. He is a funny guy. Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy

Well, if you want to be shallow about it ... I guess there's nothing stopping you. Doesn't help your credibility any though.

6Social Media and Elections Empty Re: Social Media and Elections 12/13/2017, 11:57 am

Telstar

Telstar

EmeraldGhost wrote:
Telstar wrote:

Nah, it's easier to keep pointing out what a kook Gary Johnson is. He is a funny guy. Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy

Well, if you want to be shallow about it ... I guess there's nothing stopping you.  Doesn't help your credibility any though.





Fuck credibility and fuck Gary Johnson and anyone dumb enough to toss away their vote on him. That's what Pat told me. Laughing

7Social Media and Elections Empty Re: Social Media and Elections 12/13/2017, 1:29 pm

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

EmeraldGhost wrote:



Was not my intention for this thread to be a referendum on Gary Johnson.

How about we discuss the message in the article ... rather than attack the messenger?

He IS the messenger...he wrote the sour grapes article.

8Social Media and Elections Empty Re: Social Media and Elections 12/13/2017, 1:41 pm

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost

Floridatexan wrote:
EmeraldGhost wrote:



Was not my intention for this thread to be a referendum on Gary Johnson.

How about we discuss the message in the article ... rather than attack the messenger?

He IS the messenger...he wrote the sour grapes article.

Well, duh!   I s'pose the message goes right over your head too?

As to Johnson being "sour grapes" ... he admitted his own culpability in his failed campaign in the article.  Considering the bit of success he did have though, I think some things he might still have to say are still politically relevant to some small degree. But as I said previously, I never intended this thread to be some kind of referendum/debate about Gary Johnson.  If you want to play it that way, have at it, I won't be participating.  

If I have to point it out plainly to those so caught up in the two-party dichotomy they can't seem to grasp the topic ... the article is about the lack of transparency in the nexus between money & speech in political campaigns.   About how we don't really know who is funding the messages we see on social media, and what their true agenda might be.  And how big a factor social media has become in our elections and politics.   (This lack of transparency has been a known controversy for some time with PACS, btw.   Just a new wrinkle with the whole social media aspect)

9Social Media and Elections Empty Re: Social Media and Elections 12/13/2017, 3:11 pm

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

EmeraldGhost wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
EmeraldGhost wrote:



Was not my intention for this thread to be a referendum on Gary Johnson.

How about we discuss the message in the article ... rather than attack the messenger?

He IS the messenger...he wrote the sour grapes article.

Well, duh!   I s'pose the message goes right over your head too?

As to Johnson being "sour grapes" ... he admitted his own culpability in his failed campaign in the article.  Considering the bit of success he did have though, I think some things he might still have to say are still politically relevant to some small degree. But as I said previously, I never intended this thread to be some kind of referendum/debate about Gary Johnson.  If you want to play it that way, have at it, I won't be participating.  

If I have to point it out plainly to those so caught up in the two-party dichotomy they can't seem to grasp the topic ... the article is about the lack of transparency in the nexus between money & speech in political campaigns.   About how we don't really know who is funding the messages we see on social media, and what their true agenda might be.  And how big a factor social media has become in our elections and politics.   (This lack of transparency has been a known controversy for some time with PACS, btw.   Just a new wrinkle with the whole social media aspect)

That's why you have a brain...to sort through and decide which messages are relevant and who(m) might be trying to deceive you. Maybe you're also having an "Aleppo moment". Like the majority of right-wingers, Johnson isn't worth the paper he's printed on. Next topic.

Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum