Hacker News Reader

Clearly, Trump has mastered traditional media, but would the way he's done so be possible without social media?

The traditional media coverage of Trump is generally negative, and his signature "Say something outrageous and spark a conversation" style relies on social media, where the conversation happens.

Without that, would he just be "that rich guy the media always makes fun of"?

That's precisely his base. If the establishment hates him, he must be doing something right.

Indeed, but isn't the widespread antiestablishmentarianism also nurtured primarily in social media?

It's been the recurring thread in American politics since the "Turn on, tune in, drop out" and "state's rights" of the 60s.

Social media might be nurturing more extreme views by fostering more isolation from challenging beliefs, but one could also argue that it's exposing people to more of other people's views than ever before.

Long before the 60s, actually.

Social media isn't required for revolution, obviously, but it feeds antiestablishment movements more effectively than underground printing presses and independent radio did.

At least for the moment. Perhaps a new establishment will arise that's learned to control the Internet as well as previous establishments controlled other media.

The aphorism "There's no such thing as bad press" comes to mind.

Forget about Trump...he's just a scary reminder of how many people will still get riled up by xenophobic fear-mongering and aggression, and yeah he's basically the establishment and has been all over traditional media for years.

Bernie, though, I'm pretty sure is a candidate that doesn't get as far as he has without the kind of grassroots campaign only possible in the Internet era. Ron Paul was this candidate in the last election. The Internet definitely has reduced the ability of a centralized minority to control the message, and that will continue as the percentage of internet-savvy people increases.

I don't think Bernie's campaign is particularly noteworthy, historically. Many campaigns have had hard-fought primaries, and populist vs establishment is hardly a new theme in American politics.

> I'm not going to try to explain Trump's success. No one can, except maybe Trump.

FWIW his success is not really hard to explain, but to do so would likely derail this thread into LEO.

I'd say that the explanation is actually less contentious than it might seem.

He has mastered the art of going viral. Right now, even the people that hate him are promoting him by giving attention to the controversies he manufactures.

Totally fair re tech writers.

To be clear, I was not at all trying to suggest that tech was the only factor. It's a small one.

Moreover, where tech matters is in how it has devalued what the party offered, clearing the space for Trump (i.e. the effect of aggregation of the media is to neuter the party, not necessarily to elevate trump)

> But I do know that the Internet / media structure today is not a sufficient explanation. Why? Because a) all the candidates exist in the same tech/media environment, and b) the tech/media environment in 2016 is not substantially different from 2012, when the GOP went establishment yet again.

The social media landscape is significantly different than in 2012.

http://www.ibtimes.com/facebook-gets-older-demographic-repor...

From Jan 2011 to Jan 2014, Facebook saw big increases in users aged 25-55 and massive increases in users aged 55+.

- Who votes the most?

- Where have they increasingly been turning as their primary consumption point for media?

Thompson's idea is that aggregator services have replaced distributor services as the channel for media to get to consumers, and that these aggregator services present new consumer-targeting opportunities for media, and new media-consuming opportunities for consumers.

When consumers define part of their consumption channel by the consumption preferences of other consumers, we start to see constructive interference in the "neutral" flow of media to any one individual consumer. It's that "echo chamber" effect folks like talking about.

Thompson says in the article, "[it's not] that Donald Trump or anyone else is an aggregator." Rather, the nature of the aggregator as a much more malleable media delivery system presents a new effect in that political landscape: any particular piece of media might end up in one of these broad-reaching, customized consumption webs and produce a large effect on those consumers.

Before, the distribution services were shaped by a relative handful of editors. Today, the aggregator services are shaped by the entire population.

The parties can't influence the entire population in the way they could a handful of editorial boards, and so these aggregators are a greater facilitating influence on the opinions of voters than the parties are.

Trump's messaging has been well-targeted at viewpoints that people will talk about. And it's been delivered in a way that people will resonate with. So:

- His message has surfaced much more frequently, and more broadly, across these consumer-shaped aggregator networks.

- It's surfacing with a huge portion of the folks most likely to vote.

Pair that with the effects of group psychology and you get an idea of how folks who liked him for being ridiculous last summer now ideologically support him today.