Hacker News Reader

Comment by KGIII | Hacker News Reader

See, that's kind of the thing. I admit there is quite some selection bias, but I don't actually think I know a single person who had their vote changed by said propaganda.

Hearing that Clinton ate babies, was nearly dead, was going to take away arms, and was going to force me to install a transgender person in my bathroom didn't actually make me vote for Trump. In fact, I'm pretty sure nothing they said could have made me vote for him.

Again, I'm absolutely sure there is selection bias - but I do live in the State that elected LePage, twice. We sent an electoral vote for Trump and one for Clinton. The Trump voters that I know were probably going to vote for Trump, even if he set fire to a nativity scene while cursing baby Jesus.

I wish there were some way to truly quantify how much impact it had.

View on HN

I think the way you're framing the question is quite leading and misrepresents the actual situation. The aim of modern propaganda isn't to change anyone mind from one candidate to another - the purpose of russian disinformation is to spread confusion and delegitimize the democratic process, and attack any credible source of truth.

Again, I'm sure there is some selection bias but nobody I know (in the real world) is vocalizing any opinions that the democratic process is in danger. Some vocal people online are, but I've not met them.

Who are these people? Where are they?

It's not confusing. They published some trash. It takes a few moments to verify that it is untrue. If you wait long enough, someone will come along and post a rebuttal and provide citations.

Maybe I give too much credit to my fellow humans, but I know some less than brilliant people and they happily voted D or R much like they have always done. They then went back to work and will bitch about it for a couple of years until they forget and do it again with the next political season.

Meh... Maybe I'm missing something, but that's what I see.

Again, you’re trying to move the frame of the discussion in ways that are hiding the actual costs. Again, the purpose of propaganda isn’t to convince people to switch their votes, it was to portray CPI ton as a criminal in ways that would energize conservatives and discourage liberals.

I'll have to trust you on this. Our voter turnout was pretty much exactly like it was in 2012 which was just a bit lower than 2008. I live in a purple state, maybe that's the difference? I'm not really sure because, from here, I can't even see the propaganda having had any of the effects you've claimed.

I'll trust you. I doubt you have any motive to be dishonest. It just seems pretty different from what I see - both by the published results and by my experiences talking with people.

Also, I am guessing CPI ton is Clinton and autocorrected?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com