Enabling further research of information operations on Twitter
blog.twitter.com
blog.twitter.com
This is not limited to U.S. politics, of course; similar attempts can be seen in many countries. They may be organised by foreign powers (Russia is often named, but there are others too) or domestic organisations (who sometimes create very formidable follower bases in smaller countries; one such example was just discovered in Sweden.)
The first step to answering this question lies in understanding the data.
Yes, they'd deny comment, avoid the question, give a completely unrelated answer, etc. But they avoided actual lying.
What was especially rare was lying to gain something, as opposed to, for example, getting out of a scandal. There are people now gearing up to give me contrarian examples of politician X telling that story how they were shot at in Belgrade, etc. But the simple fact that we remember these episodes proves their extraordinary nature.
So I'd say the main problem with your comment, among many others, is this cynical view that everything is as terrible as it can be, anyway. If that were true, we'd have lost already and the US would be indistinguishable from, say, Yemen.
Once you agree that there is something like a political culture, or at least there could be, your other claim seems to be that the internet just doesn't matter. Because people shouldn't use it for information, or because it just is a space seperate from "the real world" in your mind.
But just as nobody is ever influenced by advertising and yet the practice continues, everyone thinks it's a stupid idea to get your news from Twitter but it just happens to be one of many channels that has an impact on people's opinions.
I think there is a lot to be said about the Dog and Pony show we see during campaign season to what politicians actually do and accomplish once in office. Whether they are outright lies or just knowingly false promises or attempts to slander an opponents images, it's definitely a show that rarely has anything to do with what they will do if elected. Cynical? Probably yes, but it's also based on a lifetime of watching what occurs in this country every few years. So whether its the 'home team' sending out these messages of what will change, or how bad X person is, etc.. or a foreign entity anyone who believes what they see, hear or read during a campaign cycle is a person not in touch with reality. But I still believe that any attempts to regulate this is just political grandstanding after all it's the internet, everyone has a voice.
I'll ignore the fact that many mediums (print, radio, tv) have been regulated and ask this: Is a bot part of everyone? If I control 5 bots, do I now get 5 voices instead of just one?
The counter to this would be: If people aren't swayed with what they consume on the internet then Facebook, Instagram, Google, Snap, Twitter, Pinterest and more would have market caps of about $0. The primary revenue stream for each of these companies is advertising on the internet.
Since large corporations pay these companies significant dollars to advertise on their platforms, we can assume that their analysis shows some type of return on that investment. With that in mind, maybe there is a middle ground between your fatalism and the standard political grandstanding.
I wouldn't assume anything there.
> With that in mind, maybe there is a middle ground between your fatalism and the standard political grandstanding.
I'm sure there is but I still dont see why the government should be required to regulate SOCIAL media companies. It's social media for a reason.
If you are going to dismiss it, then you should bring some evidence. Failing that, it is safe to assume that if profit-seeking corporations continue to spend billions of dollars a year for advertising, there is some return on investment. If there wasn't, the market would adjust.
== It's social media for a reason. ==
I don't understand what this means. They added the word social, so it is no longer media?
There is plenty of evidence that supports both sides of the claim. It's pointless to discuss because it will not stop the market.
> I don't understand what this means. They added the word social, so it is no longer media?
It's media in the essence that it's a means of communication, and media alone, especially social media, shouldn't be regulated by the government on private platforms. The government has no reasonable reason to stop people from voicing their opinions, or expressing satire, or discussing politics on social discussion platforms.
Please share your evidence.
==The government has no reasonable reason to stop people from voicing their opinions, or expressing satire, or discussing politics on social discussion platforms.==
Bots are not people, which renders the point moot. Even if bots were granted rights, they are committing fraud by assuming fake identities and attempting to sway people's actions for gain. Fraud is a crime, crimes are regulated by the government.
You can google on your own, I will not be doing. Nor replying further to this conversation thread.
> Bots are not people, which renders the point moot.
Exactly so there is no need to regulate information or opinion coming out of a essentially a robot. They are not committing fraud as for social media has never been regarded as a system of truth there is no law that says I must tell the truth when posting on social media. Nor has social media every been restricted to one account per person.
This has been a fun conversation but I am done speaking on it as for nothing we discuss will change anything or either's opinion.
==Exactly so there is no need to regulate information or opinion coming out of a essentially a robot.==
Two comments ago it couldn't be regulated because it would "stop people from voicing their opinions, or expressing satire, or discussing politics"; now you say they are just robots. Which is it, people or robots?
Your stance is equivalent to believing Samuel Clemens couldn't be held liable for something that "Mark Twain" did/said. If you build a bot and that bot commits fraud, you have committed fraud.
==This has been a fun conversation but I am done speaking on it as for nothing we discuss will change anything or either's opinion. ==
You are speaking for yourself, not me.
Edit: even in situation where the person(s) responsible might not be in favor of either side, for example if someone were doing it in both direction i.e. in Clinton vs. Bernie primary just to corrode the relationship and weaken the winner.
Really? The trick is... no less than 2k years old, no Dzerzhinski was around king Herod's time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization...