Computer Scientist Warns of Social Media Manipulation in U.S. Election

Every time my kids tell me something they've learned online, there ensues a conversation about how everything posted online must be true because it is posted online.

What I haven't done well enough is teach them where to go to determine if something is true. Thanks for helping me realize that so I can do something about it.

My first impulse on reading the parent comment was an urge to note the difference in propagation speed between the inflammatory political cartoon and the manipulative tweet. On reflection, I think the impact of this delta is more than balanced by the resources a critical observer can bring to bear in the context of the process as it exists today. That being said, the political process in the US seems designed to marginalize critical thinkers trying to arrive at sound public policy, leaving the field to those forwarding and protecting private agendas. The national conversation, such as it is, is driven by those parties most adept at injecting noise into public communication channels.

<edited for clarity>

Considering that most of the messages in politics are false or distorted you could probably make a more informed decision knowing nothing about the candidates.

The 140 character limit wouldn't exactly be new. Some voters base their decisions on even less information.

Hope, Change, Flip-flop, Romnesia, etc.

That is certainly one approach and for some thats more than they need.

Thing is when it comes up towards election the various parties wake up and startup the PR spin and with that you get more and more targeted via the communications tools at hand. This has always meant manipulation for PR gains nomatter the form of communication, be it twitter or Facebook etc today or the Newspapers of yesteryear. Nothing new.

If people want to base the vote over advert based timespans then they will, though I always found it better to look at what they have done outside that PR window and not on the PR spun, vote for us ones. In the UK last election I saw the concervatives saying they were about local jobs in a leaflet from my local candidate. Said leaflet was printed in another county and with over 5 local printing companies I did see thru the PR spin on that one.

Personaly if you vote based on what your told by the salesman only then you are opening yourself up to mistakes. If you do your own research and look at the history of the product or party in this case and what it has done and is doing; Then you see the true picture.

Whoever wins I hope they don't suffer the act of children fillybustering and turn the seats of power into a school yard name calling session. In the UK I watch the parlement channel and the way they act at times would not be tollerated in a School Playground, fine examples. But it is the same when you get people fighting for there party and not the greater good of the country it serves. But humans are not perfect; Though we do aspire.

So for me politics can do blipverts and 1 character information posts as I do my own research and make my own mind up based upon actions and effort and not the one year running up to an election, pile of spin. Whatever form they pick.

I guess in that sence, less information from parties blowing there own trumpet is more politics being done instead of being talked about.

Be nice if they could agree on a few more things so that at least those can get actioned and things done that need to be done instead of being blocked just because the other guy came up with the idea, thats my dream and I had it.

~20% of the votes will go through machines. Both Diebold[1] and Tagg Romney own a huge number of the machines, specifically in important states like Ohio.

The US elections have been rigged for at least 12 years. This much is obvious. They will be rigged this year, too. But to what extent?

[1] Or whatever they call themselves now.

Don't forget about voter roll manipulation as the votes of millions of legitimate voters, most of them visible minorities, are thrown out on spurious grounds.

At first I thought this was worrying comment.

Then I saw this entire subthread was a brilliant meta-comment showing how spurious rumors are spread through social media.

Are you saying that you think the pro or anti stance of Reddit is due to manipulation, rather than demographics?

Because to them, you're just another vote and your opinion doesn't matter. You are expected by people like this to just follow instructions. And if you don't just follow instructions and you decide you need to learn something about the subject, chances are you are in the minority and don't matter to them.

Or less cynically, there was advertising money left to spend and not much of it. A quick "vote yes on prop 2" is a great way to spend money and maybe get the result you want if you are the beneficiary of the proposal.