Facebook leaves no doubt: It's the right wing's social network now - Part Two

Is the reason those are the top 10 sites are because facebook is tipping the scale or do a preponderance of facebook users read those type of sites?

 

Garbage in... Garbage out.

 

I did and it does not really answer my question.

You just gave your opinion.

 

I dont have a reason for bumping this thread other than people who say they are dropping Facebook are missing out. I understand the data issues and this issue but at the end of the day Facebook works exactly as it was intended. I communicate with people i went to school with that i would never hear from.

One of my issues with the reporting on the collusion story is that the vast majority of Americans vote the same way every election. On the emails for instance the issue behind them remains the same negatives that have haunted Mrs Clinton since the nineties

Im not bothered by Facebook selling my data because its free. Nobody is gonna sell me something i dont want and i wont be influenced to change my vote from a false story on some off brand web site

 

It isn't about changing votes as has been pointed out to you before. It is about people either not voting at all or leaving the presidential ballot blank (voting a protest vote). If people who left the presidential ballot blank in Michigan had voted for the Democrat, Trump would have lost.

So if false stories get people convinced all politicians are equally as corrupt or that neither candidate is worth voting for, it can change the result. Nobody has to vote for a different candidate for it to change the result of the election.

 

So you're saying that, despite all historical evidence to the contrary, advertising/propaganda doesn't work because it doesn't work on you?

 

Clutchfans.net makes up for it.

 

Is it more attuned to education level and/or age or sports team fandom?

 

As far as advertising is concerned i dont have a problem with Facebook selling my data is more of the point. Never said anything is wrong with advertising. Facebook is free to.me and its valuable to me, it has to make money to continue.

 

Can you provide a source of this evidence? I would like a clearer explanation of what you're saying

 

Here you are.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-without-voting-for-a-presidential-candidate/

 

Where does the article attribute this to interference?

 

Wait... Are you doubting that negative ads 'news' stories about a candidate depress turnout or make voters less likely to vote for that candidate?

 

You said you had proof.

Why cant they just not like the candidate? What is your proof it had to do with interference? Thats your claim that you say there is proof of

This article isnt about inteference. Its not about people not showing up to vote. Its about people not liking either candidate

All you have said is your proof is people didn't vote for her.

 

First of all, I didn't say I had proof of jackshit. You asked for a link and I gave it to you. I thought you were talking about the increased numbers of people not voting for President which is what I mentioned.

My claim was that ads and stories don't have to make voters change their votes. They only had to leave the ballot blank or stay at home to change the outcome. I pointed out the increase in people leaving the ballot blanks and the difference it would have made in those states.

I showed proof of that claim. Then you started asking if negative ads and stories were responsible for that. So that is a separate issue that you brought up.

But here is a snippet of a report from Brookings that shows exactly that.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-alienated-american-voter-are-the-news-media-to-blame/

 

You responded to a post about collusion. You're arguing semantics. Whether they didn't vote or voted for Trump the article doesn't talk about negative ads.

I dont know what you are trying to prove, that no one can run negative campaign ads

 

I'm trying to prove that your statement that voters don't change who they for isn't really necessary to change the outcome of an election. Your basic premise doesn't prove anything because nobody has to change their mind and vote for the opposite candidate to change the outcome of an election.

I posted an article citing how many people voted for the under ballot but didn't vote for President and how that was an increase over other elections. The article mentions that the number of ballots without presidential votes could have swung the election in crucial states.

I posted a link and excerpt from the report that shows the effect of negative stories and ads on voter turnout.

You are constructing strawmen when you say things like that I'm trying to say nobody can run negative campaign ads.

I will make this very simple for you.

I have posted evidence that shows

1. No voter has to switch their votes from one candidate to another in order to change the outcome of an election.
2. Negative news stories and ads affect the turnout in elections.
3. The same election when we were flooded with fake negative stories and ads saw an increase in voters only voting for the under-ballot.

You are free to go back and read the articles. The bottom line is that your premise that people don't change or switch their votes to a different candidate is pointless and irrelevant when discussing the issue of dishonest and falsely negative stories and ads.

I don't know how to make it any clearer to you. Either you get it or you don't.

 

Where have you proven people not voting was a result of negative ads?

Were negative ads new to the 2016 election?

Russians didn't make people change votes or not vote.

On not voting they didn't like their options