Bots May Have Boosted Trump's Votes 3.23%

[acidhead]

25 minutes ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

Yes, exactly. Considering how much supporters of the Dear Leader-to-Be (Hillary) hated the Orange Leader-to-Be and anyone who expressed any thought that he was anything less than a slightly tubbier, orange Satan , I find it very very hard to believe that anyone could have been undecided about which one to go for right from the start, let alone that their decision could have been so delicately balanced that an ad on Facebook (and have we ever actually been shown any of these supposed 'ads', so we can see what they actually were?) might have swayed them into making the fatal decision. 

In one video Hillary had a frown face with a black and white background. ...

From then on I had no doubt Trump was my choice!

I raced down to Cali without stopping to cast my Canadian vote!

[RoofGardener]

On 22/05/2018 at 6:13 AM, ExpandMyMind said:

If this estimation can be shown to be accurate and replicated elsewhere, then it would be massive.

3.25% was enough to win him the election. Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin all would have went the way without Russian bots. Maybe others too.

I wonder how future studies on the effect of the Facebook campaign will also show the vote to have been affected. The two operations combined will likely have had a much more significant effect tha 3.25%.

It's a very interesting study ExpandMyMind, and thanks for posting about it. 

A word of warning however; the media (certainly the article you linked to) are misrepresenting (or at least, sensationalising) the report. 

The report does NOT indicate that Twitter influenced the election (though the authors suggest that this MIGHT be the case). It merely points out a correlation between twitter behavior and voting behavior. 

Hence they looked at a given state, monitored the number of pro-Trump and pro-Hillary tweets, and compared that with the actual voting record. They then tried to estimate the proportion of the twitter activity that was due to "bots". 

The flaw here is the underlying assumption that twitter activity results in votes. The opposite is more likely to be true; that people intending to vote for Hillary will TWEET positive things about Hillary, or share such tweets, and the same with Trump voters. Hence twitter activity may be a  PREDICTOR of voting patterns, not an INFLUENCER of them, at which point the bots become somewhat irrelevant. 

Perhaps. Maybe. 

Either way, that "3.6%" figure is hardly a solid one. 

Nevertheless, it is an interesting line of research, and worthy of additional development in my opinion.

Interestingly, Eire has apparently banned all paid adverts during the refferendum on abortion. 

 

Edited May 23, 2018 by RoofGardener

[Krater]

What a sad and desperate excuse. Reminds me of the long running list of Hillary's "reasons why I lost the election" (surely over 100 excuses long by now).

Both sides of those elections used bots, amongst other tactics. 

FYI: bots don't cast ballots. People do.

[ExpandMyMind]

On 22/05/2018 at 6:13 AM, ExpandMyMind said:

f this estimation can be shown to be accurate and replicated elsewhere, then it would be massive

@RoofGardener @Socks Junior

That was my opening sentence for the thread. No one is saying that this study is Gospel. 

I've been asked on numerous occassions to prove that Russia's meddling had an effect. This is the first study that I know of that has looked into this claim, and therefore the first piece of evidence to support the claim. Not definitive proof but also far from insignificant.

[Doc Socks Junior]

2 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

@RoofGardener @Socks Junior

That was my opening sentence for the thread. No one is saying that this study is Gospel. 

I've been asked on numerous occassions to prove that Russia's meddling had an effect. This is the first study that I know of that has looked into this claim, and therefore the first piece of evidence to support the claim. Not definitive proof but also far from insignificant.

But it is insignficant. Not worthwhile from a scientific standpoint.

Rather telling, though, from a psychological one.

[ExpandMyMind]

56 minutes ago, Socks Junior said:

But it is insignficant. Not worthwhile from a scientific standpoint.

Rather telling, though, from a psychological one.

According to that one friend of yours.

[Merc14]

On 5/22/2018 at 7:10 AM, Gromdor said:

  I've never believed in the concept of free will.  If you are religious then you are the product of a creator that knew your every choice as well as every choice of everyone else in the world before he/she/it created you.  If you are an atheist then the belief is that you are a advanced organic computer who is programed by biology, society and the environment.

 Choice is an illusion.  It is merely you acting upon your conditioning.

 That being said, advertising works, it's the reason why companies spend a quarter trillion on it in the US every year.  Brainwashing is real and a thing.  Hypnosis is real and a thing. Peer pressure is real and a thing.

So when someone says they are too smart to be affected by Facebook, or their girlfriend, or TV, I generally just roll my eyes.

 

How come it only works on democrats and other leftists?  It always seems aimed at your poor leftists and 3% of you always seem to blindly obey the bot orders.  Why?  "I was going to vote for Hillary till a bot tweeted at me and made me vote Trump.  It was eerie."  

Edited May 23, 2018 by Merc14

[+OverSword]

9 hours ago, Agent0range said:

I think you might want to read a book titled "The Groundswell", you can probably get it for a couple of bucks on Amazon.  It was published far before the election, and it is about the manipulation of Social Media for business purposes.  It is required reading in many majors of Information Technology.  I still have tons of fake news show up in my Facebook feed, from people that truly believe the lies that they are told.

My point is that you could tell me any positive lie or truth about Hillary Clinton and and I wouldn't care.  I hate her guts and you're not going to change my mind even if she donates a kidney to a sick child.  Sure, for selling cars or watches, great, but for someone I've made my mind up about in an election, not a chance.

Edited May 23, 2018 by OverSword

[ExpandMyMind]

11 minutes ago, OverSword said:

My point is that you could tell me any positive lie or truth about Hillary Clinton and and I wouldn't care.  I hate her guts and you're not going to change my mind even if she donates a kidney to a sick child.  Sure, for selling cars or watches, great, but for someone I've made my mind up about in an election, not a chance.

Not everyone has their mind already made up before an election though, and some could quite easily have been swayed by all manner of different forms of propaganda.

Trump won 6 of the States by around 1%. That means that only 1 out of every 100 people who voted would have had to be swayed to either vote for Trump over Hillary or - and this is in my opinion the most likely outcome - have been convinced not to vote at all. 

The campaign didn't have to get people to change their mind about Trump or Hillary and make a switch. It just had to make Hillary look so bad that a tiny percentage of them decided to just not vote at all. When you look at voter turnout compared to the two previous elections, Democrats not voting undoubtedly had a significant impact on the results.

[+OverSword]

8 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Not everyone has their mind already made up before an election though, and some could quite easily have been swayed by all manner of different forms of propaganda.

To suggest that twitter changed the vote by any amount larger than point zero zero zero something is friggin ridiculous.

[aztek]

if there were 2 people running, that no one knew, i'd say it is possible to sway an opinion a bit, but  it was not the case, everyone's mind was made up long before the election. on those 2

not to mention no bot will influence an elector

Edited May 23, 2018 by aztek

[+OverSword]

11 minutes ago, aztek said:

if there were 2 people running, that no one knew, i'd say it is possible to sway an opinion a bit, but  it was not the case, everyone's mind was made up long before the election. on those 2

not to mention no bot will influence an elector

Yeah this just more leftist crybaby crap.  "Trump won by 1% of the vote but cheater bots swayed the vote by 3%"  What utter malarkey.

[aztek]

Just now, OverSword said:

Yeah this just more leftist crybaby crap.  "Trump won by 1% of the vote but cheater bots swayed the vote by 3%"  What utter malarkey.

why not, obama visited 57 states

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

My point is that you could tell me any positive lie or truth about Hillary Clinton and and I wouldn't care.  I hate her guts and you're not going to change my mind even if she donates a kidney to a sick child.  Sure, for selling cars or watches, great, but for someone I've made my mind up about in an election, not a chance.

They understand this, as well.  Anyone who thinks they don't should just watch the Left absolutely go nuclear if she demands a chance to run again.  I think she might actually try it 

[Doc Socks Junior]

4 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

According to that one friend of yours.

Yes. I'll take the word of a researcher in the field.

Since you believe that this study is well-supported, could you explain, clearly, the causal link noted in the "study" between tweets and votes? Additionally, if you could comment on the "bot" identification method used in the article, that'd be great.

Also, if you felt so inclined, given the variety of confounding factors encapsulated within the 2016 presidential election, what weight do tweets get in a multivariate analysis of electoral effect?

[Merc14]

40 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Not everyone has their mind already made up before an election though, and some could quite easily have been swayed by all manner of different forms of propaganda.

Trump won 6 of the States by around 1%. That means that only 1 out of every 100 people who voted would have had to be swayed to either vote for Trump over Hillary or - and this is in my opinion the most likely outcome - have been convinced not to vote at all. 

The campaign didn't have to get people to change their mind about Trump or Hillary and make a switch. It just had to make Hillary look so bad that a tiny percentage of them decided to just not vote at all. When you look at voter turnout compared to the two previous elections, Democrats not voting undoubtedly had a significant impact on the results.

Maybe these positives for Hillary mattered, let's take a look.  How about the fact that Hillary spent nearly twice as much money on that highly influential advertising you were lecturing us about, think that had some effect?  Or how about that fact that 90% of the news stories about Trump were negative but crooked Hillary was treated like a superwoman, maybe that mattered?  With all thatgoing for her it was twitter that did her in?

Let's look at the negatives starting with Hillary fixing the primaries so Bernie didn't have a chance, maybe that made some democrats angry enough to sit out the election, think that mattered EMM?  How about the fact that she never bothered to campaign in some or all of thiose six states you mentioned, do you think that mattered more than twitter?  Oh, then we have Hillary getting exonerated when she obviously broke the law, maybe that got some folks to the polls while keeping iothers at home, what do you think?  How about that she was an absolutely lousy campaigner whose main promise was four more years on Obama's miserable administration.  Wow, how appealing that was.huh? 

Nah, toss all the above, it's twitter that did her in.  Please, no one is buying the claptrap you're peddling, give it a break. 

[skliss]

Why does everyone seem to forget that there were bots pushing for both sides? 

[.ZZ.]

I must have watched every rally that Clinton and Trump held.

Her message was limited to how bad Trump is, and how great Obama was. That was it. Over and over she played the  woman sympathy and deplorable cards. How did that work?   She thought she was next in line and had it in the bag.

There is zero evidence that even ONE vote was changed because of Twitter And Facebook bots.

This whole thing is utterly ridiculous.

[Agent0range]

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

My point is that you could tell me any positive lie or truth about Hillary Clinton and and I wouldn't care.  I hate her guts and you're not going to change my mind even if she donates a kidney to a sick child.  Sure, for selling cars or watches, great, but for someone I've made my mind up about in an election, not a chance.

And you are one person.  There were literally people shooting up a pizza place over fake news, so you can't say it has no effect at all.

[+OverSword]

3 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

And you are one person.  There were literally people shooting up a pizza place over fake news, so you can't say it has no effect at all.

I am one person and there was literally one person shooting up a pizza place over fake news so very negligible effect, and certainly not three point something.

[Merc14]

29 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

And you are one person.  There were literally people shooting up a pizza place over fake news, so you can't say it has no effect at all.

So what is your solution, do away with twitter?  Put leftists like you on an editorial board with free rein to censor as you see fit?

[Space Commander Travis]

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

I hate her guts and you're not going to change my mind even if she donates a kidney to a sick child.

She couldn't donate her heart, of course. She doesn't have one. 

[Space Commander Travis]

2 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

It just had to make Hillary look so bad that a tiny percentage of them decided to just not vote at all.

Make her look so bad?! There was no need whatsoever to concoct any Fake News on that score. 

[Merc14]

1 hour ago, skliss said:

Why does everyone seem to forget that there were bots pushing for both sides? 

You are correct, of course, and since the excuse machine never mentions "that 3.2%" it must mean that people on the right just aren't stupid enough to change their vote over a twitter post from a bot so those tweets/facebook posts are irrelevant.   At least that is the only explanation I can come up with but I'm willing to listen to the excuse machine's reasoning, or what passes for it.

[Why not]

I wonder how badly Hillary would have lost if 90% of the MSM and print papers were not on her side.