Donald Trump

HughFreakingDillon said:

i never claimed they were the same or equal, just that they are on the same spectrum. My "what's the difference" was in regards to social media vs tv.

TV had an exponentially larger reach 15 years ago. 

so it's only a bad thing now because of social media's reach? shouldn't it have been a problem before, regardless? and also, isn't social media a young person's (mostly) folly? you know, the ones that don't vote?

I think people are attempting to move the goal posts because it's trump. because we are in semi-uncharted territory here, where we have the US president ready and willing to tell not just exaggerations, or partial truths, but obvious lies. 

my point is where is the line drawn? is it only drawn for trump and the GOP? or do we outlaw all political ads altogether, because by and large, they are ALL utter bullshit, whether by telling lies or lying by omission of truth. 

Yeah, TV's reach, even at it's height I'm sure wasn't a fraction of Facebook's reach these days. I don't have the data to support that, but even with the internet 15 years ago, I feel pretty confident assuming there was no tv station / network with a modicum of facebook's reach at any point in history.

RE: "a young person's folly" - according to recent data, 65% of Facebook users are over 35, so maybe millenials aren't to blame for this one?

No one said misleading political ads weren't a problem before, but I do agree that you ask a very important question, and that's 'where is the line drawn?'

To that I would answer if we aren't going to draw the line with a president whose lies about immigrants have inspired at least two domestic mass shootings then I guess we aren't ever going to draw the line.

(edited to cutdown on all the previous replies)

Merkin Baller said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

i never claimed they were the same or equal, just that they are on the same spectrum. My "what's the difference" was in regards to social media vs tv.

TV had an exponentially larger reach 15 years ago. 

so it's only a bad thing now because of social media's reach? shouldn't it have been a problem before, regardless? and also, isn't social media a young person's (mostly) folly? you know, the ones that don't vote?

I think people are attempting to move the goal posts because it's trump. because we are in semi-uncharted territory here, where we have the US president ready and willing to tell not just exaggerations, or partial truths, but obvious lies. 

my point is where is the line drawn? is it only drawn for trump and the GOP? or do we outlaw all political ads altogether, because by and large, they are ALL utter bullshit, whether by telling lies or lying by omission of truth. 

Yeah, TV's reach, even at it's height I'm sure wasn't a fraction of Facebook's reach these days. I don't have the data to support that, but even with the internet 15 years ago, I feel pretty confident assuming there was no tv station / network with a modicum of facebook's reach at any point in history.

RE: "a young person's folly" - according to recent data, 65% of Facebook users are over 35, so maybe millenials aren't to blame for this one?

No one said misleading political ads weren't a problem before, but I do agree that you ask a very important question, and that's 'where is the line drawn?'

To that I would answer if we aren't going to draw the line with a president whose lies about immigrants have inspired at least two domestic mass shootings then I guess we aren't ever going to draw the line.

(edited to cutdown on all the previous replies)

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Merkin Baller said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Merkin Baller said:

Facebook is accepting money to spread political propaganda they know is false, propaganda which if effective will benefit Facebook in the long term, and there's a question as to whether or not they are wrong to do so?

Really?

I see your point, but is it the responsibility of every private corporation to validate the veracity of every statement made on their pages by their paid advertisers? I mean, CNN has their "paid content" on the website's front page, and it all looks like tabloid garbage. 

should they take down ads by (insert sugar cereal here) claiming to be "part of your complete breakfast"?

ultimately the responsibility lies with the consumer/voter to decide. as unfortunate as it is. false/misleading political attack ads have been running on tv for decades. but now that's it the "cesspool" of social media, now everyone cares? what's the difference?

Well, for starters, social media's reach and influence is greater than anything we've ever seen before (it's unprecedented), and the lies are only getting bolder & bigger, so there's two significant differences.

Furthermore, do you really not see the difference between CNN running an ad that might call Frosted Flakes "a part of your complete breakfast" and Facebook running an ad claiming Biden withheld $1B from the Ukraine?

i never claimed they were the same or equal, just that they are on the same spectrum. My "what's the difference" was in regards to social media vs tv.

TV had an exponentially larger reach 15 years ago. 

so it's only a bad thing now because of social media's reach? shouldn't it have been a problem before, regardless? and also, isn't social media a young person's (mostly) folly? you know, the ones that don't vote?

I think people are attempting to move the goal posts because it's trump. because we are in semi-uncharted territory here, where we have the US president ready and willing to tell not just exaggerations, or partial truths, but obvious lies. 

my point is where is the line drawn? is it only drawn for trump and the GOP? or do we outlaw all political ads altogether, because by and large, they are ALL utter bullshit, whether by telling lies or lying by omission of truth. 

social media allows for "sharing"...unlike an ad on TV.  If some organization posts absolute bullshit (i.e. Hillary is the devil, etc.) and idiots share it it takes on a whole new level of unchecked bullshit.

I get that. But there just seems to be a whole new level of outrage over everything just because it's trump. 

Probably because tRump takes advantage of the dark side of it.  He won in 2016 based on false FB ads that targeted the three states that won him the electoral college.  He won by 77,000 votes...which means the ads only had to influence 38,500 people into changing their votes from Clinton to assface.

HughFreakingDillon said:

I get that. But there just seems to be a whole new level of outrage over everything just because it's trump. 

Everything he does he takes to a whole new level, including his lies and attacks on opponents, so why shouldn't the reaction be proportionate?

ikiT said:

He didn't even PAY for those insanely TARGETED ads (INFLUENCE) in 2016...the Russians picked up the tab, as normal.  

Would that be the same Russia who stands to benefit from Trump pulling US troops out of Syria?

Weird.

Merkin Baller said:

ikiT said:

He didn't even PAY for those insanely TARGETED ads (INFLUENCE) in 2016...the Russians picked up the tab, as normal.  

Would that be the same Russia who stands to benefit from Trump pulling US troops out of Syria?

Weird.

mcgruff10 said:

Biden is awesome.  

Merkin Baller said:

ikiT said:

He didn't even PAY for those insanely TARGETED ads (INFLUENCE) in 2016...the Russians picked up the tab, as normal.  

Would that be the same Russia who stands to benefit from Trump pulling US troops out of Syria?

Weird.

The Juggler said:

mcgruff10 said:

Biden is awesome.  

Except when debating...