Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 553 posts

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#501

Post by webninja »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #440
deevolution wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Andrew yang offered Americans 1k/month... maybe he should have offered 1k/month in booze, opioids and football tickets instead

I have no answers as to why Andrew Yang did not poll more than 1-5% in Iowa/New Hampshire.

To me, Yang seemed like an advertising platform to raise awareness on a few of his clearly defined issues such as reasons for war, freedom dividends, and support for mothers raising children. These are a small number of ideas any candidate or senator can adopt and as president, you don’t just write 3 bills go home, and call it a term. Sanders and Buttigieg seemed more capable and well equipped (to me at least) to be able to tackle the wider range of B.S. presidents have to deal with.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#502

Post by 12xo »

animalnewbie wrote: post #475
gremlinsinc wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why we need public funding of elections... Bloomberg can spend a billion, and who benefits the most? MSNBC, CNN, Facebook, so of course when he's not paying they STILL prop him up because the longer he stays in the race the more $$ they collectively make, who cares if it destroys America in the process as long as there's a paycheck.

But I thought MSNBC and CNN had best interests of viewers in mind and President Trump is wrong to label them as fake and enemy of the people?

you are missing the sarcasm tag...

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#503

Post by duxup »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #478
refurb wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’ve noticed huh? Politics lately seems to be:1) paint candidate in the best light, 2) paint opponent in the worst light. Note: there is no requirement to have a consistent set of rules to do this.

> Politics lately Mark Twain: Running for Governor [Written about 1870] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3189/3189-h/3189-h.htm#gover...

That man is always so on point.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#504

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

mcv wrote: post #495
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you nailed it. It is so easy to dismiss their complaints and then people are surprised when it turns out that people don't like being dismissed. Who knew?

Who exactly is being dismissed here? And who's doing the mismissing? Because we're talking about Trump voters only caring about "owning the libs". That is dismissing a massive chunk of the population. Yeah, of course liberals don't like that, but you don't see them going on a destructive rampage, they just want to elect better politicians who are going to fix the country. Their complaints are entirely legitimate. Pol…

Heh. Interesting. The meme of 'owning the libs' is clearly a strong one and happily repeated by left leaning talk show/radio hosts. Are you talking with 'representatives' of the population? I try. The sense I am getting is the frustration of not being heard, being ignored.. or having their voices simplified into a sound bite along the lines of 'owning the libs'. It can get annoying.

Trump is a symptom of that. A big giant scream that says simply 'can you hear me now?'.

I even disagree with you about it not being a game. It is. It has real life stakes and consequences, and scary ones at that, but it is a game.

As for liberals just trying to fix the country, while saying equivalent of 'we r gonna nix insurance companies, coal factories and big coke' may simply not be perceived as such. It needs to be addressed and not shoved down people's throats.

You have to be willingly blind to your own side propaganda to not see this big emergent picture.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#505

Post by solinent »

harry8 wrote: post #461
solinent wrote: post #351

Paid shills tend to have a strange effect where they polarize people in the other direction than intended since their arguments are not always well founded and honest, and they will always suffer from some form of groupthink. It's a slingshot effect--at first people fall for the farce, but soon they realize they have been mislead. It could even spoil the election and get some to vote in the opposite direction. I thin…

There's a lot of engagement on some issue or other, such as this one of how easy it is to spot paid shills and then while making a pretty reasonable point about it stating something very contentious as fact. Just like we see from Bernie and his total commitment to call communism by another name. And that last bit is 1% of the interest and is tangentially related so it doesn't totally jar. Look out for it. You get the…

Yeah I think you have to stem the tide to avoiding the "unpaid" shills. I've even seen people who shill in one direction just to be accepted by a community so they can troll them.

I hypothesize you could detect this type of stuff using semantic analysis of text if you check word order and frequency (or go ML with fastText or w/e) you could get maybe 90% accuracy at determining whether someone isn't a shill. There needs to be an investigative process which humans undergo after this. Then some form of identification would be required before any sort of ban (ideally you tell them, this only stops the false positives from rejoining) can be lifted, just incase any local laws are broken.

The shills all have some source material, so they should be closer to it language-wise than those that they teach/brainwash.

But hey, I wish I was paid to shill against other shills and detect them, it would be an interesting job.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#506

Post by mcv »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #504
mcv wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who exactly is being dismissed here? And who's doing the mismissing? Because we're talking about Trump voters only caring about "owning the libs". That is dismissing a massive chunk of the population. Yeah, of course liberals don't like that, but you don't see them going on a destructive rampage, they just want to elect better politicians who are going to fix the country. Their complaints are entirely legitimate. Pol…

Heh. Interesting. The meme of 'owning the libs' is clearly a strong one and happily repeated by left leaning talk show/radio hosts. Are you talking with 'representatives' of the population? I try. The sense I am getting is the frustration of not being heard, being ignored.. or having their voices simplified into a sound bite along the lines of 'owning the libs'. It can get annoying. Trump is a symptom of that. A big…

I'm an outsider, but I talk to a lot of people online. The frustration I'm seeing is indeed one of not being heard and being ignored. Power is in the hands of a minority. The country is heading in a different direction than most people want it to go, because of the grip on power that the Republican Party has. And they're willing to bend and twist the Constitution to hold on to that power.

Seeing it as a game is a massive part of the problem. It's not a game. It's real. Trying to "win" at the cost of the country and the people in the country is doing very real damage.

The liberals are the ones who are trying to get everybody affordable health insurance. It's the Republicans who keep sabotaging that. The reason the solution is starting to look like one without private insurance companies, is because those companies deep desperately trying to be part of the problem: not paying people for the treatment they need, using any excuse to deny people coverage. All that is doing is proving to the people that this system is not going to work. Hence the increasing popularity of Medicare-for-all type systems.

The insurance companies are not the goal, good health insurance is. The Republicans and their supporters keep insisting insurance companies are more important than health coverage for Americans.

I see the picture. I'm not subject to your propaganda, as I'm seeing this from the outside, but I do see that your arguments try to paint black as white and white as black.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#507

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

mcv wrote: post #506
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh. Interesting. The meme of 'owning the libs' is clearly a strong one and happily repeated by left leaning talk show/radio hosts. Are you talking with 'representatives' of the population? I try. The sense I am getting is the frustration of not being heard, being ignored.. or having their voices simplified into a sound bite along the lines of 'owning the libs'. It can get annoying. Trump is a symptom of that. A big…

I'm an outsider, but I talk to a lot of people online. The frustration I'm seeing is indeed one of not being heard and being ignored. Power is in the hands of a minority. The country is heading in a different direction than most people want it to go, because of the grip on power that the Republican Party has. And they're willing to bend and twist the Constitution to hold on to that power. Seeing it as a game is a mas…

I apologize. It is possible I used too strong a characterization for the sake of effect. Still, with regards to propaganda, you are subject to it. Best you can do is be aware of it and act accordingly. Maybe it would a little less unnverving if I used term advertising since they are closely related and propaganda has more negative connotations?

But going back to the original thread. How are my arguments miscolored? I think your internal frame reference might be off. Could you elaborate? I do not want to assume and I find the conversation interesting.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#508

Post by takeda »

danso wrote: post #431
mrguyorama wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was pointing out that it was not "supposed" at all. Trump is a former democrat in exactly the same way that Bloomberg is a former republican. There was no reason to weasel word it

Fair enough. I think the more important thing is that Bloomberg registered as a Republican and then ran (and won) as a Republican for elected office: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayoralty_of_Michael_Bloomberg You can register whatever party you want as a regular citizen, but it doesn't dictate who you vote for or what you believe in or actually do.

Exactly, also Bloomberg only changed his party affiliation in 2018, when we had record number of voters during non presidential election, and Democrats winning large number of seats.

Given other information about him, and even last debate he is the absolute weakest candidate, almost feels like he is there to spoil the election to help the incumbent.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#509

Post by davexunit »

whatshisface wrote: post #218
davexunit wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The candidate with broad appeal is Bernie Sanders.

Broad appeal among democrats , but the candidate with the best chances in the national election is not the center Democrat, it's the center American, which if you imagine Democrats and Republicans being two ranges butted up against the center, is the rightmost Democrat!

Bernie Sanders is the most popular candidate among all Americans. Republicans are going to vote for Trump no matter what and a center-right Democrat will not change this. The only way to defeat Trump is to produce a record turnout among young people and people that have felt abandoned by the political establishment that would otherwise not vote. The only candidate that can possibly do this is Bernie Sanders.

Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army

#510

Post by justincredible »

dontdoitpls wrote: post #52
tyfon wrote: post #4

I don't even.. wow.. Talk about buying the election. Are anyone going to be fooled by this? Edit: does facebook and twitter require that you disclose any payments you get for posting?

We are seeing both parties run Populist demagogues. Yes people are getting fooled real bad. The decline of democracy is here.

> Populist demagogues

That's redundant.

Post reply on HN