Good thread - i was hesitant to the impact of social media (CA) and overspends , but that breaks it down well.


What he neglects to say is that anyone who played the quiz also exposed their friends data to cambridge analytica.


he said it further down


… if you’d bothered your arse to read further, @Tayto!!!

Great article.


Lads and lasses, the tabloid newspapers were doing this shit 30-40 years ago. No doubt many have either forgotten or are too young to know how widespread and big an impact it had. It had the same extent of impact then as this stuff did til recently(still does where people are unable see outside their box).
Difference is that back then more people gave a shit to vote and get involved than recently when many people were asleep and also completely obsessed with their social media. It continues even now as vulnerable people still keep believing emotive and provocative things in media news outlets, even the outlets that the same people have rumbled and rubbished on other topics. Just shows how people can be vulnerable by not questioning everything enough and not having enough interest and enquiry about what’s going on in the world, on all sides of the stories and debates.


The difference between that and this is the secrecy and the fact that the people who may have refuted all these claims simply didn’t see them and they could effectively write whatever lies they wanted


Loads of secrecy and propaganda in populist media all down through the ages.


Theres no doubting the tabloids are as bad, and broadsheets have their own agenda but political advertising is strictly regulated in traditional media. But at least until relatively recently they had different owners and agenda, but there are literally no standards in the social political media ads, you can literally lie blatantly and brazenly over and over again and you can “reach” 100.000s of people with a reasonably small budget. Targeting floating voters based on stolen data is highly illegal. Foreign governments can also buy ads in your election. it’s the wild west and needs regulation - just like other media do.




Just a different era, different social communication. All the same stuff when you really think about it. The advertising. The fact that back in the day that was the only way of getting to a certain portion of the population. And so on


… but to put an ad in a paper the content is regulated and you know who paid for it. that’s the difference.


and everyone can see it or have access to it


Sufferin jaysus


Trying to make out that it’s the ordinary joe soaps that don’t understand how goods get into the UK :rofl:


But they weren’t really regulating it, they were state sponsored in all but declared reality, backed by businesses that supported the party/regime that gave them favours and so on, and were acting as state-spokespeople for whichever parties they supported/sponsored. And alot of people did not know that, they were being fed this news and opinion as if it was objective, true, and as if it was gospel.


Agree with all of that. However I think social ads are more insidious & effective then biased media publications because:

  • The reach goes far beyond newspapers where people tend to by the paper which agrees with their general outlook anyway.
  • A meme takes 2 seconds to digest. You don’t have to read a whole newspaper article - do people still pick up newspapers?
  • They can very easily target a cohort of people who have no interest in politics or the news (a lot of people more interested in love island) and in a couple of seconds they can plant a little lie into the users subconscious.

Besides, two wrongs don’t make a right. The whole media landscape is a mess but they do need to regulate what people are doing with their political ads on social media. I don’t understand the reluctance some people have in accepting that.Even the social media giants are coming around to it. Either they self regulate or it will be foisted on them.


I think you both overestimate and underestimate people. Alot of people want to believe or don’t want to be arsed being challenged. Again the type of media it’s relative to times we live in, it’s effect is relative to what we, and especially the younger generations are used to.
Lots of people weren’t besotted by Facebook et al, lots of people couldn’t be arsed with it, others just couldn’t keep up.
Alot of people used to call the tabloid newspapers evil demons just the same way social media is getting demonised now too. Now the pendulum has swung again and some people are swearing by what they read in the sort of media that produces what they otherwise dismiss. Go figure…


okay so ehhh … hang on, are you disputing the reach social media has? Okaaaaay then! :yum:


remember they only had to sway a small percentage of the vote. at no point in history did so many people read the sun :joy:



It will happen in the manner and fashion decided by those with money and there is NOTHING that ordinary folk will or can do to impact on the manifestation of the desires of the rich, and even less will or can be done by Irish Politicians.