Quote:
Originally Posted by thommy
it makes sense what you are saying as long as it reflects your personal meaning you should be allowed to do it.
but here we are exactly on a point what we did not face before.
nobody really knows how much or not much the social media influence a personal meaning. the truth is mostly hard to explain while a populistic lie will be swallowed easy.
when it comes up to spreading fake news and getting paid for it, it has another dimension.
if we thing that thought even further the internet killed democracy because how can people vote when their vote is based on wrong information?
i really see a HUGE problem here for future generations and the only answer on that will be that elections will be done by machines and not by human.
i know this is a fucking dark vision but i can not see any other way that makes sense.
|
Well I would even trust that, ever since the democracy started, people never voted based on objective information. Because those who need the votes have too much at stake and always need propaganda to sell to their voters. Politics is not exactly a clean business.
The only surprise in the last elections is that HRC had twice as much money and the whole mass media behind her and still didn't win.
Still, this is a very interesting case, even if the financing would be confirmed to be from Russia, it will never be tracked down to any Government official. So theoretically, if somebody outside of US, was a die hard follower of any of the candidates, and bought, for his own money, let's say a $ 100 000 worth of ads for any given candidate on FB, he would be indicted as well.
And what about a foreign journalist writing a partisan piece on US politics, getting paid for it, publishing it on FB, twitter etc. and getting thousands of likes, shares etc.?
At what point is an action on the internet something that would be considered "meddling" with US politics?
Playing a devil's advocate here, this is a very interesting case.