-
I do think the younger generation growing up now is less likely to read one of those chain letter thingies on Facebook and believe everything it says like some people clearly do.
For me, it's a much bigger problem than chain letter thingies on Facebook. For example: the Trump campaign was spending 1 million dollars a day (just digital ads) to try and influence susceptible voters in the final weeks of the election. That's before you consider the influence over other media.
Spending lots of money in a very targeted way is a winning tactic, but I have two problems with it: using lies (propaganda) to create your desired behaviour change and ensuring a level playing field for all candidates/policies (spending limits).
Vote Leave had a winning tactic/team, but they lied and went over the spending limits.
JonoMarshall-
Oh yes for sure, the chain letters were more an example for something that should in theory be clearly identifiable as sketchy at best, and yet so many people not only believe them, but do their part in sharing it themselves. If they fail at that hurdle already, how well-prepared are they going to be to deal with the targeted ads you mention?
And I fully agree with what you say with regards to wilfully spreading disinformation, and the disparity in spending power by campaigns. The whole matter is complicated by the fine-tuned targeting capabilities that you now have through social media - is it just the natural 'next step' in advertising that has now reached political advertising, or is it going too far?
One thing that I would like to see is full transparency of advertising. There's no (good) reason that I know of for keeping the details of political advertising secret. I would like to be able to go to a central website that lists in detail how much advertising money a specific campaign spent, where, on what. In itself, that wouldn't solve anything of course, but at least it would take a lot of the guesswork out.
you responded in earnest
I suppose the easiest way out of this is to claim I was merely joking too, and call it a day.
-
This is exactly my point, you just explain it better.
I didn't call all leave voters gullible, I said the leave campaign targeted the gullible (few) with propoganda as they realised this was enough to tip the balance in their favour.
My own dad and mum being a prime example. They swallowed the £350m per week and "make this country great again" without any substance to back it up other than the theme that it'll be the easiest negotiation in history to get all the things we want from brexit.
Neither of my parents are stupid. Far from it. I suspect my dad would vote leave again out of pure bloody mindedness but my mum feels duped now she's more informed. And would vote to remain.
SwissChap
yetidamo
I do think it makes a difference, yes. Nothing is ever a guarantee of course and no one is immune to manipulation and propaganda (though different people clearly respond to very different things). But if you look at it the other way around, if anything might give you some amount of 'protection' from being manipulated, it's being at least somewhat informed about how things work and what's going on. Especially as in my mind, this presupposes the existence of some skills, such as online research, and having a certain amount of scepticism.
At least there's been some move towards trying to teach more of that in school (e.g. online research skills), and I do think the younger generation growing up now is less likely to read one of those chain letter thingies on Facebook and believe everything it says like some people clearly do.
@Oliver Schick
Bit of a clichee example, but yes: the rub is usually in the interpretation of data. That's why there are people who do nothing else: it's really not straightforward.