Political Roundtable Part XIII

[nate33]

Propaganda wars:

Obamascare: 60% of online Obamacare defenders 'paid to post' hits on critics
By Paul Bedard

A majority of online and social media defenders of Obamacare are professionals who are "paid to post," according to a digital expert. "Sixty percent of all the posts were made from 100 profiles, posting between the hours of 9 and 5 Pacific Time," said Michael Brown. "They were paid to post."

His shocking analysis was revealed on this weekend's Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson, broadcast on Sinclair stations and streamed live Sunday at 9:30 a.m. Her upcoming show focuses on information wars and Brown was describing what happened when he had a problem with Obamacare and complained online. Brown said that social media is used to manipulate opinion, proven in the last presidential election.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamascare-60-of-online-obamacare-defenders-paid-to-post-hits-on-critics/article/2615774?rp

Wow.

So, the article asserts someone named Michael Brown did a study of some sort and found that lots of posts came from only 100 accounts, and concluded that those people were paid to post. How did he arrive at this conclusion? Who knows!

Who's Michael Brown? Oh, well, he's nobody. His name is actually Matthew Brown! Not off to a good start here...

Well, let's look at Matthew's study:

Oh, there isn't one. But we have this:

Matthew Brown: I don't think they know they're being manipulated.

Matthew Brown is a data analyst who pierces the secrecy behind paid efforts to influence online.

Attkisson: What areas of the Internet are used to shape and manipulate opinion?

Matthew Brown: Everywhere social. Everywhere social means specific Facebook pages, but it also means the comment sections in every major newspaper.

Brown began investigating after his health insurance costs tripled and he commented about it on the Obamacare Facebook page. He got bombarded, he says, by digital activists disguised as ordinary people.

Brown: Digital activists are paid employees; their purpose is to attack anyone who's posting something contrary to the view the page owner wants expressed.

Brown decided to use analysis software to crunch the numbers. He evaluated 226,000 pro-Obamacare posts made by 40,000 Facebook profiles. What he found was remarkable.

Brown: 60 percent of all the posts were made from 100 profiles, posting between the hours of 9 and 5 Pacific Time.

Attkisson: Which means what?

Matthew Brown: They were paid to post.

Brown says it’s rampant on social media. One popular tool: “zombie profiles” that make automated “robo” posts.

That's it. Dead end. There is no analysis. There is no study.

I googled: "matthew brown facebook analysis obamacare"

I found more articles:

https://www.teaparty.org/alert-digital-expert-uncovers-sick-secret-obama-kept-hidden-us-along-222882/
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/02/27/study-60-of-online-obamacare-defenders-are-paid/
http://www.fakenewschecker.com/fake-news/exposed-60-online-obamacare-defenders-are-professionals-%E2%80%9Cpaid-post%E2%80%9D

All of them referring to the same sound bite - but guess what: still no link to any study or analysis!

Literally all we have substantiating this claim is someone named Matthew "Michael" Brown who supposedly did a study that no one has actually looked at themselves, and yet it's been shared and recycled countless times by various fake news websites. The conclusion he's arrived at is, on its face, specious at best, but we don't have access to his research/analysis, so who knows!

Thanks for sharing, Nate!

That's a fair point. He apparently hasn't posted his study online anywhere. It could be fake. But it doesn't prove that it's fake.

FWIW, it wouldn't surprise me if the Right also had an organized online campaign to support their beliefs too. The intent of my post wasn't just to criticize Democrats, but to point out that political propaganda is getting more and more sophisticated.

[gtn130]

That's a fair point. He apparently hasn't posted his study online anywhere. It could be fake. But it doesn't prove that it's fake.

FWIW, it wouldn't surprise me if the Right also had an organized online campaign to support their beliefs too. The intent of my post wasn't just to criticize Democrats, but to point out that political propaganda is getting more and more sophisticated.

It doesn't prove that it's fake, but it does prove we should roundly ignore your article since "Matthew Brown" and his "analysis" have zero credibility. They didn't even provide any credentials for whoever Matthew Brown is! Just some guy named Matthew Brown who did a study that he won't share - but trust us, this is super legit!

And if your objective was to illustrate how pernicious political propaganda is, well, you did a good job of that, since you definitely fell for it.

[gtn130]

The funniest part of that article is how they're like:

We found that 135,000 pro-Obamacare Facebook posts came from only 100 Facebook profiles

therefore

we have concluded

those 100 Facebook accounts

were paid posters!!!!!

[nate33]

The funniest part of that article is how they're like:

We found that 135,000 pro-Obamacare Facebook posts came from only 100 Facebook profiles

therefore

we have concluded

those 100 Facebook accounts

were paid posters!!!!!

Whether or not they were paid isn't the real point. The issue is that it was likely to be an organized campaign. They might be volunteers or they might be paid, but if 100 people made thousands of comments, it's clearly not an organic grassroots phenomenon.

[closg00]

Too funny, according to Trump and the Republicans, Obama was never responsible for a single job created during his 8 years. The numbers were fake, with unemployment "really" hovering around 50%. Now magically, Trump is personally responsible for every job created in the US this month, even ones planned for months earlier. Amazing hypocrisy.

EDIT: Its just this clear. Trump's job numbers conspiracy theory ended simply because he is now in office. He's made the Bureau of Labor Statistics great again. Its amazing how changing the color of the President's skin gets rid of all the fake job numbers!

Read on Twitter

There's a reason 1984 is flying off the shelf again, we are truly living in Orwellian times.

[nate33]

You literally did this when I linked an article citing Politifact!

That Politifact article was describing a HIGHLY subjective topic: defining a lie. With something so politically subjective, the political orientation of the source is relevant.

Generally speaking, you pretty much refuse to accept the difference between a publication pushing a liberal agenda, and a publication that employs liberal human beings trying to report facts as unbiasedly as humanly possible.

Obviously humans are biased and it will have an impact on reporting, but you wildly exaggerate how large that impact is.

There is a big difference between The Washington Post and The Huffington Post.There is a big difference between WSJ and Breitbart.

I see your point. And I would have agreed with your last paragraph up until 2015. But the last 2 years have been ridiculous. The press has become unhinged in their hatred of Trump. The Washington Post is now indistinguishable from the Huffington Post.

[nate33]

Too funny, according to Trump and the Republicans, Obama was never responsible for a single job created during his 8 years. The numbers were fake, with unemployment "really" hovering around 50%. Now magically, Trump is personally responsible for every job created in the US this month, even ones planned for months earlier. Amazing hypocrisy.

EDIT: Its just this clear. Trump's job numbers conspiracy theory ended simply because he is now in office. He's made the Bureau of Labor Statistics great again. Its amazing how changing the color of the President's skin gets rid of all the fake job numbers!

Read on Twitter

There's a reason 1984 is flying off the shelf again, we are truly living in Orwellian times.

The issue with Obama's "job growth" is that it had a lot to do with people getting two, part time, low paying jobs rather than one good job. The metrics showed that as job growth when, in fact, individual earnings were flat or down.

It is very well possible that the "job growth" of the past two months exhibits the same pattern, in which case they would be just as "phony" as the Obama numbers. I'd like more information.

[dckingsfan]

The unemployment rate has always been a red herring.

Employment rate of 25 to 54 year olds has always been the gold standard.

Either way, Trump has a big issue - the population is aging and he wants to block immigration.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[dckingsfan]

Read on Twitter

Yep, there is a full out war going on.

Unlike previous R presidents, Trump isn't trying to reach out. I think that is a mistake but I guess only time will tell.

On the other side, there is a full-press going on to try to "get" Trump. I think that they will find something eventually.

We live in fascinating times.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

What is disturbing about the situation, though, is how the war plans of North Korea, South Korea, and the United States might interact. North Korea’s military exercises leave little doubt that Pyongyang plans to use large numbers of nuclear weapons against U.S. forces throughout Japan and South Korea to blunt an invasion. In fact, the word that official North Korean statements use is “repel.” North Korean defectors have claimed that the country’s leaders hope that by inflicting mass casualties and destruction in the early days of a conflict, they can force the United States and South Korea to recoil from their invasion. While U.S. officials usually bluster that Kim would be suicidal to order the large-scale use of nuclear weapons, it’s obvious that a conventional defense didn’t work for Saddam Hussein or Muammar al-Qaddafi when they faced an onslaught of U.S. military power. That was suicide. Of course, that’s where those North Korean ICBMs come in: to keep Trump from doing anything regrettable after Kim Jong Un obliterates Seoul and Tokyo.
Then there is this:

Kim’s strategy depends on using nuclear weapons early — before the United States can kill him or those special forces on display in Foal Eagle can find his missile units. He has to go first, if he is to go at all.

But going first is also the U.S. strategy. That means, in a crisis, the pressure will be to escalate. Whatever restraint Kim or Trump might show — and let’s be honest, our expectations here are not high — each will face enormous pressure to start the attack lest his opponent beat him to the punch. Then there is South Korea, which has its own pre-emption plan, separate from OPLAN 5015 and using South Korean ballistic and cruise missiles. Pyongyang, Washington, and Seoul all have plans to go first. Two of them are going to be wrong about that.

[nate33]

Read on Twitter

What is disturbing about the situation, though, is how the war plans of North Korea, South Korea, and the United States might interact. North Korea’s military exercises leave little doubt that Pyongyang plans to use large numbers of nuclear weapons against U.S. forces throughout Japan and South Korea to blunt an invasion. In fact, the word that official North Korean statements use is “repel.” North Korean defectors have claimed that the country’s leaders hope that by inflicting mass casualties and destruction in the early days of a conflict, they can force the United States and South Korea to recoil from their invasion. While U.S. officials usually bluster that Kim would be suicidal to order the large-scale use of nuclear weapons, it’s obvious that a conventional defense didn’t work for Saddam Hussein or Muammar al-Qaddafi when they faced an onslaught of U.S. military power. That was suicide. Of course, that’s where those North Korean ICBMs come in: to keep Trump from doing anything regrettable after Kim Jong Un obliterates Seoul and Tokyo.
Then there is this:

Kim’s strategy depends on using nuclear weapons early — before the United States can kill him or those special forces on display in Foal Eagle can find his missile units. He has to go first, if he is to go at all.

But going first is also the U.S. strategy. That means, in a crisis, the pressure will be to escalate. Whatever restraint Kim or Trump might show — and let’s be honest, our expectations here are not high — each will face enormous pressure to start the attack lest his opponent beat him to the punch. Then there is South Korea, which has its own pre-emption plan, separate from OPLAN 5015 and using South Korean ballistic and cruise missiles. Pyongyang, Washington, and Seoul all have plans to go first. Two of them are going to be wrong about that.

This is all bluster by North Korea. There is no scenario whereby they can use nukes first and still manage to survive when the dust settles. They know it. We know it. They're not going to make a first strike against South Korea, Japan or America. It would be suicide.

Their nuclear program is a deterrence, nothing more. They want to appear crazy enough in their willingness to use them that we will be reluctant to wage a conventional war against them. Indeed, that actually makes a lot of sense from their perspective. I can hardly blame them.

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

What is disturbing about the situation, though, is how the war plans of North Korea, South Korea, and the United States might interact. North Korea’s military exercises leave little doubt that Pyongyang plans to use large numbers of nuclear weapons against U.S. forces throughout Japan and South Korea to blunt an invasion. In fact, the word that official North Korean statements use is “repel.” North Korean defectors have claimed that the country’s leaders hope that by inflicting mass casualties and destruction in the early days of a conflict, they can force the United States and South Korea to recoil from their invasion. While U.S. officials usually bluster that Kim would be suicidal to order the large-scale use of nuclear weapons, it’s obvious that a conventional defense didn’t work for Saddam Hussein or Muammar al-Qaddafi when they faced an onslaught of U.S. military power. That was suicide. Of course, that’s where those North Korean ICBMs come in: to keep Trump from doing anything regrettable after Kim Jong Un obliterates Seoul and Tokyo.
Then there is this:

Kim’s strategy depends on using nuclear weapons early — before the United States can kill him or those special forces on display in Foal Eagle can find his missile units. He has to go first, if he is to go at all.

But going first is also the U.S. strategy. That means, in a crisis, the pressure will be to escalate. Whatever restraint Kim or Trump might show — and let’s be honest, our expectations here are not high — each will face enormous pressure to start the attack lest his opponent beat him to the punch. Then there is South Korea, which has its own pre-emption plan, separate from OPLAN 5015 and using South Korean ballistic and cruise missiles. Pyongyang, Washington, and Seoul all have plans to go first. Two of them are going to be wrong about that.

This is all bluster by North Korea. There is no scenario whereby they can use nukes first and still manage to survive when the dust settles. They know it. We know it. They're not going to make a first strike against South Korea, Japan or America. It would be suicide.

Their nuclear program is a deterrence, nothing more. They want to appear crazy enough in their willingness to use them that we will be reluctant to wage a conventional war against them. Indeed, that actually makes a lot of sense from their perspective. I can hardly blame them.

If things got crazy, China would collapse the regime overnight.

[gtn130]

The funniest part of that article is how they're like:

We found that 135,000 pro-Obamacare Facebook posts came from only 100 Facebook profiles

therefore

we have concluded

those 100 Facebook accounts

were paid posters!!!!!

Whether or not they were paid isn't the real point. The issue is that it was likely to be an organized campaign. They might be volunteers or they might be paid, but if 100 people made thousands of comments, it's clearly not an organic grassroots phenomenon.

Yes, I know, but it's that they arbitrarily decided they're paid posters instead of bots or government operatives because they knew that descriptor sounds like paid protesters and would resonate with their viewers...

Anyway, we're still talking about a fake news article that you believed and shared with the thread.

[Induveca]

Every time "fake news" is uttered I feel as if the mental capacity of all Americans is diminished by a tiny percentage.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[gtn130]

Every time "fake news" is uttered I feel as if the mental capacity of all Americans is diminished by a tiny percentage.

Edgy take. I bet you also get your news from Wikileaks

[doclinkin]

The funniest part of that article is how they're like:

We found that 135,000 pro-Obamacare Facebook posts came from only 100 Facebook profiles

therefore

we have concluded

those 100 Facebook accounts

were paid posters!!!!!

Whether or not they were paid isn't the real point. The issue is that it was likely to be an organized campaign. They might be volunteers or they might be paid, but if 100 people made thousands of comments, it's clearly not an organic grassroots phenomenon.

(Says the guy with ~40,000 posts on a message board.)

I actually think its common that a few crazed wingnuts -- er passionate individuals-- drive most of the traffic in comments on any given site or topic.

[sfam]

There's a reason 1984 is flying off the shelf again, we are truly living in Orwellian times.

The issue with Obama's "job growth" is that it had a lot to do with people getting two, part time, low paying jobs rather than one good job. The metrics showed that as job growth when, in fact, individual earnings were flat or down.

It is very well possible that the "job growth" of the past two months exhibits the same pattern, in which case they would be just as "phony" as the Obama numbers. I'd like more information.[/quote]
There is literally NO change in the job growth trends. Nothing has changed at all with the Bureau of Labor Statistics' numbers at all. There was no "there" there, which spicey didn't even bother to deny.