• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media

How do they know who are duplicates? If you sign up with a different email address, how would they know? My dog has been on there for two and a half years. There are lots of fake accounts.

It's called IP addresses. Most people have static IP addresses which most sites will use to see if you have multiple accounts. It's not dependent on your email address.
 
The project has been likened by web experts to China's attempts to control and restrict free speech on the internet.


I'm not following the line of logic here
 
It's called IP addresses. Most people have static IP addresses which most sites will use to see if you have multiple accounts. It's not dependent on your email address.

Anyone can get around that, there's lots of programs for that. Many of which are free.

Anyway, I think virtually all large groups do things like this. It's a pretty common practice, so of course the government will do it, too.

But I have LOL at DemSocalist's China thing: what?!
 
It's called IP addresses. Most people have static IP addresses which most sites will use to see if you have multiple accounts. It's not dependent on your email address.


There are many ways to deflect this, I think. A friend has set up his internet account to change/hide IP addresses so that they can get the American version of Netflix.

In any event, it's downright scary that our tax dollars (I am fairly certain it's happening here in Canada) are being used to spread propaganda. This is the first time I have heard of paid Internet socks, but I do remember that the Bush Administration had a few journalists on their payroll to push some of their policies.
 
Anyway, I think virtually all large groups do things like this. It's a pretty common practice, so of course the government will do it, too.

I don't understand your nonchalance. Don't you think it's one this if a private company/corporation does it on their own expense, and it's another if the government does it on taxpayer dime?
 
There isn't a doubt in my mind that the major political parties did this the last two major elections. Well, maybe the Republicans didn't have their act together in 2008...

We can't be sure whether the first part of that statement is correct (even if it probably is), but there is no doubt that the second part is true.
 
We can't be sure whether the first part of that statement is correct (even if it probably is), but there is no doubt that the second part is true.

Funny how it is totally believeable to you that Republicans do this but its doubtful/unsure that any other parties do this.
 
Funny how it is totally believeable to you that Republicans do this but its doubtful/unsure that any other parties do this.

Who said it is doubtful that other parties do the same thing?
If the Tweedledeeblicans do it, it is likely that the Tweedledumocrats do the same.
 
It's called IP addresses. Most people have static IP addresses which most sites will use to see if you have multiple accounts. It's not dependent on your email address.

Depending on if Facebook sees your router IP only, or each computer's IP address, you'd be limited to on FB account per home or per computer. I know several couples who have a single computer and a FB account each.
 
Who said it is doubtful that other parties do the same thing?
If the Tweedledeeblicans do it, it is likely that the Tweedledumocrats do the same.

You did when you said "We can't be sure whether the first part of that statement is correct" when quoting "There isn't a doubt in my mind that the major political parties did this the last two major elections. Well, maybe the Republicans didn't have their act together in 2008...". The first part is obviously the "There isn't a doubt in my mind that the major political parties did this the last two major elections.". The second part which you said was "no doubt true" was about the Republicans.
 
You did when you said "We can't be sure whether the first part of that statement is correct" when quoting "There isn't a doubt in my mind that the major political parties did this the last two major elections. Well, maybe the Republicans didn't have their act together in 2008...". The first part is obviously the "There isn't a doubt in my mind that the major political parties did this the last two major elections.". The second part which you said was "no doubt true" was about the Republicans.

Look again.
The first part was about political parties (plural) using social media to sway voters. We don't know whether that is true, but it is plausible.

The second said that the Republicans didn't have their act together in '08. That one had nothing to do with social media.

I'd be willing to go out on a limb here and say that they didn't have their act together in '12, either. They should have won the election handily, and yet, well, we know the outcome.
 
We can't be sure whether the first part of that statement is correct (even if it probably is), but there is no doubt that the second part is true.

The only evidence for the second part is the near complete and total absence of a strong meme-based presence for the Republicans. The Democrats enjoyed what I can only speculate was a coordinated show of force. They were both pretty active in 2012, though.
 
You did when you said "We can't be sure whether the first part of that statement is correct" when quoting "There isn't a doubt in my mind that the major political parties did this the last two major elections. Well, maybe the Republicans didn't have their act together in 2008...". The first part is obviously the "There isn't a doubt in my mind that the major political parties did this the last two major elections.". The second part which you said was "no doubt true" was about the Republicans.

I was saying that I believe both parties do this, but that maybe the Republicans weren't with the game in 2008 (meaning that they WERE NOT doing this in 2008). Diddohead not! was agreeing with the notion that the Republicans didn't have their act together in 2008, implicitly agreeing that if this was happening, the Dems were doing more of it and/or better.
 
I don't understand your nonchalance. Don't you think it's one this if a private company/corporation does it on their own expense, and it's another if the government does it on taxpayer dime?

Are you now arguing with the fact that the government spends a lot of taxpayer money on things individual taxpayers don't like?
 
No, and I am not sure where your question came from to be honest.

Because you're saying it's a problem that taxpayer money is being spent on something you apparently don't agree with.
 
Because you're saying it's a problem that taxpayer money is being spent on something you apparently don't agree with.

The government should govern based-on the will of the people as opposed to pushing their will onto it's people. Being fed propaganda is bad enough, but when it's being paid by tax dollars, it makes it even more repulsively worse, wouldn't you agree?
 
The government should govern based-on the will of the people as opposed to pushing their will onto it's people. Being fed propaganda is bad enough, but when it's being paid by tax dollars, it makes it even more repulsively worse, wouldn't you agree?

No. Will of the people doesn't mean a referendum. It means the will of the people (Congress) that the people as a whole elected

This seems to be a theme on this website:

#1- The whatever opinion a poster has, 'the people' agree with that poster.

#2- That if they actually do, somehow that trumps the will of the elected representatives. It's a democratic republic, not a pure democracy, for a reason.
 
No. Will of the people doesn't mean a referendum. It means the will of the people (Congress) that the people as a whole elected

This seems to be a theme on this website:

#1- The whatever opinion a poster has, 'the people' agree with that poster.

#2- That if they actually do, somehow that trumps the will of the elected representatives. It's a democratic republic, not a pure democracy, for a reason.

These pretzels are making me thirsty.
 
Back
Top Bottom