2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBe nice to Hillary Clinton online — or risk a confrontation with her super PAC
When the Internets legions of Hillary hecklers steal away to chat rooms and Facebook pages to vent grievances about Clinton, express revulsion toward Clinton and launch attacks on Clinton, they now may find themselves in a surprising place confronted by a multimillion dollar super PAC working with Clinton.
Hillary Clinton's well-heeled backers have opened a new frontier in digital campaigning, one that seems to have been inspired by some of the Internet's worst instincts. Correct the Record, a super PAC coordinating with Clinton's campaign, is spending some $1 million to find and confront social media users who post unflattering messages about the Democratic front-runner.
In effect, the effort aims to spend a large sum of money to increase the amount of trolling that already exists online.
The plan comes as Clinton operatives grapple with the reality that her supporters just arent as engaged and aggressive online as are her detractors inside and outside the Democratic Party.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-digital-trolling-20160506-snap-htmlstory.html
brooklynite
(95,071 posts)Human101948
(3,457 posts)Is it a flat rate or does the payment increase based on cleverness and wit?
brooklynite
(95,071 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)Meanwhile:
fasttense
(17,301 posts)I have been here since the bushes stole the election and never have I had so many groups ban me just for disagreeing with a post. And each time it was because I didn't sufficiently appreciate the Hillary.
Funny that when Obama was running, no one banned me for the samething. So, supporting "Not Hillary" was A OK in 2008, but not so much today. I wonder why?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)#FearTheHillary
#BannedFromTheIntenet
#SufficientlyAppreciateHer
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)who dont need to be paid to troll, he said.
Exactly.
cali
(114,904 posts)oasis
(49,501 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)They're pretty easy to detect.
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)there can be no better example. This has poisoned the free Internet with propaganda.
Can we expect further erosion of free and open online discussions in the near future? What is going to happen to online blogs or writers who disagree with policy? We know what has been going on globally against free speech, let us hope we can preserve it here.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)And for pretty much the same reason: one more reason to discredit any attack on Sanders.
betsuni
(25,845 posts)Says they're "only engaged in positive content" to correct rumors and misinformation. Why is that bad? It's the opposite of trolling.
"The plan comes ... with the reality that her supporters just aren't engaged and aggressive online as are her detractors inside and outside the Democratic Party" -- because most Democratic supporters have lives and don't want to waste time.
"Clinton has little choice but to try, given the ubiquity of online assaults and the difficulty of squelching every provably untrue narrative once they have taken hold" -- why wouldn't anyone want to know if something isn't true? Media are so unreliable it's a struggle to get to the facts. I hate to be wrong, I want the facts.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Buns_of_Fire
(17,218 posts)Not because he was doing it too, but because he wasn't paying enough. Eighty-five cents a week was barely sufficient to feed the servants, and I'd occasionally have to dip into Mumsy's trust fund to have one removed after they'd died of starvation. Bother.
Correct the Record rejected me because I wasn't sleazy enough, so now I work for Cthulhu. The pay's still not that great, but he (it?) has Wall Street connections, and has assured me that I will be amply rewarded. I hope so. I'm down to my last $14 million, not counting the summer ranch in Montana and the winter mansion in Puerto Vallarta.