now you can be right wherever you are.

Are "crowds on demand" the wave of the future? Fake news, fake crowds...time to do your own research people!
says Bozette on Oct 7th 17 (#815348)
Yup (5)
Nope (1)
Other (1)


More info:
says Bozette on Oct 7th 17 (#2669105)
Reply | +2 | 2

Trump loves fake news...and he has his own crowds to back him up. It seems that people need fake and hyperbole to get anywhere.
says Sukiesnow on Oct 7th 17 (#2669142)
Reply | +1 | 2

Don't forget Hillary's Super Trolls. (biggrin)
says Bozette on Oct 7th 17 (#2669147)
Reply | +1 | 1

Seems as if it's a real thing for sure, but I hope not as far it being a wave of the future. I do know that many people who attend protests or rallies are not paid protesters, or those who have been solicited by any "Crowds on Demand" sort of organization. I'm also pretty sure that my own feelings about a candidate, issue or cause are based on my own perceptions and "research" about them, as opposed to the size of a crowd supporting them or it.
says Piper2 on Oct 7th 17 (#2669188)
Reply | +2 | 2

I hope not, too...not looking good for the home team, though. It goes beyond paid crowds, there are bots, paid and volunteer trolls online in social media that are having an impact as well. I don't doubt that with you, and with many others as well. I do see a vast number of people who simply follow the crowd, though. And most largely limit themselves to echo chambers these days, never questioning if a factual basis exists as long as it's someone they usually agree with. I find it both sad and scary.
says Bozette on Oct 7th 17 (#2669194)
Reply | +2 | 2

I've been hearing about that, and reading some about it too. Yes, I've been seeing an alarming amount of people who do that too, for most of my life. I doubt if it's so much of a these days thing, as much at it just being more glaringly obvious now.
says Piper2 on Oct 7th 17 (#2669232)
Reply | +2 | 2

It is more obvious, to be sure, but it is more prevalent, too, imo...largely due to social media.
says Bozette on Oct 8th 17 (#2669245)
Reply | +2 | 2

Social media is definitely when I starting noticing it even more.
says Piper2 on Oct 8th 17 (#2669268)
Reply | +2 | 2

Here's what I'm talking about: Twitter has millions of users, yet this is a representation of their intraction by political leaning. It's basically two yuuuuuuuge echo chambers. And FB probably isn't much better. A lot of smaller sites are just smaller echo chambers, too, but those are primarily the ones devoted to politics. We get a better mix on here, and we definitely had a good mix on SH.
says Bozette on Oct 8th 17 (#2669321)
Reply | +2 | 2

Intraction? You're right, FB isn't much better. Both sides tend to run off those who dare to disagree with them in their groups, or block them. One side in particular tends to gang up on and mock even the most civil of disagreement. I don't know much about how Twitter works, but I saw that same thing on SH, and to lesser degree, I see it here. It is disheartening. :/
says Piper2 on Oct 8th 17 (#2669526)
Reply | +2 | 2

*interaction* (chew) Yup. I see it from both sides...different, but the same, if that makes any sense. What I find disconcerting is the tendency of people to serial "like" their "side" during a discussion without actually looking at links posted by anyone in the they aren't even considering the information presented before weighing in. Smh I see it on all sites to some extent, but there is more discussion here (believe it or not!), and I've never seen the level of interaction between opposing viewpoints as I saw on SH.
says Bozette on Oct 9th 17 (#2669725)
Reply | 0 | 0

I figured that. Since unlike me, you rarely make typos or leave out words, I just wanted to be sure. :) Yes, that makes sense. To me, anyway. I do think sometimes people don't actually need to look at any links posted in the conversation, because they've already done their own research. Also, sometimes the links are from sites that are so 'hateful' and obviously 'biased' that they're a little sickening. Usually though, people just already have their minds made up, and aren't interested in looking at any stinkin' link . With the obvious exception of those here (and formerly on SH) who insult and block every opposing viewpoint, I have also seen some good discussions on both sites.
says Piper2 on Oct 9th 17 (#2669779)
Reply | +1 | 1

Arrgh...this stupid keyboard has been giving me fits, and typos galore. True, but I guess I just try to actually look at something before weighing in on it. The particular conversation I was referring to was an Australian who posted a common (and misleading) meme on gun laws here in the states. He said, "I've done *the* research, fact check it.". As I am quite familiar with gun laws in Michigan, it was easily disproven. Mind you, I did not disagree with him on gun control, merely corrected a fallacy in the meme. Silly me...I think truth matters. (chew) Agreed.
says Bozette on Oct 9th 17 (#2669789)
Reply | +1 | 1

I haven't noticed you having typos galore. Unfortunately I can't blame my keyboard for mine. That would be nice. Personally, I always look at "source" links, when there is one. I don't usually weigh in on anything if don't already know something about it. Yes, FACTS about something sure do matter.
says Piper2 on Oct 9th 17 (#2669840)
Reply | +1 | 1

This keyboard has been causing me to have a lot, but it's still on me for not double-checking before I post. I sometimes decide on different wording, or intend to add or delete something and don't proof it properly, too. I often follow conversations without chiming in, but I learn a lot from both the links posted and the discussion sometimes. Yeppers.
says Bozette on Oct 9th 17 (#2669845)
Reply | +1 | 1

George Soros has been buy protesters for quite a long while now. When is this A-hole going to die? I mean my God he was in WWII for peats sake.
says Brianl on Oct 19th 17 (#2677650)
Reply | 0 | 0

Add A Comment
If you would like to leave a comment, please login or create an account.