JeffTilley Do I disagree with "a certain political faction"? How could I disagree with such a nebulous comment? Perhaps you'd care to specify. Which faction hijacked "Facebook?" And, which one's being actively investigated in that regard? Please, do specify.

And, regarding your reply directed toward Provisional, we've all been indoctrinated... (a euphemism for such being socialization and then our own individual levels of assimilation and/or accommodation).

      professor

      You tell me which faction is being investigated over the Facebook flap? Everyone knows you just posted the article as a hit piece against Trump and the pubs. Do you deny the msm has long been in bed with the dems? You libs wanna whine about Russia helping Trump. Why aren’t you whining about the msm helping every dem since paper and ink were invented?

          JeffTilley Clearly, there's point in addressing this any further with you. You're not addressing the original post and even based upon the initial few replies your assertion it's clear that not "everybody knows" what you think. You're not denying the article and the article was simply about how easy it's become to manipulate. Why you feel a need to change the subject, only you would know. "Whine about Russia helping Trump"? Wow, those are your words. I hope you're not okay with that but, it seems you are? You believe it's okay for a foreign adversary to be involved in manipulation?
          You seem defensive.

          I'll await responses of substance. That's what I brought to the table, an article of substance - not laden with the hyperbole you've already engendered. Oh well, it lasted a short bit.

              Is advertising propaganda? Do ads and branding manipulate the way we purchase goods? Should it be legal to claim a product is the best without scientific proof to back it up? Should unsubstantiated advertising be illegal? There is no such thing as a troll. Facebook, like this forum is put out there for public consumption. That opens any post to criticism, counter point and debate. We can all read what we want, believe what we want and debate what we want.

              "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

              professor

              Perhaps I was somewhat defensive in my remarks. I apologize. Onto the subject of Facebooks influence on our elections. I do believe it’s minimal at best. I don’t believe most folks are that naive. If they are then this nation is in deep doodoo. I don’t believe Facebook has any more of an influence on our election process than our own msm does. I agree fake news is a problem, but not only on Facebook. Our own msm is guilty, too. Everybody has become sensationalized like the National Enquirer, in search of every dollar they can squeeze out of us. There’s a reason we the people trust the msm less than politicians, and that’s sad.

                  JeffTilley "Perhaps I was somewhat defensive in my remarks. I apologize. Onto the subject of Facebooks influence on our elections. I do believe it’s minimal at best."
                  Do you believe the margin of victory in the 2016 election was a minimal margin?

                  "I don’t believe most folks are that naive. If they are then this nation is in deep doodoo. I don’t believe Facebook has any more of an influence on our election process than our own msm does."

                  I do think a great number of people ARE that naive. What else would explain a large number of individuals voting against their own self interest? Furthermore, if the statistics are accurate then, the average IQ is 100 and that means have of the population is at or below "average". (Granted, I'm quite aware of a number of individuals who successfully compensate for a lower "quotient" via effort and hard work while it's likely a similar faction have a higher "quotient" and under-achieve.)

                  "I agree fake news is a problem, but not only on Facebook. Our own msm is guilty, too. Everybody has become sensationalized like the National Enquirer, in search of every dollar they can squeeze out of us. There’s a reason we the people trust the msm less than politicians, and that’s sad."

                  You use a lot of sweeping generalizations. Consequently, it is difficult for me to respond to them with any sort of accuracy. I see things on continuum's - not all or nothing.

                  I posted an article from The Atlantic. Is that main stream media? Do you believe it to be a reputable source? Is PBS/NPR a reputable source? Do you believe Fox News is a reputable source? I'd need you to further clarify what you call MSM. Are some more corrupt than others - and if so, which ones? I do realize that you've an already formulated opinion as you showed your hand quite clearly in an earlier reply. Seems you believe that "liberals" jumped on and cornered the 'market' sooner then whatever your adjective of choice is for an opposed "party" or affiliation. (See, I have to tip-toe around this specific topic a bit because a couple of decades ago I'd have described myself as a conservative-liberal. So, do you believe there is more propaganda coming out of liberal-controlled MSM? Do you believe there is, in general just a greater amount of liberally biased MSM? If so, why might that be? In a free market are they not also determined by supply and demand: that there's more Liberally-biased MSM than conservative because there's a greater degree of liberal thinking? Wow, then the results of both the most recent presidential election and the mid-terms prior to that would have been falling on a lot of deaf ears AND clearly those propaganda machines failed. Hmmm... quite a quandary for your theory to clarify. But, I'm willing to listen...

                  JeffTilley "Everybody has become sensationalized like the National Enquirer, in search of every dollar they can squeeze out of us. There’s a reason we the people trust the msm less than politicians, and that’s sad."

                  See Jeff, there's that generalization, again "everybody". I don't believe you can substantiate such a claim - that they're all "like" The National Enquirer".

                  Please, speak for yourself. That "we the people trust mainstream media less than politicians"? Hardly!!! I will freely admit that there are many democratic candidates and office holders whom I did not trust - at all! But, besides broad brush generalizations it seems you're prone to hyperbole as well.

                  Now I am curious.

                        Can't agree that any significant block voted against its own self interest. The working class patiently waited through 8 years of stagnant wages and declining workplace opportunities in the one hope that their healthcare costs would at least be reduced. Instead, their rates continued to increase significantly, and deductibles went through the roof to the point where many have insurance that they can't afford to use because they can't even make the deductible with cash on hand.

                          johnnydoom I don't know what you consider the "working class". You have a wage/salary range for that? I've got excellent healthcare benefits through my employer but, once was no out of pocket expense for the coverage (not deductible or co-pay) first became an expense during the time frame you reference and they have gone up, incrementally each year. Nonetheless, my salary as a manager (at the time) remained stagnant (no change albeit a slight fee for that insurance) since 2005. In fact, in 2007 folks in my position and above were required to take a commensurate pay decrease (I believe it was approximately 2-3%). We all know what happened in 2008 (which was prior to Obama).

                          Now, seems that POTUS somehow became culpable for righting the ship that was listing before his election. No?! So, here we are laying blame on that '8 year wait' when it's cause occurred previously.
                          Otherwise, with us not knowing how many of the "working class" voted in that fashion, we do know there's a lesser number of folks who voted for there own self-interest - those who are significantly wealthier and want to pay less taxes on the larger amount of income. And, we now what side of the aisle they come from.

                          While I'm now curious about your response, it will then take this topic off track.

                          But, either you're saying that that was the critical issue, implicitly admitting that the working class did vote against its own self-interest? Or, maybe it's just the example you chose? It's now 10 months later and how's that working out for them - the "working class" you identify?

                          So, your commentary is an aside again, what causes the sidestep, change of topic? Perhaps for the purpose of my original post, we would be better served to avoid further digressions? I welcome your response but, would still want to get back on track.

                            Growth is past 3%, and that is with a congress that is steadfast against the president. I'd say in 10 months it's working out as good as it can be for them. We'll see if there's real change coming if the republican establishment starts getting thrown out in the primary elections. As for the rest, I'm not going to argue with you. You accuse others of disguising their opinions as fact, and then throw out your own opinions as facts. Lets just say that my interpretation of the news and the reason for the election results is different than your, or the Atlantic's interpretation. Without surveying the voters about who they voted for and why they voted for them, it is all conjecture. The exit polling I saw didn't point to fake news, it pointed to disappointment with the stagnant economy, and to disappointment that the healthcare system was disrupted without any real positive results except for those who are wholly subsidized.

                              JeffTilley I don’t believe most folks are that naive.

                              I don't know about "most", but I'm afraid that there are more folks out there that are naive enough to believe without verifying than we can imagine.

                                professor I do think a great number of people ARE that naive. What else would explain a large number of individuals voting against their own self interest?

                                Well, professor and I agree on that much. I mean, look at the millions of people who voted for Killary... against their own self interest!

                                  I'll be honest, the title (What Facebook Did to American Democracy) lost me since we don't live in a democracy.

                                  Then the chart was sorely misleading. C(ommunist) N(ews) N(etwork), NBC, ABC, CBS (and all their variations), along with Fox need to move way to the left of their current positions.

                                  I think that Facebook has certainly impacted our election process. I think there are many, many people out there who are stupid enough to read the BS put out by the MSM and believe it. Fortunately, for our nation, the MSM was WAY off with their predictions.

                                  professor

                                  Tell you what-instead of dissecting others remarks and becoming triggered by them, why don’t YOU tell us your opinion of the article? Since most folks are below average IQ and liberal folks are intellectually superior.........

                                      johnnydoom You avoided every question. Your response of "growth past 3%" has no bearing on the topic at hand. Great discussion...

                                          JeffTilley Seems you're feeling rather put upon and defensive. Kinda invalidates your earlier apology for your defensive remarks.

                                          You still did not attempt to quantify your comment about 'minimal at best'.
                                          Now, johnnydoom, he made an attempt by stating he "can't agree that any siginificant block voted against its own self interest" (not answering the question then, changing the subject.

                                          You did not even attempt to clarify your interpretation of what media sources you call msm have significantly biased bents. Why do you dodge these questions and there follow-ups? Can you provide this clarity? If my reasoning is so flawed how is it you can't seem to address that?

                                            A couple of comments and request for clarification: Is this - that of which Senator McCain speaks - the populist nationalism of which several members here endorse, want to perpetuate and perpetrate? If so, how'd y'all come so far from this guy being "your" candidate that ran against (and lost) to the allegedly hideous Obama?! AND, is ABC an example of your biased mainstream media?!