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?!

                            professor7 hours ago
                            JeffTilley Seems you're feeling rather put upon and defensive. Kinda invalidates your earlier apology for your defensive remarks.

                            Stop with the poking, prodding, and reading between the lines. You know what bias I speak of, liberal bias. I know you're not that ignorant. And I don't support Russian interference. Don't mistake me again, and never attempt to put words where there are none. And trust me on this-I will never apologize to you again.

                            John McCain's a rino. I stopped paying attention to him years ago. I understand why liberals love him and conservatives don't. Do you? We know why he lost. Do you know why HRC lost? Is the article you initially listed just another excuse?

                            Now, stop deflecting and answer what all here want to hear-your take on the article you initially posted. We wait with bated breath..........

                              WSJ article............

                              By Mark Penn

                              The fake news about fake news is practically endless. Americans worried about Russia’s influence in the 2016 election have seized on a handful of Facebook ads—as though there weren’t also three 90-minute debates, two televised party conventions, and $2.4 billion spent on last year’s campaign. The danger is that bending facts to fit the Russia story line may nudge Washington into needlessly and recklessly regulating the internet and curtailing basic freedoms.

                              After an extensive review, Facebook has identified $100,000 of ads that came from accounts associated with Russia. Assume for the sake of argument that Vladimir Putin personally authorized this expenditure. Given its divisive nature, the campaign could be dubbed “From Russia, With Hate”—except it would make for a disappointing James Bond movie.

                              Analyzing the pattern of expenditures, and doing some back-of-the-envelope math, it’s clear this was no devilishly effective plot. Facebook says 56% of the ads ran after the election, reducing the tally that could have influenced the result to about $44,000. It also turns out the ads were not confined to swing states but also shown in places like New York, California and Texas. Supposing half the ads went to swing states brings the total down to $22,000.

                              Facebook also counted ads as early as June 2015. Assuming they were evenly spread and we want only those that ran the year of the election, that knocks it down to $13,000. Most of the ads did not solicit support for a candidate and carried messages on issues like racism, immigration and guns. The actual electioneering then amounts to about $6,500.

                              Now look at the bigger picture. Every day, Americans see hundreds of ads on TV and radio, in newspapers and magazines, on billboards and smartphones. North Americans post to Facebook something like a billion times a day, and during the election many of those messages were about politics. Facebook typically runs about $40 million worth of advertising a day in North America.

                              Then consider the scale of American presidential elections. Hillary Clinton’s total campaign budget, including associated committees, was $1.4 billion. Mr. Trump and his allies had about $1 billion. Even a full $100,000 of Russian ads would have erased just 0.025% of Hillary’s financial advantage. In the last week of the campaign alone, Mrs. Clinton’s super PAC dumped $6 million in ads into Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

                              I have 40 years of experience in politics, and this Russian ad buy, mostly after the election anyway, simply does not add up to a carefully targeted campaign to move voters. It takes tens of millions of dollars to deliver meaningful messages to the contested portion of the electorate. Converting someone who voted for the other party last time is an enormously difficult task. Swing voters in states like Ohio or Florida are typically barraged with 50% or more of a campaign’s budget. Try watching TV in those states the week before an election and you will see how jammed the airwaves are.

                              No one wants foreign governments meddling in American elections. In 1996, the Chinese government had the “China plan” and pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into Bill Clinton’s re-election campaign. There were congressional investigations, and several fundraisers were prosecuted, but Attorney General Janet Reno rejected calls for an independent counsel. Campaigns tightened up their donor-validation procedures, and life moved on. The same is called for here. Internet companies should improve their screening of electioneering ads, impose clearer standards on all ads, and do a better job weeding out phony accounts.

                              Millions of taxpayer dollars have probably been spent already poring over that $100,000 of Facebook ads. Better to keep it all in perspective, as everyone did in 1996. The only way Russia will get its money’s worth is if Washington overreacts and narrows the very freedoms that make America different in the first place.

                              Mr. Penn, managing director of the Stagwell Group, was chief strategist on Bill Clinton’s 1996 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign, and Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.

                              professor There's little need in having a discussion. Your viewpoint is that voters were duped into voting for Trump, my view is that voters chose the only available alternative (at national election time) to the strategy that preceded. Mine is based upon questions answered by actual voters, yours is based upon conjecture by the Atlantic based on strategic placement of dark news on social media. Could the voters be lying? -possible, could the conjecture from the Atlantic be wrong? - possible.

                                  JeffTilley
                                  I'll do you one better. I will respond - without personal attack, without authoritarianism 'don't ever put words in my mouth again', and I will read the lines. Seems you're unwilling to specify or quantify. Whatever floats your boat. It's just called substantiation.
                                  So, I believe there is media bias. How much? That's hard for me to say. I believe Fox News is reprehensible and unintelligible. I occasionally listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio just for some competition with Philly Sports Talk - both being mostly ridiculous but, it's good to know how others think, what they're 'fed', and try and comprehend how.

                                  While I don't watch mainstream media - which for me would be ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS (traditionally) and might (?) now include CNN, MSN - MSNBC? See, I'm not really sure and that's why I'd requested you clarify. But, you're seemingly too agitated (I'm just speculating - not attempting to put words in your mouth). If I want "news" that I feel is somewhat objective (knowing full well that to any 100% extent, there is no such animal), I prefer NPR/PBS, BBC or at 11 p.m. EST, there's NHK World TV (a Japanese-PBS partnership). I believe the latter two to be less influenced by 'corporate money'. And, I don't think the other mainstream media outlets I mentioned (the traditional ones) are nearly so biased as Fox. So, there are my thoughts and opinions.

                                  My take on the article I posted about Facebook influencing? I think Mr. Trump and his cronies/family members have already admitted their guilt and complicity with the Russians. I believe Hillary really screwed the pooch in her presentation of self, for starters. I find her to be 'shrew-like' (and, I didn't care for her husband either). Nonetheless, I believe they're both brighter, more learned, and more diplomatic than our current POTUS. I believe, in all the investigations of Hillary's emails, had she been messing with Facebook as had the Trump campaign, it would have hit the news - all the news.

                                  Anything else?

                                  Possible you might engage in a discussion?

                                      johnnydoom
                                      "...Mine is based upon questions answered by actual voters..."
                                      What does that mean, your view ("mine")? Your view is based upon "questions answered by actual voters"? What questions?

                                      I honestly do not know what this quoted statement means - infers? If my viewpoint was "that voters were duped into voting for Trump", you then mean what by "the strategy that preceded"? Whose strategy?

                                      I understand that Trump was the winner of the republican primary and that party's candidate for POTUS.
                                      Are you talking about the Romney strategy? The McCain strategy?
                                      Please, for the love of God, don't tell me you're referring to the Obama 'strategy'.

                                          This post belongs over here as well.

                                          What all this really indicates is we're now in a post fact based world. The late Senator Patrick Moynihan's famous quote 'that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts' is certainly not something the current occupier of the Whitehouse lives by.

                                          Just the opposite actually.

                                          The old adage that you get the government that you deserve is true. An ignorant electorate / citizenry thinks the Presidency is an entry level position. Since they know nothing beyond bumper sticker slogans, they elected an ignorant person who is in their own self image.

                                          In response to P.J. O'Rourke's question (book titled) "How the hell did this happen?" Stupid is as stupid does.