How Trumps savvy army won the internet war

[rug]

As new research reveals, right wingers understand far better than liberals how cyberspace can connect like-minded souls

Sunday 1 January 2017 03.00 EST
John Naughton
Opinion

Before we finally let go of 2016, it’s worth reflecting on what we learned from it. For me, the most striking lesson was the way it demonstrated how the internet has changed democratic politics. While there is no single, overarching explanation for Donald Trump’s election, his ascendancy would have been unthinkable in a pre-internet age, for two reasons.

The first is that much of Trump’s campaign rhetoric would never have got past the editorial “gatekeepers” of an earlier era – the TV network owners and controllers, the editors of powerful print media and the Federal Communications Commission with its “fairness doctrine” (which required holders of broadcast licences to “present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission’s view, honest, equitable and balanced”).

The second reason is that in the pre-internet era, the multitudes of Trump’s vigorous, engaged and angry supporters would have had little option but to fume impotently in whatever local arenas they inhabited. It would have been difficult, if not impossible, for them to hook up with millions of like-minded souls to crowdsource their indignation and their enthusiasm for the candidate.

So I think we can say that while the net may not have been a sufficient condition for Trump’s victory, it was definitely a necessary one. Most commentators, hypnotised by Trump’s mastery of Twitter and the prevalence of “fake news” on Facebook, attributed this entirely to social media. But again, this was an overly simplistic view, for it turns out that there was a deep structure underpinning most of what went on in social media and it needed some fairly intensive network analysis to reveal it.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/01/donald-trump-savvy-army-won-internet-war

[jodymarie aimee]

1. His facebook followers are paid foreigners

Business Insider reported in July 2015 AND NO ONE TOOK NOTE....I emailed Rachel and Lawrence....that Cheeto pays Malaysians and Fillipinos $400 a month to like and comment. None of those folks can vote in America. I would go on his FB every day and say "Good morning Malaysians, it is too bad you cannot vote in America."

Now, if I comment on Walker's page, in 5 mins, I would have 30 R snide responses. Crickets on Cheeto's page, as they are not real people. Just as he paid the first "fans" when he rode down the escalator $50 each. No one seemed interested in this, tho.

Twitter... I have no idea on that, don't partake.

[HoneyBadger]

2. There is a great deal of irony in someone that has apparently never used email in his life winning

The Internet war, given the youth in the trenches of his opponents. Bizzare. He is now recommending couriers be used instead of email.

[Orsino]

3. Billionaire solipsists can afford to hire other solipsists...

...and otherwise manufacture virtual majorities. When a virtual billionaire arrives on the scene with built-in popularity, the real billionaires will find it just a matter of efficiency to co-opt him.

Trump has an inferiority complex visible from space. All the moneyed men have to do is dangle before him the prospect of his being allowed, finally, into the club, and he's theirs. Part of the deal is that they have to let him swagger.

[Blue_Tires]

4. All that writing and not ONE fucking mention of help from Russia's troll army?