Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Analysing the weekend’s extraordinary Twitter storm targeting

SystemSystem Posts: 6,199
edited August 7 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Analysing the weekend’s extraordinary Twitter storm targeting LAB Deputy Leader, Tom Watson

Anatomy Of A Tweetstorm: Looking At The Numbers Behind #ResignWatson https://t.co/bG4SZBmBVA pic.twitter.com/MMiSfy7VgZ

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • RobDRobD Posts: 33,300
    "One cultist alone sent 613 Tweets"

    Sad.

    :D
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,427
    edited August 7
    So an upper limit of 2% of the membership participated.
    But when you account for people supportive of Watson, people merely commenting on the campaign, people who arent labour members and of course the computers - even that looks like a vast overestimate.

    That website suggests 15% of all tweets on twitter come from a known network of Russian bots if I am reading that right. That can be a lower bound for a controversial topic like this.

    That website says that at one point Tom Watson was the number one hashtag in the world. That is obviously ridiculous, most people in the UK have never heard of him, and internationally his name recognition must be zero.

    All of this is to say the obvious. Twitter is not representative of anything.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,855
    rkrkrk said:

    So an upper limit of 2% of the membership participated.
    But when you account for people supportive of Watson, people merely commenting on the campaign, people who arent labour members and of course the computers - even that looks like a vast overestimate.

    That website suggests 15% of all tweets on twitter come from a known network of Russian bots if I am reading that right. That can be a lower bound for a controversial topic like this.

    That website says that at one point Tom Watson was the number one hashtag in the world. That is obviously ridiculous, most people in the UK have never heard of him, and internationally his name recognition must be zero.

    All of this is to say the obvious. Twitter is not representative of anything.

    It's OK. I've read on here that the Russian trolls can't impact anything. Or maybe that's just Brexit.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,752
    An excellent article thanks Mike, and a great piece of analysis by Gizmodo.

    Twitter should be ignored; it is nearly as meaningless as a ConHome poll .... ;)
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 20,616
    Whether or not it is representative, it is impression-forming. Labour supporters look cult-like and hysterical. Not a good look.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,626
    what advantage is there to anyone in being on Twitter?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 20,616

    what advantage is there to anyone in being on Twitter?

    I treat it like a newspaper, picking up articles on whatever I’m interested in. I also tweet about subjects I have special knowledge of.

    I try not to tweet my views on every passing cloud because only I’m interested in them. Others feel less constrained.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,427

    what advantage is there to anyone in being on Twitter?

    I don't use it any more, but I found it a really easy way of having a constant stream of articles on particular topics. Follow a few experts on tax reform or data privacy and quite quickly you become informed to a reasonable level. Some of the jokes were quite funny too.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,752

    what advantage is there to anyone in being on Twitter?

    Not much. If I was doing another coastal walk, especially for charity, then I'd be on Twitter, as it;s a good way for people (hopefully supporters) to keep track of me - it's short and convenient. Whilst I would use FB for more long-form reports.

    It would actually have been really handy for me sixteen years ago. Since then... less so.

    Like any tool, Twitter has its uses. Sadly it is massively misused and has a massive signal-to-noise ratio. It's far worse than FB.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,634
    RobD said:

    "One cultist alone sent 613 Tweets"

    Sad.

    :D

    About the same as the blackbird outside my window during the dawn chorus..
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,724
    I can't help thinking all political parties would be better off expelling any members who are on Twitter.

    The NHS bill for blood-pressure meds would drop significantly too.

    It is not a tool for measured political debate. More a tool for tools.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,634
    edited August 7
    Another plot against Corbyn?


    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/dozen-labour-mps-in-secret-plot-to-oust-corbyn-party-moderates-gather-at-£144-a-night-farmhouse-to-hatch-plans-to-take-back-control-and-repair-the-damage-that-has-been-done/ar-BBLAyZ7?ocid=spartandhp
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,355
    Good morning, everyone.

    Could've sworn the Hate in 1984 was either two or three minutes. Still, that's inflation for you.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,626
    rkrkrk said:

    what advantage is there to anyone in being on Twitter?

    I don't use it any more, but I found it a really easy way of having a constant stream of articles on particular topics. Follow a few experts on tax reform or data privacy and quite quickly you become informed to a reasonable level. Some of the jokes were quite funny too.
    Thanks all; confirms my view that I won’t bother. What with the local FB page and my grandchildren being on Instagram ...........
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 2,089

    what advantage is there to anyone in being on Twitter?

    It mainly appeals to those of us who are easily distracte

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 3,488

    I can't help thinking all political parties would be better off expelling any members who are on Twitter.

    The NHS bill for blood-pressure meds would drop significantly too.

    It is not a tool for measured political debate. More a tool for tools.

    On the subject of suspending party members:

    https://www.joe.co.uk/amp/news/ukip-condemns-three-idiotic-members-involved-in-bookshop-ambush-193655
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 14,233
    RobD said:

    "One cultist alone sent 613 Tweets"

    Sad.

    :D

    Implausible more like it. That averages at over 10 per minute or less than 6 seconds per Tweet. Straining the limits of credibility to even type that fast let alone think and discourse in that period.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,355
    I've found good F1 info on Twitter. Without that, neither the 2012 Spanish bet on Maldonado nor the 2016 Spanish bet on Verstappen would've occurred.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 29,387
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,724
    edited August 7
    Foxy said:

    I can't help thinking all political parties would be better off expelling any members who are on Twitter.

    The NHS bill for blood-pressure meds would drop significantly too.

    It is not a tool for measured political debate. More a tool for tools.

    On the subject of suspending party members:

    https://www.joe.co.uk/amp/news/ukip-condemns-three-idiotic-members-involved-in-bookshop-ambush-193655
    At least they only knocked the books over, rather than burning them.

    EDIT: but why isn't Britain's largest socialist bookshop called not Bookmarks, but BookMarx?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,752

    RobD said:

    "One cultist alone sent 613 Tweets"

    Sad.

    :D

    Implausible more like it. That averages at over 10 per minute or less than 6 seconds per Tweet. Straining the limits of credibility to even type that fast let alone think and discourse in that period.
    You think someone who even tries to do this is *thinking*, or trying to engage in discourse? It's just utterly pathetic.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 20,616

    RobD said:

    "One cultist alone sent 613 Tweets"

    Sad.

    :D

    Implausible more like it. That averages at over 10 per minute or less than 6 seconds per Tweet. Straining the limits of credibility to even type that fast let alone think and discourse in that period.
    I’m not sure the 613 tweets were in a single hour.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 14,233

    RobD said:

    "One cultist alone sent 613 Tweets"

    Sad.

    :D

    Implausible more like it. That averages at over 10 per minute or less than 6 seconds per Tweet. Straining the limits of credibility to even type that fast let alone think and discourse in that period.
    I’m not sure the 613 tweets were in a single hour.
    Oops. I misread it sorry.

    Yeah a touch sad but believable then.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,852
    I just saw The Spy Who Dumped Me. Kate McKinnon totally stole the movie. Worth seeing just for her.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,355
    Rambly radio on who might replace Ricciardo:


    I'll put it at the start of the mid-season ramble, if I ever get around to writing that.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 3,488

    Foxy said:

    I can't help thinking all political parties would be better off expelling any members who are on Twitter.

    The NHS bill for blood-pressure meds would drop significantly too.

    It is not a tool for measured political debate. More a tool for tools.

    On the subject of suspending party members:

    https://www.joe.co.uk/amp/news/ukip-condemns-three-idiotic-members-involved-in-bookshop-ambush-193655
    At least they only knocked the books over, rather than burning them.

    EDIT: but why isn't Britain's largest socialist bookshop called not Bookmarks, but BookMarx?
    They did rip up some stock apparently.

    UKIP always was the BNP in a blazer, but increasingly it leaves off the blazer.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,724
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    I can't help thinking all political parties would be better off expelling any members who are on Twitter.

    The NHS bill for blood-pressure meds would drop significantly too.

    It is not a tool for measured political debate. More a tool for tools.

    On the subject of suspending party members:

    https://www.joe.co.uk/amp/news/ukip-condemns-three-idiotic-members-involved-in-bookshop-ambush-193655
    At least they only knocked the books over, rather than burning them.

    EDIT: but why isn't Britain's largest socialist bookshop called not Bookmarks, but BookMarx?
    They did rip up some stock apparently.

    UKIP always was the BNP in a blazer, but increasingly it leaves off the blazer.
    Leaving off their blazer is what will get them expelled from UKIP. What next - no pewter tankard hanging behind the bar at their local?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,970
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    I can't help thinking all political parties would be better off expelling any members who are on Twitter.

    The NHS bill for blood-pressure meds would drop significantly too.

    It is not a tool for measured political debate. More a tool for tools.

    On the subject of suspending party members:

    https://www.joe.co.uk/amp/news/ukip-condemns-three-idiotic-members-involved-in-bookshop-ambush-193655
    At least they only knocked the books over, rather than burning them.

    EDIT: but why isn't Britain's largest socialist bookshop called not Bookmarks, but BookMarx?
    They did rip up some stock apparently.

    UKIP Labour always was the BNP in a blazer, but increasingly it leaves off the blazer.
    Fixed that for you...

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2018/04/nick-griffin-declares-his-support-jeremy-corbyn
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,979

    RobD said:

    "One cultist alone sent 613 Tweets"

    Sad.

    :D

    Implausible more like it. That averages at over 10 per minute or less than 6 seconds per Tweet. Straining the limits of credibility to even type that fast let alone think and discourse in that period.
    Whoever said anything about thinking?

    (Presumably a lot would be just retweets, but still)
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,724
    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    I can't help thinking all political parties would be better off expelling any members who are on Twitter.

    The NHS bill for blood-pressure meds would drop significantly too.

    It is not a tool for measured political debate. More a tool for tools.

    On the subject of suspending party members:

    https://www.joe.co.uk/amp/news/ukip-condemns-three-idiotic-members-involved-in-bookshop-ambush-193655
    At least they only knocked the books over, rather than burning them.

    EDIT: but why isn't Britain's largest socialist bookshop called not Bookmarks, but BookMarx?
    They did rip up some stock apparently.

    UKIP Labour always was the BNP in a blazer, but increasingly it leaves off the blazer.
    Fixed that for you...

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2018/04/nick-griffin-declares-his-support-jeremy-corbyn
    Is Nick Griffin putting in a shift behind the scenes at Labour, I wonder? Advising on anti-semitism perhaps?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 21,339
    Never felt the need to be on twitter. I divert myself quite sufficiently being on here. If I was on other social media as well I would never get any work done.

    I do, however, find the concept of a twitter storm fascinating and this is a really interesting example. They are not self contained because the MSM seem quite shameless in picking up high trending items as the basis for news stories (I use the words "news" and "stories" advisedly). This means that this absurd effort can and often does spill into the real world and can be used to influence the agenda. The involvement of Russian bots in this is a concern. It surely wouldn't be that hard for Twitter to do something about that.
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,047
    edited August 7
    The Gizmodo article is clearly a load of badly-written, meaningless shite unless it is telling anti-Corbyn nutcases like Mike what they want to hear, and the 'Alliance for Securing Democracy' looks about as safe a source as the ones who got us into the Iraq War (ie anyone who questions the crumbling official NATO narrative on anything is automatically a Russian bot, obvs).

    Utter fraff.

    (I love the high-faluting term 'our research' - ie one badly-informed intern in his pants reading for a bit on the Internet).

    EDIT - AH - Upon reading the writer's twitter stream, it is clear he is an anti-Corbyn nutter with an axe to grind, too.
    Ignore.
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,047
    'The involvement of Russian bots in this is a concern. It surely wouldn't be that hard for Twitter to do something about that.'

    Do you seriously believe 'Russian Bots' care whether Tom Watson is Deputy Leader of the Labour Party or not?

    Christ there's some gullible buffoons in here. Early dementia?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 3,488
    JWisemann said:

    'The involvement of Russian bots in this is a concern. It surely wouldn't be that hard for Twitter to do something about that.'

    Do you seriously believe 'Russian Bots' care whether Tom Watson is Deputy Leader of the Labour Party or not?

    Christ there's some gullible buffoons in here. Early dementia?

    No, but Russian bots do like to damage democratic parties by coarsening discourse and causing conflict. Not that they are really needed when our politicians are already daggers drawn.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,692
    Next April 1 we should do an AV Lib Dem Twitter storm.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 143
    edited August 7
    I'm surprised that they say it is impossible to measure depth of feeling. Almost all social media analysis tools include sentiment analysis; it should be a press of a button.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,752
    JWisemann said:

    The Gizmodo article is clearly a load of badly-written, meaningless shite unless it is telling anti-Corbyn nutcases like Mike what they want to hear, and the 'Alliance for Securing Democracy' looks about as safe a source as the ones who got us into the Iraq War (ie anyone who questions the crumbling official NATO narrative on anything is automatically a Russian bot, obvs).

    Utter fraff.

    (I love the high-faluting term 'our research' - ie one badly-informed intern in his pants reading for a bit on the Internet).

    EDIT - AH - Upon reading the writer's twitter stream, it is clear he is an anti-Corbyn nutter with an axe to grind, too.
    Ignore.

    To be fair, anyone who doesn't get on their knees to pray twice a day at a shrine to Corbyn is seen by the faithful as an 'anti-Corbyn nutter'. Which is why non-entities who tweet their devotion hundreds of times are seen as being more 'Labour' than MPs who have loyally served their party for decades.

    Labour has a deep malaise.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,970
    Foxy said:

    JWisemann said:

    'The involvement of Russian bots in this is a concern. It surely wouldn't be that hard for Twitter to do something about that.'

    Do you seriously believe 'Russian Bots' care whether Tom Watson is Deputy Leader of the Labour Party or not?

    Christ there's some gullible buffoons in here. Early dementia?

    No, but Russian bots do like to damage democratic parties by coarsening discourse and causing conflict. Not that they are really needed when our politicians are already daggers drawn.
    Ah, so, like Carole Codswallop, you think Russian bots are trying to damage the Labour Party. Whereas presumably you think Russian bots were trying to help Trump and Brexit?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,795
    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    JWisemann said:

    'The involvement of Russian bots in this is a concern. It surely wouldn't be that hard for Twitter to do something about that.'

    Do you seriously believe 'Russian Bots' care whether Tom Watson is Deputy Leader of the Labour Party or not?

    Christ there's some gullible buffoons in here. Early dementia?

    No, but Russian bots do like to damage democratic parties by coarsening discourse and causing conflict. Not that they are really needed when our politicians are already daggers drawn.
    Ah, so, like Carole Codswallop, you think Russian bots are trying to damage the Labour Party. Whereas presumably you think Russian bots were trying to help Trump and Brexit?

    Why on earth would Russia want to help cement the position of anti-EU, anti-NATO Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader?

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 20,616
    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    JWisemann said:

    'The involvement of Russian bots in this is a concern. It surely wouldn't be that hard for Twitter to do something about that.'

    Do you seriously believe 'Russian Bots' care whether Tom Watson is Deputy Leader of the Labour Party or not?

    Christ there's some gullible buffoons in here. Early dementia?

    No, but Russian bots do like to damage democratic parties by coarsening discourse and causing conflict. Not that they are really needed when our politicians are already daggers drawn.
    Ah, so, like Carole Codswallop, you think Russian bots are trying to damage the Labour Party. Whereas presumably you think Russian bots were trying to help Trump and Brexit?
    I don't think there's any doubt about the latter part, except in the minds of those devotees desperately trying to persuade themselves that they haven't been useful idiots of Vladimir Putin.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,427
    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    JWisemann said:

    'The involvement of Russian bots in this is a concern. It surely wouldn't be that hard for Twitter to do something about that.'

    Do you seriously believe 'Russian Bots' care whether Tom Watson is Deputy Leader of the Labour Party or not?

    Christ there's some gullible buffoons in here. Early dementia?

    No, but Russian bots do like to damage democratic parties by coarsening discourse and causing conflict. Not that they are really needed when our politicians are already daggers drawn.
    Ah, so, like Carole Codswallop, you think Russian bots are trying to damage the Labour Party. Whereas presumably you think Russian bots were trying to help Trump and Brexit?
    They are trying to divide the Labour party, and they are trying to divide the country. As and when there is a Tory leadership election I expect them to back divisive candidates and generally stir things up.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,795

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    I can't help thinking all political parties would be better off expelling any members who are on Twitter.

    The NHS bill for blood-pressure meds would drop significantly too.

    It is not a tool for measured political debate. More a tool for tools.

    On the subject of suspending party members:

    https://www.joe.co.uk/amp/news/ukip-condemns-three-idiotic-members-involved-in-bookshop-ambush-193655
    At least they only knocked the books over, rather than burning them.

    EDIT: but why isn't Britain's largest socialist bookshop called not Bookmarks, but BookMarx?
    They did rip up some stock apparently.

    UKIP Labour always was the BNP in a blazer, but increasingly it leaves off the blazer.
    Fixed that for you...

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2018/04/nick-griffin-declares-his-support-jeremy-corbyn
    Is Nick Griffin putting in a shift behind the scenes at Labour, I wonder? Advising on anti-semitism perhaps?

    Poor old Nick’s going to be very torn now that the Tory Brexiteers are cuddling up to Steve Bannon.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 3,488
    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    JWisemann said:

    'The involvement of Russian bots in this is a concern. It surely wouldn't be that hard for Twitter to do something about that.'

    Do you seriously believe 'Russian Bots' care whether Tom Watson is Deputy Leader of the Labour Party or not?

    Christ there's some gullible buffoons in here. Early dementia?

    No, but Russian bots do like to damage democratic parties by coarsening discourse and causing conflict. Not that they are really needed when our politicians are already daggers drawn.
    Ah, so, like Carole Codswallop, you think Russian bots are trying to damage the Labour Party. Whereas presumably you think Russian bots were trying to help Trump and Brexit?
    Both. Making Britain a country of diminished international significance and focussed on inward division is the objective.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,979

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    JWisemann said:

    'The involvement of Russian bots in this is a concern. It surely wouldn't be that hard for Twitter to do something about that.'

    Do you seriously believe 'Russian Bots' care whether Tom Watson is Deputy Leader of the Labour Party or not?

    Christ there's some gullible buffoons in here. Early dementia?

    No, but Russian bots do like to damage democratic parties by coarsening discourse and causing conflict. Not that they are really needed when our politicians are already daggers drawn.
    Ah, so, like Carole Codswallop, you think Russian bots are trying to damage the Labour Party. Whereas presumably you think Russian bots were trying to help Trump and Brexit?
    I don't think there's any doubt about the latter part, except in the minds of those devotees desperately trying to persuade themselves that they haven't been useful idiots of Vladimir Putin.
    That’s a non-sequitur

    “Useful idiots” implies that they have done something against their interests

    You disagree with the decision the voters made, and I think the criteria they used to make that judgement, but it doesn’t follow that they were manipulated into it by anyone, least of all Putin

    At best you can say they had a common objective so he’s with the outcome. 90% of that however is down to crap handling of the negotiations on both sides.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 4,096


    To be fair, anyone who doesn't get on their knees to pray twice a day at a shrine to Corbyn is seen by the faithful as an 'anti-Corbyn nutter'. Which is why non-entities who tweet their devotion hundreds of times are seen as being more 'Labour' than MPs who have loyally served their party for decades.

    Labour has a deep malaise.

    Supine, uncritical adoration of the Party isn't a phenomenon unique to Labour as any casual visit to this site will tell you. All parties are deeply flawed and recognising the flaws within the Party of which you are a member isn't a sin or a crime, it's perhaps being observant.

    The unwillingness of some to acknowledge their Party can never be wrong and other parties can never be right distorts and cheapens discourse as much as any tweet.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,970

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    JWisemann said:

    'The involvement of Russian bots in this is a concern. It surely wouldn't be that hard for Twitter to do something about that.'

    Do you seriously believe 'Russian Bots' care whether Tom Watson is Deputy Leader of the Labour Party or not?

    Christ there's some gullible buffoons in here. Early dementia?

    No, but Russian bots do like to damage democratic parties by coarsening discourse and causing conflict. Not that they are really needed when our politicians are already daggers drawn.
    Ah, so, like Carole Codswallop, you think Russian bots are trying to damage the Labour Party. Whereas presumably you think Russian bots were trying to help Trump and Brexit?

    Why on earth would Russia want to help cement the position of anti-EU, anti-NATO Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader?

    I'm deeply sceptical as to whether Russian bots make a blind bit of difference, but they are certainly now a hindrance to whoever they are deemed to be helping.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 21,339
    This was quite an interesting piece I came across about the use of bots in the US election: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/10/19/one-in-four-debate-tweets-comes-from-a-bot-heres-how-to-spot-them/?utm_term=.0f4b0a113c9e

    Unfortunately, the key question of whether this had any effect is not answered.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 4,355
    RobD said:

    "One cultist alone sent 613 Tweets"

    Sad.

    :D

    Not if they're being paid to do it.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,992

    what advantage is there to anyone in being on Twitter?

    If there's a snow storm, Twitter is a useful way of finding out if the organisation you are going to is still open. It's also a good way for subject matter experts to disseminate information to non experts and for them to build their profile. I follow a few of these.

    I post very occasionally on culture, but I stay away from politics, which would be a massive time sink.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 20,616
    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    JWisemann said:

    'The involvement of Russian bots in this is a concern. It surely wouldn't be that hard for Twitter to do something about that.'

    Do you seriously believe 'Russian Bots' care whether Tom Watson is Deputy Leader of the Labour Party or not?

    Christ there's some gullible buffoons in here. Early dementia?

    No, but Russian bots do like to damage democratic parties by coarsening discourse and causing conflict. Not that they are really needed when our politicians are already daggers drawn.
    Ah, so, like Carole Codswallop, you think Russian bots are trying to damage the Labour Party. Whereas presumably you think Russian bots were trying to help Trump and Brexit?
    I don't think there's any doubt about the latter part, except in the minds of those devotees desperately trying to persuade themselves that they haven't been useful idiots of Vladimir Putin.
    That’s a non-sequitur

    “Useful idiots” implies that they have done something against their interests

    You disagree with the decision the voters made, and I think the criteria they used to make that judgement, but it doesn’t follow that they were manipulated into it by anyone, least of all Putin

    At best you can say they had a common objective so he’s with the outcome. 90% of that however is down to crap handling of the negotiations on both sides.
    No, 90% is down to the fact of Brexit. The crap handling of the negotiations was an expected feature, not a bug, of the process.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,752
    stodge said:


    To be fair, anyone who doesn't get on their knees to pray twice a day at a shrine to Corbyn is seen by the faithful as an 'anti-Corbyn nutter'. Which is why non-entities who tweet their devotion hundreds of times are seen as being more 'Labour' than MPs who have loyally served their party for decades.

    Labour has a deep malaise.

    Supine, uncritical adoration of the Party isn't a phenomenon unique to Labour as any casual visit to this site will tell you. All parties are deeply flawed and recognising the flaws within the Party of which you are a member isn't a sin or a crime, it's perhaps being observant.

    The unwillingness of some to acknowledge their Party can never be wrong and other parties can never be right distorts and cheapens discourse as much as any tweet.
    Indeed. We have seen calls from some right-wing nuttersConservative posters for remain-leaning MPs to be deselected.

    However, the anti-Semitism mess that Labour has found itself in is a step beyond. You have people defending clear anti-Semitism, and saying the Labour Party is so *special* that it cannot accept a standard definition that many other organisations use.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 739
    613 tweets about the same thing in one day! Perhaps I am a little too old to understand twitter it seems to me a l8ke a lot of people shouting. This story goes to show how easily the agenda is influenced though and it is probably not a surprise I never meet anyone with these views. They only ever seem to be in left wing meeting or on Twitter!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,813

    I can't help thinking all political parties would be better off expelling any members who are on Twitter.

    The NHS bill for blood-pressure meds would drop significantly too.

    It is not a tool for measured political debate. More a tool for tools.

    Theresa May and Boris and Jeremy Corbyn would have to be expelled then as they are all on Twitter.

    It also depends who you follow the level of debate and information you get
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,979

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    JWisemann said:

    'The involvement of Russian bots in this is a concern. It surely wouldn't be that hard for Twitter to do something about that.'

    Do you seriously believe 'Russian Bots' care whether Tom Watson is Deputy Leader of the Labour Party or not?

    Christ there's some gullible buffoons in here. Early dementia?

    No, but Russian bots do like to damage democratic parties by coarsening discourse and causing conflict. Not that they are really needed when our politicians are already daggers drawn.
    Ah, so, like Carole Codswallop, you think Russian bots are trying to damage the Labour Party. Whereas presumably you think Russian bots were trying to help Trump and Brexit?
    I don't think there's any doubt about the latter part, except in the minds of those devotees desperately trying to persuade themselves that they haven't been useful idiots of Vladimir Putin.
    That’s a non-sequitur

    “Useful idiots” implies that they have done something against their interests

    You disagree with the decision the voters made, and I think the criteria they used to make that judgement, but it doesn’t follow that they were manipulated into it by anyone, least of all Putin

    At best you can say they had a common objective so he’s with the outcome. 90% of that however is down to crap handling of the negotiations on both sides.
    No, 90% is down to the fact of Brexit. The crap handling of the negotiations was an expected feature, not a bug, of the process.
    Disagree

    There was an outcome that was achievable, albeit with a narrow path, wilhich ended up with either associate membership (pre referendum) or with a friendly and rational partnership (post referendum). The inflexibility of the EU Commission and the failures of our own political leaders meant we have ended up in a sub-optimal outcome

    It is possible to thread that needle - I’ve just done it with the transfer of a factory in Georgia to a Brazilian company at a value in excess of BATNA but, more importantly, saving 120 jobs. Took me a year and a lot of hard work but worth doing.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,795
    FF43 said:

    what advantage is there to anyone in being on Twitter?

    If there's a snow storm, Twitter is a useful way of finding out if the organisation you are going to is still open. It's also a good way for subject matter experts to disseminate information to non experts and for them to build their profile. I follow a few of these.

    I post very occasionally on culture, but I stay away from politics, which would be a massive time sink.

    Look at the number of news stories based on Tweets. Look at how discussions can be influenced by them. Look at how quickly something can be disseminated. It’s immensely powerful - especially if you are first. A false claim made will lodged in the readers’ mind long before the fact check and refutation.

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,460
    People pay far too much attention to twatter and other social media. It's all nonsense and if anyone is soft enough in the head to change their vote because of some bot farm then there really wasn't much hope for them in the first place.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,813

    An excellent article thanks Mike, and a great piece of analysis by Gizmodo.

    Twitter should be ignored; it is nearly as meaningless as a ConHome poll .... ;)

    ConHome got the 2005 Tory leadership election spot on in its final members poll
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,752
    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    JWisemann said:

    'The involvement of Russian bots in this is a concern. It surely wouldn't be that hard for Twitter to do something about that.'

    Do you seriously believe 'Russian Bots' care whether Tom Watson is Deputy Leader of the Labour Party or not?

    Christ there's some gullible buffoons in here. Early dementia?

    No, but Russian bots do like to damage democratic parties by coarsening discourse and causing conflict. Not that they are really needed when our politicians are already daggers drawn.
    Ah, so, like Carole Codswallop, you think Russian bots are trying to damage the Labour Party. Whereas presumably you think Russian bots were trying to help Trump and Brexit?
    Both. Making Britain a country of diminished international significance and focussed on inward division is the objective.
    This is the tragedy of Russia. It should have every advantage to be a positive world leader; great natural resources, lots of land, and a highly-educated workforce.

    Yet instead of trying to lead the world, it is trying to drag the rest of the world down to its decayed level.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 4,355
    It's a ridiculous comparison.

    The Easter Islanders would have had no idea what the consequences of their action might be. It was hardly their fault that they made a catastrophic decision.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,835

    what advantage is there to anyone in being on Twitter?

    It is very often the quickest source of breaking news.

    The sort of news that moves betting markets for example.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,752
    HYUFD said:

    An excellent article thanks Mike, and a great piece of analysis by Gizmodo.

    Twitter should be ignored; it is nearly as meaningless as a ConHome poll .... ;)

    ConHome got the 2005 Tory leadership election spot on in its final members poll
    And I keep on pointing out why that's meaningless ... :)
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,734
    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    JWisemann said:

    'The involvement of Russian bots in this is a concern. It surely wouldn't be that hard for Twitter to do something about that.'

    Do you seriously believe 'Russian Bots' care whether Tom Watson is Deputy Leader of the Labour Party or not?

    Christ there's some gullible buffoons in here. Early dementia?

    No, but Russian bots do like to damage democratic parties by coarsening discourse and causing conflict. Not that they are really needed when our politicians are already daggers drawn.
    Ah, so, like Carole Codswallop, you think Russian bots are trying to damage the Labour Party. Whereas presumably you think Russian bots were trying to help Trump and Brexit?
    I don't think there's any doubt about the latter part, except in the minds of those devotees desperately trying to persuade themselves that they haven't been useful idiots of Vladimir Putin.
    That’s a non-sequitur

    “Useful idiots” implies that they have done something against their interests

    You disagree with the decision the voters made, and I think the criteria they used to make that judgement, but it doesn’t follow that they were manipulated into it by anyone, least of all Putin

    At best you can say they had a common objective so he’s with the outcome. 90% of that however is down to crap handling of the negotiations on both sides.
    After voting for a predictable mess, you now blame those negotiating that very mess.

    Sadly, you are one of those useful idiots. Unless you now claim that a “mess” is in yours and everyone else’s interests.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 3,488

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    JWisemann said:

    'The involvement of Russian bots in this is a concern. It surely wouldn't be that hard for Twitter to do something about that.'

    Do you seriously believe 'Russian Bots' care whether Tom Watson is Deputy Leader of the Labour Party or not?

    Christ there's some gullible buffoons in here. Early dementia?

    No, but Russian bots do like to damage democratic parties by coarsening discourse and causing conflict. Not that they are really needed when our politicians are already daggers drawn.
    Ah, so, like Carole Codswallop, you think Russian bots are trying to damage the Labour Party. Whereas presumably you think Russian bots were trying to help Trump and Brexit?
    I don't think there's any doubt about the latter part, except in the minds of those devotees desperately trying to persuade themselves that they haven't been useful idiots of Vladimir Putin.
    That’s a non-sequitur

    “Useful idiots” implies that they have done something against their interests

    You disagree with the decision the voters made, and I think the criteria they used to make that judgement, but it doesn’t follow that they were manipulated into it by anyone, least of all Putin

    At best you can say they had a common objective so he’s with the outcome. 90% of that however is down to crap handling of the negotiations on both sides.
    No, 90% is down to the fact of Brexit. The crap handling of the negotiations was an expected feature, not a bug, of the process.
    Another True Believer, who now thinks the country needs a dose of Corbynism post Brexit, and incidentally doesn't remember that the 3 day week was under a Tory government:

  • mattmatt Posts: 1,750
    edited August 7
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    JWisemann said:

    'The involvement of Russian bots in this is a concern. It surely wouldn't be that hard for Twitter to do something about that.'

    Do you seriously believe 'Russian Bots' care whether Tom Watson is Deputy Leader of the Labour Party or not?

    Christ there's some gullible buffoons in here. Early dementia?

    No, but Russian bots do like to damage democratic parties by coarsening discourse and causing conflict. Not that they are really needed when our politicians are already daggers drawn.
    Ah, so, like Carole Codswallop, you think Russian bots are trying to damage the Labour Party. Whereas presumably you think Russian bots were trying to help Trump and Brexit?
    I don't think there's any doubt about the latter part, except in the minds of those devotees desperately trying to persuade themselves that they haven't been useful idiots of Vladimir Putin.
    That’s a non-sequitur

    “Useful idiots” implies that they have done something against their interests

    You disagree with the decision the voters made, and I think the criteria they used to make that judgement, but it doesn’t follow that they were manipulated into it by anyone, least of all Putin

    At best you can say they had a common objective so he’s with the outcome. 90% of that however is down to crap handling of the negotiations on both sides.
    No, 90% is down to the fact of Brexit. The crap handling of the negotiations was an expected feature, not a bug, of the process.
    Disagree

    There was an outcome that was achievable, albeit with a narrow path, wilhich ended up with either associate membership (pre referendum) or with a friendly and rational partnership (post referendum). The inflexibility of the EU Commission and the failures of our own political leaders meant we have ended up in a sub-optimal outcome

    It is possible to thread that needle - I’ve just done it with the transfer of a factory in Georgia to a Brazilian company at a value in excess of BATNA but, more importantly, saving 120 jobs. Took me a year and a lot of hard work but worth doing.
    To be clear then, in your view the transfer of one factory with a transfer value of, let’s call it $1bn, took you a year and is equivalent to negotiating exit terms from the EU. That’s as simplistic as the halfwits who suggest that there would be no government budget deficit if there were no international aid or “waste”.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 20,837
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    JWisemann said:

    'The involvement of Russian bots in this is a concern. It surely wouldn't be that hard for Twitter to do something about that.'

    Do you seriously believe 'Russian Bots' care whether Tom Watson is Deputy Leader of the Labour Party or not?

    Christ there's some gullible buffoons in here. Early dementia?

    No, but Russian bots do like to damage democratic parties by coarsening discourse and causing conflict. Not that they are really needed when our politicians are already daggers drawn.
    Ah, so, like Carole Codswallop, you think Russian bots are trying to damage the Labour Party. Whereas presumably you think Russian bots were trying to help Trump and Brexit?
    I don't think there's any doubt about the latter part, except in the minds of those devotees desperately trying to persuade themselves that they haven't been useful idiots of Vladimir Putin.
    That’s a non-sequitur

    “Useful idiots” implies that they have done something against their interests

    You disagree with the decision the voters made, and I think the criteria they used to make that judgement, but it doesn’t follow that they were manipulated into it by anyone, least of all Putin

    At best you can say they had a common objective so he’s with the outcome. 90% of that however is down to crap handling of the negotiations on both sides.
    No, 90% is down to the fact of Brexit. The crap handling of the negotiations was an expected feature, not a bug, of the process.
    Disagree

    There was an outcome that was achievable, albeit with a narrow path, wilhich ended up with either associate membership (pre referendum) or with a friendly and rational partnership (post referendum). The inflexibility of the EU Commission and the failures of our own political leaders meant we have ended up in a sub-optimal outcome

    It is possible to thread that needle - I’ve just done it with the transfer of a factory in Georgia to a Brazilian company at a value in excess of BATNA but, more importantly, saving 120 jobs. Took me a year and a lot of hard work but worth doing.
    We don’t have an outcome yet so it’s premature to judge. The optimal outcome looks very much in prospect from where I’m sitting.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,472
    Very poor research. The heads were positioned to face inland, not out to sea.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,460

    It's a ridiculous comparison.

    The Easter Islanders would have had no idea what the consequences of their action might be. It was hardly their fault that they made a catastrophic decision.
    I'm also not sure it's helpful to the EU cause to accuse them of being a protection racket.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,979

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    JWisemann said:

    'The involvement of Russian bots in this is a concern. It surely wouldn't be that hard for Twitter to do something about that.'

    Do you seriously believe 'Russian Bots' care whether Tom Watson is Deputy Leader of the Labour Party or not?

    Christ there's some gullible buffoons in here. Early dementia?

    No, but Russian bots do like to damage democratic parties by coarsening discourse and causing conflict. Not that they are really needed when our politicians are already daggers drawn.
    Ah, so, like Carole Codswallop, you think Russian bots are trying to damage the Labour Party. Whereas presumably you think Russian bots were trying to help Trump and Brexit?
    I don't think there's any doubt about the latter part, except in the minds of those devotees desperately trying to persuade themselves that they haven't been useful idiots of Vladimir Putin.
    That’s a non-sequitur

    “Useful idiots” implies that they have done something against their interests

    You disagree with the decision the voters made, and I think the criteria they used to make that judgement, but it doesn’t follow that they were manipulated into it by anyone, least of all Putin

    At best you can say they had a common objective so he’s with the outcome. 90% of that however is down to crap handling of the negotiations on both sides.
    After voting for a predictable mess, you now blame those negotiating that very mess.

    Sadly, you are one of those useful idiots. Unless you now claim that a “mess” is in yours and everyone else’s interests.
    It wasn’t a predictable mess.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,734
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    JWisemann said:

    'The involvement of Russian bots in this is a concern. It surely wouldn't be that hard for Twitter to do something about that.'

    Do you seriously believe 'Russian Bots' care whether Tom Watson is Deputy Leader of the Labour Party or not?

    Christ there's some gullible buffoons in here. Early dementia?

    No, but Russian bots do like to damage democratic parties by coarsening discourse and causing conflict. Not that they are really needed when our politicians are already daggers drawn.
    Ah, so, like Carole Codswallop, you think Russian bots are trying to damage the Labour Party. Whereas presumably you think Russian bots were trying to help Trump and Brexit?
    I don't think there's any doubt about the latter part, except in the minds of those devotees desperately trying to persuade themselves that they haven't been useful idiots of Vladimir Putin.
    That’s a non-sequitur

    “Useful idiots” implies that they have done something against their interests

    You disagree with the decision the voters made, and I think the criteria they used to make that judgement, but it doesn’t follow that they were manipulated into it by anyone, least of all Putin

    At best you can say they had a common objective so he’s with the outcome. 90% of that however is down to crap handling of the negotiations on both sides.
    No, 90% is down to the fact of Brexit. The crap handling of the negotiations was an expected feature, not a bug, of the process.
    Disagree

    There was an outcome that was achievable, albeit with a narrow path, wilhich ended up with either associate membership (pre referendum) or with a friendly and rational partnership (post referendum). The inflexibility of the EU Commission and the failures of our own political leaders meant we have ended up in a sub-optimal outcome

    It is possible to thread that needle - I’ve just done it with the transfer of a factory in Georgia to a Brazilian company at a value in excess of BATNA but, more importantly, saving 120 jobs. Took me a year and a lot of hard work but worth doing.
    Classic Charles post.

    Disavows responsibility for the biggest mess since Suez despite voting for it, and drops in some irrelevant story meant to show off his business prowess and sense of nobless oblige (120 jobs saved!)
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,795
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    JWisemann said:

    'The involvement of Russian bots in this is a concern. It surely wouldn't be that hard for Twitter to do something about that.'

    Do you seriously believe 'Russian Bots' care whether Tom Watson is Deputy Leader of the Labour Party or not?

    Christ there's some gullible buffoons in here. Early dementia?

    No, but Russian bots do like to damage democratic parties by coarsening discourse and causing conflict. Not that they are really needed when our politicians are already daggers drawn.
    Ah, so, like Carole Codswallop, you think Russian bots are trying to damage the Labour Party. Whereas presumably you think Russian bots were trying to help Trump and Brexit?
    I don't think there's any doubt about the latter part, except in the minds of those devotees desperately trying to persuade themselves that they haven't been useful idiots of Vladimir Putin.
    That’s a non-sequitur

    “Useful idiots” implies that they have done something against their interests

    You disagree with the decision the voters made, and I think the criteria they used to make that judgement, but it doesn’t follow that they were manipulated into it by anyone, least of all Putin

    At best you can say they had a common objective so he’s with the outcome. 90% of that however is down to crap handling of the negotiations on both sides.
    No, 90% is down to the fact of Brexit. The crap handling of the negotiations was an expected feature, not a bug, of the process.
    Disagree

    There was an outcome that was achievable, albeit with a narrow path, wilhich ended up with either associate membership (pre referendum) or with a friendly and rational partnership (post referendum). The inflexibility of the EU Commission and the failures of our own political leaders meant we have ended up in a sub-optimal outcome

    It is possible to thread that needle - I’ve just done it with the transfer of a factory in Georgia to a Brazilian company at a value in excess of BATNA but, more importantly, saving 120 jobs. Took me a year and a lot of hard work but worth doing.

    What has happened was entirely predictable. People who had no idea about how the EU works, how integrated the UK is into EU institutions and supply chains, and who did not have the faintest idea about international trade agreements just assumed it would all be OK and therefore sold a totally false prospectus to voters.

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,970

    It's a ridiculous comparison.

    The Easter Islanders would have had no idea what the consequences of their action might be. It was hardly their fault that they made a catastrophic decision.
    I'm guessing you're having a pop at Brexit voters, but I do remember seeing a documentary on Easter Island that made the point that the person who chopped down the last tree on the island would very much have known they were chopping down the last tree.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,734
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    JWisemann said:

    'The involvement of Russian bots in this is a concern. It surely wouldn't be that hard for Twitter to do something about that.'

    Do you seriously believe 'Russian Bots' care whether Tom Watson is Deputy Leader of the Labour Party or not?

    Christ there's some gullible buffoons in here. Early dementia?

    No, but Russian bots do like to damage democratic parties by coarsening discourse and causing conflict. Not that they are really needed when our politicians are already daggers drawn.
    Ah, so, like Carole Codswallop, you think Russian bots are trying to damage the Labour Party. Whereas presumably you think Russian bots were trying to help Trump and Brexit?
    I don't think there's any doubt about the latter part, except in the minds of those devotees desperately trying to persuade themselves that they haven't been useful idiots of Vladimir Putin.
    That’s a non-sequitur

    “Useful idiots” implies that they have done something against their interests

    You disagree with the decision the voters made, and I think the criteria they used to make that judgement, but it doesn’t follow that they were manipulated into it by anyone, least of all Putin

    At best you can say they had a common objective so he’s with the outcome. 90% of that however is down to crap handling of the negotiations on both sides.
    After voting for a predictable mess, you now blame those negotiating that very mess.

    Sadly, you are one of those useful idiots. Unless you now claim that a “mess” is in yours and everyone else’s interests.
    It wasn’t a predictable mess.
    Sure. Apart from the fact it was predicted.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 20,616
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    JWisemann said:

    'The involvement of Russian bots in this is a concern. It surely wouldn't be that hard for Twitter to do something about that.'

    Do you seriously believe 'Russian Bots' care whether Tom Watson is Deputy Leader of the Labour Party or not?

    Christ there's some gullible buffoons in here. Early dementia?

    No, but Russian bots do like to damage democratic parties by coarsening discourse and causing conflict. Not that they are really needed when our politicians are already daggers drawn.
    Ah, so, like Carole Codswallop, you think Russian bots are trying to damage the Labour Party. Whereas presumably you think Russian bots were trying to help Trump and Brexit?
    I don't think there's any doubt about the latter part, except in the minds of those devotees desperately trying to persuade themselves that they haven't been useful idiots of Vladimir Putin.
    That’s a non-sequitur

    “Useful idiots” implies that they have done something against their interests

    You disagree with the decision the voters made, and I think the criteria they used to make that judgement, but it doesn’t follow that they were manipulated into it by anyone, least of all Putin

    At best you can say they had a common objective so he’s with the outcome. 90% of that however is down to crap handling of the negotiations on both sides.
    No, 90% is down to the fact of Brexit. The crap handling of the negotiations was an expected feature, not a bug, of the process.
    Disagree

    There was an outcome that was achievable, albeit with a narrow path, wilhich ended up with either associate membership (pre referendum) or with a friendly and rational partnership (post referendum). The inflexibility of the EU Commission and the failures of our own political leaders meant we have ended up in a sub-optimal outcome

    It is possible to thread that needle - I’ve just done it with the transfer of a factory in Georgia to a Brazilian company at a value in excess of BATNA but, more importantly, saving 120 jobs. Took me a year and a lot of hard work but worth doing.
    You had irrational faith in the ability of politicians, a faith that many of us saw well in advance was completely unjustified. Shrugging your shoulders and claiming this is nothing to do with your own irresponsible assessment of likely outcomes just isn't good enough.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,813
    'Hothouse earth' warning.

    Climate Change could see average global temperatures rise by 4 to 5 degrees by the end of the century making sone parts of the earth uninhabitable

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45084144
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 4,355
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    JWisemann said:

    'The involvement of Russian bots in this is a concern. It surely wouldn't be that hard for Twitter to do something about that.'

    Do you seriously believe 'Russian Bots' care whether Tom Watson is Deputy Leader of the Labour Party or not?

    Christ there's some gullible buffoons in here. Early dementia?

    No, but Russian bots do like to damage democratic parties by coarsening discourse and causing conflict. Not that they are really needed when our politicians are already daggers drawn.
    Ah, so, like Carole Codswallop, you think Russian bots are trying to damage the Labour Party. Whereas presumably you think Russian bots were trying to help Trump and Brexit?
    I don't think there's any doubt about the latter part, except in the minds of those devotees desperately trying to persuade themselves that they haven't been useful idiots of Vladimir Putin.
    That’s a non-sequitur

    “Useful idiots” implies that they have done something against their interests

    You disagree with the decision the voters made, and I think the criteria they used to make that judgement, but it doesn’t follow that they were manipulated into it by anyone, least of all Putin

    At best you can say they had a common objective so he’s with the outcome. 90% of that however is down to crap handling of the negotiations on both sides.
    No, 90% is down to the fact of Brexit. The crap handling of the negotiations was an expected feature, not a bug, of the process.
    Disagree

    There was an outcome that was achievable, albeit with a narrow path, wilhich ended up with either associate membership (pre referendum) or with a friendly and rational partnership (post referendum). The inflexibility of the EU Commission and the failures of our own political leaders meant we have ended up in a sub-optimal outcome

    It is possible to thread that needle - I’ve just done it with the transfer of a factory in Georgia to a Brazilian company at a value in excess of BATNA but, more importantly, saving 120 jobs. Took me a year and a lot of hard work but worth doing.
    Yes, I'm sure you are right, Charles, that it would have been possible to 'thread the needle', as you put it. But surely the time to put together the necessary programme was before the referendum, not after it.

    That's just common sense, whether one is talking about Government Policy or personal life decisions. You don't commit to irrevocable action before figuring out how you are going to deal with the consequences.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,835

    Sure. Apart from the fact it was predicted.

    Quite...
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,752
    tlg86 said:

    It's a ridiculous comparison.

    The Easter Islanders would have had no idea what the consequences of their action might be. It was hardly their fault that they made a catastrophic decision.
    I'm guessing you're having a pop at Brexit voters, but I do remember seeing a documentary on Easter Island that made the point that the person who chopped down the last tree on the island would very much have known they were chopping down the last tree.
    My son is obsessed with Easter Island (we recently took him to the British Museum to see the Moai statue there). From all the documentaries I've been forced to watch, the situation was much more complex than "they cut down all the trees"; and to be fair, the author does say it is just one theory.

    As is often the case, it was probably multi-faceted, with over-population causing pressures, and most importantly the introduction of rats, which ate the tree seeds and saplings.
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,047
    edited August 7
    Here's a good article on the ASD. Looks like an extremely shady warmongering organisation. Just the kind of organisation that would have no qualms in branding any critics of endless war as 'russian bots' without providing any evidence (we have already seen how many anti-war activists in the UK have been called as such).

    Its like a poundshop reprise of the Mccarthy era.

    https://theintercept.com/2017/07/17/with-new-d-c-policy-group-dems-continue-to-rehabilitate-and-unify-with-bush-era-neocons/

    (Of course a crumbling ruling class branding their critics as agents of another power is the oldest trick in the book. Shame some of the slowly dementing old gibbons on here lap it up because it reinforces their own prejudices).
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 19,202
    MaxPB said:

    People pay far too much attention to twatter and other social media. It's all nonsense and if anyone is soft enough in the head to change their vote because of some bot farm then there really wasn't much hope for them in the first place.

    unfortunately most of the sheeple vote based on media headlines , no matter how big a lie they are.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 14,233
    HYUFD said:

    An excellent article thanks Mike, and a great piece of analysis by Gizmodo.

    Twitter should be ignored; it is nearly as meaningless as a ConHome poll .... ;)

    ConHome got the 2005 Tory leadership election spot on in its final members poll
    Key word being final. Opinions change, pick a 2004 ConHome poll and see how accurate it was ...
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 4,355

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    JWisemann said:

    'The involvement of Russian bots in this is a concern. It surely wouldn't be that hard for Twitter to do something about that.'

    Do you seriously believe 'Russian Bots' care whether Tom Watson is Deputy Leader of the Labour Party or not?

    Christ there's some gullible buffoons in here. Early dementia?

    No, but Russian bots do like to damage democratic parties by coarsening discourse and causing conflict. Not that they are really needed when our politicians are already daggers drawn.
    Ah, so, like Carole Codswallop, you think Russian bots are trying to damage the Labour Party. Whereas presumably you think Russian bots were trying to help Trump and Brexit?
    I don't think there's any doubt about the latter part, except in the minds of those devotees desperately trying to persuade themselves that they haven't been useful idiots of Vladimir Putin.
    That’s a non-sequitur

    “Useful idiots” implies that they have done something against their interests

    You disagree with the decision the voters made, and I think the criteria they used to make that judgement, but it doesn’t follow that they were manipulated into it by anyone, least of all Putin

    At best you can say they had a common objective so he’s with the outcome. 90% of that however is down to crap handling of the negotiations on both sides.
    No, 90% is down to the fact of Brexit. The crap handling of the negotiations was an expected feature, not a bug, of the process.
    Disagree

    ission and the failures of our own political leaders meant we have ended up in a sub-optimal outcome

    It is possible to thread that needle - I’ve just done it with the transfer of a factory in Georgia to a Brazilian company at a value in excess of BATNA but, more importantly, saving 120 jobs. Took me a year and a lot of hard work but worth doing.

    What has happened was entirely predictable. People who had no idea about how the EU works, how integrated the UK is into EU institutions and supply chains, and who did not have the faintest idea about international trade agreements just assumed it would all be OK and therefore sold a totally false prospectus to voters.

    There certainly seems to have been an implicit assumption among some Leave voters (though by no means all) that leaving the EU would be little more complicated than just flicking a switch.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,427
    MaxPB said:

    People pay far too much attention to twatter and other social media. It's all nonsense and if anyone is soft enough in the head to change their vote because of some bot farm then there really wasn't much hope for them in the first place.

    I think the idea is to reinforce existing prejudices, that's something we are all vulnerable to.

    There will be an article about some fat cat banker burning money in front of the homeless and bragging about all the taxes he avoids... Or someone will claim they saw Muslim women on benefits laughing a news reports of a terrorist outrage.

    Or heaven forfend, an academic claiming he can demonstrate that eating pineapple on pizza lowers cognitive ability substantially.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,835

    There certainly seems to have been an implicit assumption among some Leave voters (though by no means all) that leaving the EU would be little more complicated than just flicking a switch.

    There were explicit claims by Brexiteers that it would be like that
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,795

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    JWisemann said:

    'The involvement of Russian bots in this is a concern. It surely wouldn't be that hard for Twitter to do something about that.'

    Do you seriously believe 'Russian Bots' care whether Tom Watson is Deputy Leader of the Labour Party or not?

    Christ there's some gullible buffoons in here. Early dementia?

    No, but Russian bots do like to damage democratic parties by coarsening discourse and causing conflict. Not that they are really needed when our politicians are already daggers drawn.
    Ah, so, like Carole Codswallop, you think Russian bots are trying to damage the Labour Party. Whereas presumably you think Russian bots were trying to help Trump and Brexit?
    I don't think there's any doubt about the latter part, except in the minds of those devotees desperately trying to persuade themselves that they haven't been useful idiots of Vladimir Putin.
    That’s a non-sequitur

    “Useful idiots” implies that they have done something against their interests

    You disagree with the decision the voters made, and I think the criteria they used to make that judgement, but it doesn’t follow that they were manipulated into it by anyone, least of all Putin

    At best you can say they had a common objective so he’s with the outcome. 90% of that however is down to crap handling of the negotiations on both sides.
    No, 90% is down to the fact of Brexit. The crap handling of the negotiations was an expected feature, not a bug, of the process.
    Disagree

    ission and the failures of our own political leaders meant we have ended up in a sub-optimal outcome

    It is possible to thread that needle - I’ve just done it with the transfer of a factory in Georgia to a Brazilian company at a value in excess of BATNA but, more importantly, saving 120 jobs. Took me a year and a lot of hard work but worth doing.

    What has happened was entirely predictable. People who had no idea about how the EU works, how integrated the UK is into EU institutions and supply chains, and who did not have the faintest idea about international trade agreements just assumed it would all be OK and therefore sold a totally false prospectus to voters.

    There certainly seems to have been an implicit assumption among some Leave voters (though by no means all) that leaving the EU would be little more complicated than just flicking a switch.

    Leaving is easy. The hard bit is leaving without inflicting significant self-harm.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,813
    edited August 7
    Fair Oak Farm in Sussex, a luxury country estate, where Blairite MPs like Umunnna, Leslie, Kinnock and Woodcock are spending summer weekends plotting against Corbyn and Brexit

    https://order-order.com/2018/08/07/picture-special-inside-luxury-country-estate-blarities-plot-corbyn-brexit/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,724


    Look at the number of news stories based on Tweets. Look at how discussions can be influenced by them. Look at how quickly something can be disseminated. It’s immensely powerful - especially if you are first. A false claim made will lodged in the readers’ mind long before the fact check and refutation.

    Because it is much, much easier than proper journalism.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,813

    HYUFD said:

    An excellent article thanks Mike, and a great piece of analysis by Gizmodo.

    Twitter should be ignored; it is nearly as meaningless as a ConHome poll .... ;)

    ConHome got the 2005 Tory leadership election spot on in its final members poll
    And I keep on pointing out why that's meaningless ... :)
    It isn't meaningless just you will believe a poll with Cameron ahead but not Boris ahead
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,634
    edited August 7
    HYUFD said:

    Fair Oak Farm in Sussex, a luxury country estate, where Blairite MPs like Umunnna, Leslie, Kinnock and Woodcock are spending summer weekends plotting against Corbyn and Brexit

    https://order-order.com/2018/08/07/picture-special-inside-luxury-country-estate-blarities-plot-corbyn-brexit/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

    Guido is no longer first with the news. I posted that on here at about 6.30am... 6.49am to be precise...
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,795


    Look at the number of news stories based on Tweets. Look at how discussions can be influenced by them. Look at how quickly something can be disseminated. It’s immensely powerful - especially if you are first. A false claim made will lodged in the readers’ mind long before the fact check and refutation.

    Because it is much, much easier than proper journalism.

    Yep - and much cheaper.

  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,734
    Scott_P said:

    There certainly seems to have been an implicit assumption among some Leave voters (though by no means all) that leaving the EU would be little more complicated than just flicking a switch.

    There were explicit claims by Brexiteers that it would be like that
    The whole Brexit platform was predicated on cake and eat it - a no pain, and lots of gain Brexit.

    Hence, a government flailing about trying to negotiate an impossible policy objective.

    Charles is right about one thing, there might have been a better way. But this was essentially eliminated first by the cake-and-eat-it campaign, then my May’s complete lack of statesmanship at a critical time, and finally by a seeming official government policy of utter lies.

    David Davis was claiming it was all going to be unicorns and muffins until the moment he resigned.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 21,339
    HYUFD said:

    Fair Oak Farm in Sussex, a luxury country estate, where Blairite MPs like Umunnna, Leslie, Kinnock and Woodcock are spending summer weekends plotting against Corbyn and Brexit

    https://order-order.com/2018/08/07/picture-special-inside-luxury-country-estate-blarities-plot-corbyn-brexit/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

    Looks quite nice I have to say. Really surprised it cost £144 a night. Maybe they got a group deal on Groupon.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 4,355

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    JWisemann said:

    'The involvement of Russian bots in this is a concern. It surely wouldn't be that hard for Twitter to do something about that.'

    Do you seriously believe 'Russian Bots' care whether Tom Watson is Deputy Leader of the Labour Party or not?

    Christ there's some gullible buffoons in here. Early dementia?

    No, but Russian bots do like to damage democratic parties by coarsening discourse and causing conflict. Not that they are really needed when our politicians are already daggers drawn.
    Ah, so, like Carole Codswallop, you think Russian bots are trying to damage the Labour Party. Whereas presumably you think Russian bots were trying to help Trump and Brexit?
    I don't think there's any doubt about the latter part, except in the minds of those devotees desperately trying to persuade themselves that they haven't been useful idiots of Vladimir Putin.
    That’s a non-sequitur

    “Useful idiots” implies that they have done something against their interests

    You disagree with the decision the voters made, and I think the criteria they used to make that judgement, but it doesn’t follow that they were manipulated into it by anyone, least of all Putin

    At best you can say they had a common objective so he’s with the outcome. 90% of that however is down to crap handling of the negotiations on both sides.
    No, 90% is down to the fact of Brexit. The crap handling of the negotiations was an expected feature, not a bug, of the process.
    Disagree

    There was an outcome that was achievable, albeit with a narrow path, wilhich ended up with either associate membership (pre referendum) or with a friendly and rational partnership (post referendum). The inflexibility of the EU Commission and the failures of our own political leaders meant we have ended up in a sub-optimal outcome

    It is possible to thread that needle - I’ve just done it with the transfer of a factory in Georgia to a Brazilian company at a value in excess of BATNA but, more importantly, saving 120 jobs. Took me a year and a lot of hard work but worth doing.
    We don’t have an outcome yet so it’s premature to judge. The optimal outcome looks very much in prospect from where I’m sitting.
    If you are thinking of some sort of about-turn and cancelling Brexit, WG, I think you are wrong. The damage done already is great and the future damage to our prestige and negotiating position would be immense.

    On principle, I'm in favour of accepting responsibity for one's decisions, however ill-judged. I feel it's our only option now.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,813
    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Fair Oak Farm in Sussex, a luxury country estate, where Blairite MPs like Umunnna, Leslie, Kinnock and Woodcock are spending summer weekends plotting against Corbyn and Brexit

    https://order-order.com/2018/08/07/picture-special-inside-luxury-country-estate-blarities-plot-corbyn-brexit/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

    Looks quite nice I have to say. Really surprised it cost £144 a night. Maybe they got a group deal on Groupon.
    'A metropolitan liberal elite special?'
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,835

    Because it is much, much easier than proper journalism.

    Some people turn to social media because they no longer trust "proper journalism"

    And they have a point, though not perhaps the one they imagined

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,813

    HYUFD said:

    Fair Oak Farm in Sussex, a luxury country estate, where Blairite MPs like Umunnna, Leslie, Kinnock and Woodcock are spending summer weekends plotting against Corbyn and Brexit

    https://order-order.com/2018/08/07/picture-special-inside-luxury-country-estate-blarities-plot-corbyn-brexit/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

    Guido is no longer first with the news. I posted that on here at about 6.30am... 6.49am to be precise...
    Oh yes you did, sorry.

    Interesting story nonetheless though if anyone missed it earlier and suggests not just Tory MPs plotting over the summer holidays
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,795
    ‪The Corbyn dilemma:‬
    ‪1. The make-up of the PLP means that a Corbyn-led Labour government would find it very hard to implement important parts of its programme.‬
    ‪2. Mass deselection of sitting MPs creates a de facto new party & makes winning a GE next to impossible.‬
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 1,817

    RobD said:

    "One cultist alone sent 613 Tweets"

    Sad.

    :D

    Implausible more like it. That averages at over 10 per minute or less than 6 seconds per Tweet. Straining the limits of credibility to even type that fast let alone think and discourse in that period.
    As some of the posters on here show, CTRL C, CTRL V is a powerful tool.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,734
    Nothing wrong with conclusion, even if not all the premises stack up.

    As much as one can see a transparent attempt to create an Islamophobic meme, equate it to fascism, and smear Boris Johnson with it - Boris is a narcissistic cretin and pretty much deserves what he gets.
This discussion has been closed.