[nl]

Ignoring the vast research showing that fake news spread on Twitter correlates with voting intentions for the moment there are more direct ways of showing immediate election influence: the number of candidates who have withdrawn from elections after something happened on Twitter.

[1] is a recent example. To quote:

> Leading Florida Democrats are walking back their endorsement of Naomi Blemur after past Facebook posts showed the Agriculture Commissioner candidate calling abortion a sin and promoting or defending anti-gay comments.

> Screenshots shared on Twitter showed a history of social media comments that some Democrats are calling “anti-choice” and “homophobic.” Prominent Democrats began retracting their endorsements or denouncing Blemur after her post history came to light.

To say that Twitter has no power to influence elections is demonstrably false when information shared on Twitter led directly to endorsements being withdrawn.

[1] https://floridapolitics.com/archives/544897-democrats-rescin...

[Maursault]

You are confusing the information with Twitter's allegedly having vast influence. It is incidental what actual facts were broadcast on Twitter, as they could just as easily have been broadcast on classic media. It isn't Twitter that is influential, it is the information.

[autoexec]

> It is incidental what actual facts were broadcast on Twitter, as they could just as easily have been broadcast on classic media.

What social media platform has "vast influence" whose content couldn't "just as easily have been broadcast on classic media"?

Really, it doesn't matter if something could have been broadcast on classic media, what matters is where the people's attention is focused. What they see will influence them, and what they see will be controlled by the platform they are paying attention to, which means whatever platform that is has influence.

Platforms use this influence all the time. They promote certain content over others in exchange for money for example. A platform everyone reads can spread a lie more effectively than a million websites no one is paying attention to can spread the truth. Your attention matters so much to these companies for a reason.

[nl]

To expand on this point, 18% of US voters say they get their political information from social media[1]. Even ignoring Twitters influence outside this group (which is significant because most journalists and politicians use it) it is pretty difficult to make the case that 18% of the voting public is insignificant.

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2020/07/30/americans-...

[nl]

Oh, so it's the "no true Scotsman" argument?

It's not influence if it's actual facts? Even if they hadn't been exposed via other methods?

[Maursault]

> Oh, so it's the "no true Scotsman" argument? It's not influence if it's actual facts? Even if they hadn't been exposed via other methods?

No, and your explanation does not describe a no true Scotsman fallacy.

Your previous comment, beyond confusing the effect news can have with Twitter's alleged influence, also employs a post hoc fallacy. Your most recent comment is a both the non sequitur and straw man fallacies.

[nl]

> confusing the effect news can have with Twitter's alleged influence

I don't know what you think people mean when they say "influence" but the ability for anyone to broadcast news - in particular with a spin on it at suits them - is absolutely part of the ability it - as a platform - to influence elections.

> your explanation does not describe a no true Scotsman fallacy

I'm sure the irony of you employing a "no true Scotsman" argument on a "no true Scotsman" argument isn't lost on any of the readers. I hope they find it as amusing as I did.

> Your previous comment [snip] employs a post hoc fallacy. Your most recent comment is a both the non sequitur and straw man fallacies.

You realize that just by saying these things it doesn't make them true, right? I have no interest in arguing about the ontology of argument techniques.

The facts are clear - Twitter does influence elections. Your inability to argue otherwise other than trying to redefine "influence" is perfectly clear.

[Maursault]

Now you've moved on to employ ad hominem attacks.

No true Scotsman fallacy requires goalposts to be perpetually moved. But I had no goal posts to be moved. Let's rehash:

>>>> The reality is that most Twitter users are not obsessed with the platform, and most Americans are not on the fence with their votes. The premise that Twitter has the power to influence elections is false.

>>> there are more direct ways of showing immediate election influence: the number of candidates who have withdrawn from elections after something happened on Twitter.

>> It isn't Twitter that is influential, it is the information.

> Oh, so it's the "no true Scotsman" argument?

Please name the goalposts and how they were moved. My assertion that Twitter is not influencing elections was not proven wrong by your evidence, and my clearly exposing why your evidence does not show what you claim it does is not a no true Scotsman fallacy. Incorrectly asserting I employed a no true Scotsman fallacy where none exists is a non sequitur and a straw man.

[scythe]

>Please name the goalposts and how they were moved.

Twitter influenced an election. You then implied (in another comment [1], but implicitly here) that it only counts if Twitter influences the election by providing specifically false information.

1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32834382

>My assertion that Twitter is not influencing elections was not proven wrong by your evidence

It absolutely was. There is no guarantee that that information would have been so widely distributed without Twitter. People do not generally know all of the facts about any candidate; determining which facts get heard and repeated is an important kind of influence.