https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/fp_20180316_future_polit...

 A simple read that has a good outline of how some of this information is being distributed.  I know there's some doubt as to if Russia/China etc. have meddled in elections but if you look at the information as a whole there is information that is concerning, not just about this one election, but information in general.

 I for one do not think that one person can simultaneously active over 700 Twitter accounts and distribute information in 3 minutes, and I do not believe that 700 separate people used one computer as the referenced (in the article) data shows.

 So with AI analyzing our internet usage and creating waves of "news" that can be distributed at superhuman rates, we would need AI to also respond.  One AI program pushing 1.6 million social media articles in 24 hours will not be mitigated by a team over at Facebook "looking it over".

All true, but remember, an individual has to read the content, process it and later vote a differently based upon that content. From what I've read of the Russian ads, they were totally ineffective. Many done after the fact or targeted the wrong demographic. It had zero impact this last election.

But what if they got smart? What if they did it right? Or maybe the question is, could they do it right? Could it even be done? I have about 10 sites I visit regularly for information. To impact me, they'd have to slowly integrate themselves into those sites somehow. Would their be a way for them to 'plant' articles in www.realclearpolitics.com somehow? Wall Street Journal? St Louis Post Dispatch? How would a Russian agent feed me information in an attempt to sway my vote to one that benefits them?

Of course if we had a fair press that hadn't abdicated it's responsibility by siding with the Democratic party, that would help. But that ship has sailed.

So what do we do?  

We can't abolish social media, can we? Granted, it would be fascinating to see the social upheaval if Facebook, twitter etc... went down for an hour, a day, a week, a month.  

WebsterMark wrote on 09/20/18 at 11:51:53:


You have to be smarter than the tools that you use.

"Whenever you are trying to sell something unsolicited, like a magazine ad, or TV, radio, as, etc.....
You have a mere few seconds to "hook" someones attention."

 Those aren't examples of social media and they aren't "selling" anything.  The article lays out the strategies and partially how they work, many of the references show direct pathways and usage of content and how it materializes into measurable activity.

"Chances are these campaigns "hook" just as many per POV, as those of rigid mindset have set out fishing only to affirm what they already believe, NOT for enlightenment. "

 That's an interesting outlook, but how do you explain the directly correlated results?

  A false media campaign to get people to show up to a protest of an activity that doesn't exist in X-location yields a result of 100's of people showing up at X-location.  The data clearly can be traced over the phones of the people in attendance.  That's a physical measurable result, those people read the distributed information, shared it exponentially and arrived at the location alongside others who received shared information.  That's about as much empirical evidence as one could possibly provide.
 

"I will use the analogy of reasoning that IF you put enough monkeys in a room with enough typewriters.....
By shear "chance" based upon LARGE numbers, one will type/write Shakespeare."

 Its not chance, its directed content based off millions of pieces of data collected from internet usage.  That content then is categorized and sent by AI, not a group of people, by AI in huge numbers that renders measurable and proven results because the appropriate content can be sent accurately to the most responsive people.  This is made very clear in the article and associated references.  This is not shotgun fake news, this is surgical content selection and dispersal, that renders predictable and proven results.  All of it done by automation in numbers that exceed any humans ability to produce or distribute.

"People will believe what they WANT to believe for their OWN personal gains/satisfactions."

 I agree, but that's not what the article or the associated references are talking about.  Did you read it?

 

WebsterMark wrote on 09/20/18 at 11:51:53:

"... it would be fascinating to see the social upheaval if Facebook, twitter etc... went down for an hour, a day, a week, a month.

Great thought, however the resulting effects could be disastrous.

Cities with Skyways, will have massive flooding in the skyways.
Automobile accidents spiking, as people are 'fiddling' more than they are use to.
Designer pubs and micro breweries across the USA, will loose business, as most of their customers are not able to function.
IKEA Stores will have a massive decline in sales, as their is no way to look at pictures on the internet, on how to assemble  their products.
State/Federal Parks will see a huge decline in attendance.
And a lot more,
due to the fact that a part of the population simply cannot function, with out FB/Twitter.

So I guess only Eegore and I actually read the paper.  Talk about non-sequitur posts...

(To be fair, I didn't read the entire thing - yet.)

"Is the article suggesting a strategy like that produces changes in vote totals targeted specifically to change Electoral Vote totals?"

 Not really but the section on voting, voting machines, election tampering and big data deals with the concepts and outcomes.  Some of the references would clarify it for you.

"I recall reading one of Russian Facebook ads was calling for a march against Hilary. Who would go to that if they weren't already fairly cemented in their position?"

 That's a good point but not what the article is about.