2016 Postmortem

TM99

(8,352 posts)

108. Here is what you said.

Fri Oct 16, 2015, 12:02 PM

Oct 2015

Most social media users have no idea that they are being tricked into thinking that the name of the candidate they see at the top of their screen actually earned that position, and they have no idea that the candidate bought the first place slot.

Yes, you said they have no idea they are being tricked.

They are not. The trending hashtag clearly states it is promoted. This has been going on long enough that users of Twitter know exactly what a promoted hashtag. Therefore, they are NOT tricked into thinking that the name of the candidate they see at the top of their screen earned that position. Yes, they do know that if it is a promoted hashtag then yes, the candidate or campaign or business or whatever did buy that positioning.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

222 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

So, Bernie Sanders paid 6 figures for the top trending Twitter topic during the debate [View all] moobu2 Oct 2015 OP

And yesterday he held a fundraiser at a wealthy Hollywood home. JaneyVee Oct 2015 #1

650,000 unique domors and only 270 total have maxed out virtualobserver Oct 2015 #6

That's an amazing avatar Reter Oct 2015 #106

it's not his Tesla marym625 Oct 2015 #12

Projection AgingAmerican Oct 2015 #141

WOW, didn't know that! I figured he was just a bait R B Garr Oct 2015 #201

I get Hillary Clinton sponsored posts Eric J in MN Oct 2015 #2

No. There's nothing wrong with it or what Bernie Sanders did moobu2 Oct 2015 #4

Weak tea. marble falls Oct 2015 #7

so how many times do you give money because you saw a hash tag? marym625 Oct 2015 #9

That isnt the point moobu2 Oct 2015 #11

Manipulated into donating? HooptieWagon Oct 2015 #20

you have to be joking marym625 Oct 2015 #24

It was an ad. Money doesn't grow on Oligarchic trees for Bernie at private catered gatherings..... virtualobserver Oct 2015 #16

But it wasn't spontaneous like his propagandists moobu2 Oct 2015 #23

LOL!! You should just stop. n/t Dawgs Oct 2015 #52

Definitely! Always remember the first rule of holes..... daleanime Oct 2015 #181

Looks like Saint Bernie workinclasszero Oct 2015 #64

I'm GLAD Bernie is using technology to further his casmpaign and get more donations. napi21 Oct 2015 #204

Bernie Sanders buying the top trending topic for so much money wasn't the problem moobu2 Oct 2015 #207

Fine to piont out that he engaged in politics - but phoney? Pleeeease... Tom Rinaldo Oct 2015 #17

Best answer, thanks. MuseRider Oct 2015 #70

And he didn't just hire ANY professionals Samantha Oct 2015 #164

Yeah, I had the privilege of volunteering for both Obama's presidential campaigns PatrickforO Oct 2015 #183

You do realize that twitter ads are clearly marked, don't you? Luminous Animal Oct 2015 #27

Would Clinton mention her Facebook ads? Not even Sanders supporters care cprise Oct 2015 #157

Rocks and glass houses.....again.... pipoman Oct 2015 #3

haven't seen many Hillary supporters pretending she figuratively craps rainbows�. KittyWampus Oct 2015 #21

Exactly. moobu2 Oct 2015 #39

+1, one literally told me Sanders can throw stones uponit7771 Oct 2015 #213

He bought an ad? HooptieWagon Oct 2015 #5

No. He paid 6 figures for the trending topic on Twitter during the debate moobu2 Oct 2015 #8

That's buying an ad. HooptieWagon Oct 2015 #13

You know that isn't the point. moobu2 Oct 2015 #15

what kind of reaction does #DebatewithBernie create in humans? virtualobserver Oct 2015 #30

No. It was a scheme to manipulate his followers moobu2 Oct 2015 #42

Bernie's emails ask me for money, just like the six emails a day I get from Team Hillary virtualobserver Oct 2015 #58

The tag again! Must...donate...ANOTHER...$20.... (nt) jeff47 Oct 2015 #127

You obviously don't know the first thing about Twitter. TM99 Oct 2015 #89

It didn't direct anyone to any polls. It directed people to this page Luminous Animal Oct 2015 #114

Ooooh another conspiracy! AgingAmerican Oct 2015 #144

The tag! Must....donate....another....$20.... (nt) jeff47 Oct 2015 #122

so sorry.....we were told to be careful with it at the secret meeting virtualobserver Oct 2015 #131

#DebatewithBernie aidbo Oct 2015 #156

....must....donate....again.....(nt) jeff47 Oct 2015 #159

That's FUD, what's all over DUP daily uponit7771 Oct 2015 #214

That is so full of lies. #1. He bought a clearly marked ad on Twitter. Luminous Animal Oct 2015 #36

Not exactly, he paid to move his brand to the top of the heap. procon Oct 2015 #81

Except that isn't reality. TM99 Oct 2015 #90

Afraid to follow your own advice? procon Oct 2015 #103

Nice attempt to deflect and spin it back. TM99 Oct 2015 #104

If it is as you say, it was a brilliant move. CentralMass Oct 2015 #205

So did Obama. And it is not a deception because it is clearly marked as advertisement. Luminous Animal Oct 2015 #111

Phony berniemania? ucrdem Oct 2015 #10

It would be phony IF rich people paid for it. n/t cprise Oct 2015 #154

How do we know they didn't? ucrdem Oct 2015 #165

It was bought by a lot of small contributions cprise Oct 2015 #219

You mean like "Billionaires for Bernie"? ucrdem Oct 2015 #220

The Sanders campaign bought it. n/t cprise Oct 2015 #221

Supporters of the Big Money candidate "concerned" about Bernie's campaign spending! nt Romulox Oct 2015 #14

And upset that he bought a clearly marked ad on twitter! The horror! peacebird Oct 2015 #33

But it was a mind control ad! winter is coming Oct 2015 #51

And someone claimed Hillary bought her likes.... Historic NY Oct 2015 #117

He's so, like, CORPORATE, ya know? Arugula Latte Oct 2015 #99

The problem with your hypothesis is that you're trying to sell it to thinking people. DisgustipatedinCA Oct 2015 #18

sorry hill2016 Oct 2015 #19

Not a bad scheme if the point is to manipulate public perception. DCBob Oct 2015 #22

buying an ad which says #DebatewithBernie is unethical? virtualobserver Oct 2015 #26

The unethical part was fraudulently manipulating online polls to sway public opinion. DCBob Oct 2015 #38

how does #DebatewithBernie manipulate online polls? virtualobserver Oct 2015 #41

I believe his campaign used that to instruct followers to go to all the online polls.. DCBob Oct 2015 #46

you "believe" that, do you? virtualobserver Oct 2015 #56

Proof or just lies? TM99 Oct 2015 #92

WHAT!? #debatewithbernie is secret code? Luminous Animal Oct 2015 #112

It's a mind control conspiracy when a Jewish candidate buys an ad, you see Scootaloo Oct 2015 #100

Really. Buying an ad on twitter that is clearly marked as advertising is unethical? Luminous Animal Oct 2015 #28

The secret is out...now everyone knows the power of the #DebatewithBernie hashtag virtualobserver Oct 2015 #34

See my post above. DCBob Oct 2015 #40

So. When you are watching TV and an ad comes on for Hillary, you find that Luminous Animal Oct 2015 #47

No.. not the point at all and I am sure you know that. DCBob Oct 2015 #48

It is an ad that is clearly marked as an ad. Any twitter user younger than 84 Luminous Animal Oct 2015 #61

No indication that it's an ad that I can see: ucrdem Oct 2015 #63

That is not a twitter hashtag, grandpa. Luminous Animal Oct 2015 #68

It's not marked as an ad, either. nt ucrdem Oct 2015 #74

Because what you posted is called a Tweet. TM99 Oct 2015 #93

Nice try. nt ucrdem Oct 2015 #135

There is no cure for ignorance. TM99 Oct 2015 #136

LOL, right. Truth? I've had Bernie's number since 1992. nt ucrdem Oct 2015 #138

And that has what to do with TM99 Oct 2015 #143

Same baloney, different social medium. nt ucrdem Oct 2015 #162

Isn't that the point of ads? AgingAmerican Oct 2015 #145

WSJ, Oct 13: "Bernie Sanders Makes Big Twitter Purchase" ucrdem Oct 2015 #25

MSM Ignores and diminishes fredamae Oct 2015 #29

Paying cold hard cash moneyz workinclasszero Oct 2015 #35

You're correct... fredamae Oct 2015 #43

Ask Bernie workinclasszero Oct 2015 #44

No Corpo $ And I'm am Proud.... fredamae Oct 2015 #49

Considering the donors who paid for it...not a big deal. cprise Oct 2015 #155

As opposed to corporations buying Hilary herself alarimer Oct 2015 #171

It's not scheming but smart use of social media Jeroen Oct 2015 #31

Oh my...how embarrassing workinclasszero Oct 2015 #32

I agree it was scheme Sheepshank Oct 2015 #37

Yep, I couldn't have said it better moobu2 Oct 2015 #50

WTF! Are you people for real? n/t Dawgs Oct 2015 #57

Sadly yes..this is what passes for political discourse with this group. nt haikugal Oct 2015 #129

This headline was at the top of LBN for days: ucrdem Oct 2015 #45

Yet another DUer who doesn't understand Twitter. winter is coming Oct 2015 #62

There's no indication that it's an ad: ucrdem Oct 2015 #65

That's just an image. winter is coming Oct 2015 #73

You can see what was posted at the WSJ link I posted above. Here it is again: ucrdem Oct 2015 #77

An image on the WSJ doesn't change the way Twitter does business. winter is coming Oct 2015 #79

It's not an image, it's an embedded tweet. And there's no indication that it's sponsored. nt ucrdem Oct 2015 #80

You're right; it's an embedded tweet... that's no longer being promoted. winter is coming Oct 2015 #82

Here's another article about it: winter is coming Oct 2015 #86

OMG! It is no different when you click on any ad... it, you know, sends you to something that is Luminous Animal Oct 2015 #110

Yeah, how many hundreds of thousands of fake followers did HRC buy? kath Oct 2015 #78

Do you understand paid brand placement? procon Oct 2015 #83

Oh, bullshit. What he did was no different from airing a national TV commercial, winter is coming Oct 2015 #84

No. Ads don't run continuously on your TV screen. procon Oct 2015 #94

They are not tricked. TM99 Oct 2015 #98

I just said that. procon Oct 2015 #105

Here is what you said. TM99 Oct 2015 #108

That's a different argument and I can't agree with your assertions. procon Oct 2015 #116

You are wrong. TM99 Oct 2015 #118

LOL. During election season, they're more or less continuous. winter is coming Oct 2015 #102

Dude(tte). It clearly states that it is an ad. People who use twitter know that it is an ad because Luminous Animal Oct 2015 #115

Except that it doesn't, per the links I've posted. Anywhere. nt ucrdem Oct 2015 #134

What you posted is a tweet that you see after clicking on the ad. Luminous Animal Oct 2015 #149

"Just another miracle of social media I guess . . ." workinclasszero Oct 2015 #85

For a socialist he's pretty good at capitalism. ucrdem Oct 2015 #142

He sure is! workinclasszero Oct 2015 #146

Sounds Like Sour Grapes Sniping To These Ears cantbeserious Oct 2015 #53

Quelle horreur!1! The Sanders campaign bought an ad!11!! riderinthestorm Oct 2015 #54

You understand it is a form of advertizing, don't you? artislife Oct 2015 #55

Advertising? Capt. Obvious Oct 2015 #59

It's not marked as an ad. ucrdem Oct 2015 #60

Maybe be I am younger artislife Oct 2015 #66

It's generally considered a deceptive practice to misrepresent sponsored online content. nt ucrdem Oct 2015 #67

Deceptive? I guess if you don't understand the online experience. artislife Oct 2015 #69

Oh we understand it. That's the point. nt ucrdem Oct 2015 #72

What is misrepresented? The hashtag was clearly marked as "promoted". People on twitter Luminous Animal Oct 2015 #126

There is no such indication and saying there is doesn't make it true. End of story. nt ucrdem Oct 2015 #133

No, sorry, you are continuing to be wrong. TM99 Oct 2015 #137

Keep digging. nt ucrdem Oct 2015 #147

You are simply incapable of admitting you are wrong. TM99 Oct 2015 #148

Jesus dude! TM99 Oct 2015 #95

Money well spent, advertising is always good. How much has Hillary spent on ads? Autumn Oct 2015 #71

No wonder a bunch of obsessed people cosmicone Oct 2015 #75

He cheated? He paid for the top position on twitter and then claimed he "won"? procon Oct 2015 #76

Since when is buying an ad "cheating"? winter is coming Oct 2015 #88

It wasn't just a ordinary ad, was it? procon Oct 2015 #109

It's an ordinary Twitter ad riderinthestorm Oct 2015 #113

What's with name calling? procon Oct 2015 #121

Name calling?? Lol! riderinthestorm Oct 2015 #124

That's no different from ad banners on the top of webpages. winter is coming Oct 2015 #119

And they cost much more than other ads because that premium placement is more effective. procon Oct 2015 #123

And TV ads cost more during the Superbowl. winter is coming Oct 2015 #125

No it did not. TM99 Oct 2015 #120

His hashtag was the number one trend. procon Oct 2015 #128

Ah, yes, yes, you did. TM99 Oct 2015 #132

Don't try to redefine my statement to suit your position. procon Oct 2015 #158

You are hilarious. TM99 Oct 2015 #161

And all of that is a smart thing to do. Just like is was smart for Obama when he did the same thing. Luminous Animal Oct 2015 #153

+1, they know this uponit7771 Oct 2015 #215

See, here is more of that Rovian bullshit. TM99 Oct 2015 #97

You deserve this... TheFarS1de Oct 2015 #217

No. He purchased advertising to place an ad over trending topics. Luminous Animal Oct 2015 #151

Just another thing Bernie Bjornsdotter Oct 2015 #87

Yeah. #BernieSoRich he buys Twitter ads. If Hillary is such a lock to win.. aidbo Oct 2015 #91

#BernieSoRich he buys Twitter ads workinclasszero Oct 2015 #96

#HillarysFacebookFriends ... TheFarS1de Oct 2015 #216

Winning the Internets is not the same as winning elections frazzled Oct 2015 #101

The internet of 2004 and 2007 TM99 Oct 2015 #107

You are totally right workinclasszero Oct 2015 #130

I believe your perception is distorted. GeorgeGist Oct 2015 #139

Projection AgingAmerican Oct 2015 #140

I don't see anything wrong with him doing it... Agschmid Oct 2015 #150

Why? For taking out an ad? Obama did it and I thought it was smart politics Luminous Animal Oct 2015 #160

and there is nothing wrong with him doing it. Because of Citizens United, it is the only way still_one Oct 2015 #152

The nicest possible interpretation is that Bernie! (r) is being marketed like toothpaste. ucrdem Oct 2015 #163

Um, no. As the article explained (and Obama did similar in 2012), it is to direct Luminous Animal Oct 2015 #166

"Obama did similar" what exactly? Link? ucrdem Oct 2015 #167

See the WSJ entry that YOU linked to in post #25 Luminous Animal Oct 2015 #169

"Bernie Sanders Makes Big Twitter Purchase"? ucrdem Oct 2015 #170

Yep. The same article that says, under Bernie's picture... Luminous Animal Oct 2015 #172

I don't remember Obama claiming to win a debate based on paid Twitter ads. nt ucrdem Oct 2015 #174

And that has zero to do with the OP. Because the hashtag did not direct Luminous Animal Oct 2015 #175

Is "Bernie Sanders Clearly Won The Democratic Debate -- On Twitter" a fabrication? ucrdem Oct 2015 #176

Really. Millennials are too smart to fall for an internet ad but too stupid Luminous Animal Oct 2015 #189

Twitter is where a lot of millenials get their news mythology Oct 2015 #168

The problem is that paid sponsorship and "word of mouth" aren't clearly distinguished. nt ucrdem Oct 2015 #173

If you are over 80 years old. And yes. If, the word "Promoted" with an arrow doesn't Luminous Animal Oct 2015 #177

No such arrow on Bernie's hashtag. Made up facts aren't facts, sorry. nt ucrdem Oct 2015 #178

Every paid advertising has the promoted arrow. Every single one. Luminous Animal Oct 2015 #179

Except when they don't. Thanks for the deep thoughts. nt ucrdem Oct 2015 #180

You banking on people's ignorance of the internet. You are 100% employing fox Luminous Animal Oct 2015 #182

I don't doubt that Obama's hashtag was clearly marked. nt ucrdem Oct 2015 #184

That is sweet. But it is not up to the org buying the ad. Obama had no choice. Luminous Animal Oct 2015 #186

Bernie's hashtag can be seen in the embedded tweet I've posted 3x and there's NO arrow. Period. nt ucrdem Oct 2015 #187

Because the ad expired. It is a 24 hour ad. The campaign would have to pay 200,000 a day Luminous Animal Oct 2015 #190

The subject here is his hashtag. ucrdem Oct 2015 #191

: ) Luminous Animal Oct 2015 #193

His hashtag was #debatewithbernie The horrors. Luminous Animal Oct 2015 #198

He's also planning on buying some TV ads!.... Oh the Horror, The Horror Armstead Oct 2015 #185

No. moobu2 Oct 2015 #188

Politics is manipulating people to vote Armstead Oct 2015 #192

TV ads are very clearly identified as paid political ads. Tweets aren't. That the problem. nt ucrdem Oct 2015 #194

I really do not understand why you say this. Because they are clearly marked. Luminous Animal Oct 2015 #196

Possibly but in this universe none of your remarks are remotely relevant. nt ucrdem Oct 2015 #197

My milleniall son said 'smart use of his money/contribution' nt slipslidingaway Oct 2015 #195

As did my millennial daughter. Low cost and wide audience. Luminous Animal Oct 2015 #199

Yes, so glad that are taking part and are enthused about a candidate! n/t slipslidingaway Oct 2015 #203

Yes, heard about this and other calls to firestorm R B Garr Oct 2015 #200

LOL. ucrdem Oct 2015 #202

Yes, and thanks for your links, too! R B Garr Oct 2015 #206

hey thanks! :-D big props to moobu2 for the OP . . . ucrdem Oct 2015 #209

Yes. You heard about and advert on Twitter. Obama did a similar advert on twitter. Luminous Animal Oct 2015 #208

Yes, Bernie supporters called for a firestorm. R B Garr Oct 2015 #210

A totally made-up thread - and look at all the Hillary suckers here that took the bait. DrBulldog Oct 2015 #211

Made up? How so? Please explain without calling people rude made up names. moobu2 Oct 2015 #212

I smell desperation from the OP (nt) LostOne4Ever Oct 2015 #218

Bernies donations on the DU weren't strong until the following day Omaha Steve Oct 2015 #222