> 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.
> 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.
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 there are more direct ways of showing immediate election influence: the number of candidates who have withdrawn from elections after something happened on Twitter.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.
>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.
>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.
The premise is wrong; I do not accept the premise that Twitter influences elections. If this is the goalpost it has not moved. But you are revealing more fallacious argument, which is not only your assumption that Twitter influences election, but that if I disagree with you then I have employed no true Scotsman. Both assertions are question begging. You are assuming the antecedent, not proving it.
Again, showing that Twitter broke some news that caused candidates to drop out is not Twitter's influence: it is the influence of that information. Twitter is not the information. nor does Twitter even create the content. If I posted that information on a billboard on the highway causing the candidates to drop out, it is not the billboard that is influential.
Your premise is false, your argument riddled with fallacy. And bizarrely you believe if someone disagrees with you, reveals your error and corrects your false conclusions then they're committing no true Scotsman.
> showing that Twitter broke some news that caused candidates to drop out is not Twitter's influence
Yes it is.
For a similar example that shows how sites that break news that others will not and how that leads to them being influencial I'd point at The Drudge Report.
Quoting Pew: "Drudge Report: Small Operation, Large Influence" [1], and Wikipedia[2]: "The Drudge Report originally attained prominence when it was the first to report what came to be known as the Lewinsky scandal. It published the story on January 17, 1998, showing that Newsweek had turned down the story."
This is exactly the same kind of influence as Twitter has - because it can spread news (both true and false) - it is influential.
Again - not interested in arguing about the ontology of arguments.
> This is exactly the same kind of influence as Twitter has - because it can spread news (both true and false) - it is influential.
First of all, you haven't even claimed Drudge Report is influential, only that it came to prominence for breaking a story early. Regardless of your lack of interest in valid argument, this argument is false equivalence.
While it is a given that 23% of Americans claim to use Twitter, and 70% of them admit they get their news from Twitter[1], concluding that any influence Twitter may have over elections is significant could not possibly follow. Only a maximum of 16% of Americans could possibly get their news from Twitter, and that influence can't be predicted to be a significant force in either direction. As I have already argued, these Twitter news consumers are not of one mind nor could they be possibly voting the same way as a single block. These allegedly influenced votes will amount to a wash, maybe slightly towards one party or the other, and very likely matching the national demographic of all voters.
It is indeed very strange to be concerned with Twitter's alleged influence by disseminating news, which is limited to at most 16% of Americans who are never voting all the same way, as opposed to that of all the other sources of news, as at least 84% of Americans do not get their news from Twitter. Twitter's influence, if it exists, then pales in comparison to the influence of all other news sources. Why has there never been concern for their influence?
It is because news sources are not influencing elections, and even if they could, they could then not possibly predict how their consumers will vote, negating any possible influence. Further, that type of malicious influence requires intent and measurable potency. Even if there is the former, the latter has never been achieved. Twitter can not possibly predict the votes of however many gullible Twitter users they successfully fool. For Twitter to be able to influence elections, they would need to be able to control their users and their votes, and it is abundantly clear that no one can do that, not even Twitter.
> you haven't even claimed Drudge Report is influential
Indeed. I just quoted Pew making that claim: "you haven't even claimed Drudge Report is influential"
> and 70% of them admit they get their news from Twitter[1]
No, that's 70% who use it as their main source of news.
And nearly 100% of journalists from other news sources are on Twitter.
> These allegedly influenced votes will amount to a wash, maybe slightly towards one party or the other,
Oh, I see. You are under the misapprehension that "influence" means "pushing the result decisively one way or the other"
That isn't the case. "Influence" can also mean changing the way it plays out, which is clearly the case as seen by the transmission and amplification of various conspiracy theories on Twitter and other social media.
>> Quoting Pew: "Drudge Report: Small Operation, Large Influence" [1], and Wikipedia[2]: "The Drudge Report originally attained prominence when it was the first to report what came to be known as the Lewinsky scandal. It published the story on January 17, 1998, showing that Newsweek had turned down the story."
> Indeed. I just quoted Pew making that claim: "you haven't even claimed Drudge Report is influential"
But Pew does not make that claim. "Prominence" does not mean "influential." Influential means, the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something. Prominence means, the state of being important or famous. Your prevarication of these two words is fallacious.
> And nearly 100% of journalists from other news sources are on Twitter.
Pew reports 69%[1], so there's only about 12,000 journalists in the US that do not use Twitter.
> Oh, I see. You are under the misapprehension that "influence" means "pushing the result decisively one way or the other"
Without effect, it is not influence, as influence requires effect. Ahd if any effect is negated, there is, in fact, no effect. That is how arithmetic works.
> "Influence" can also mean changing the way it plays out, which is clearly the case as seen by the transmission and amplification of various conspiracy theories on Twitter and other social media.
Sure, Twitter is influencing elections to have the exact same results as if it had no effect. It is a very subtle, self-negating sort of influence.
It's not influence if it's actual facts? Even if they hadn't been exposed via other methods?