Quote Originally Posted by WBA123 View Post
This is a little stereotypical but Social Media moguls, generally speaking, are geeks and don't interfere with politics. But what has happened is their platform has been abused by companies (such as CA) to exploit public perception for political purposes.

What SM does do is give everyone a voice. So masses who originally were swayed by print media are now being influenced more by individuals on SM. Look at how many Twitter followers some individuals such as Katie Hopkins or Gary Lineker have, who both politically post at different ends of the the spectrum. Again though, there will be abuses and there will be fake stories doing the rounds. I think SM will make a difference to public opinion over time, because print media's influence will hopefully wane.

The last General Election was a good start. Rumour was Rupert Murdoch stormed out of the media room at the Exit polls results because the Tories didn't win a majority.
I know what you are saying 123, and I just about recall the sun front page just before an election which said last person to leave switch the light off, about the prospect of a labour win.

People like Murdoch have evolved with social media, they have big media companies and channels like fox news.

I was never saying SM's geeks would seek to use their platforms to manipulate us, but whilst they are chasing the advertising pounds and dollars, other companies like CA, will be quietly and effectively pushing the agenda of whoever pays them.

I personally believe SM is far more dangerous than the print press, as it gets to more people much quicker and although the internet is a great way to find out stuff, the stuff peddled on SM is often agenda based and biased.