Obamascare: 60% of online Obamacare defenders 'paid to post' hits on critics




Interesting hypothesis. But is it conclusive?

High volume posters and posting during regular business hours/ Why the latter since flex hours might be a perk of this kind of work.

Suppose a similar analysis were done here? Who are the high volume posters that we might conclude are paid to post?


It would be helpful to know over what time period he is measuring. According to the analysis, as far as I can understand it, it looks like 100 posters were responsible for 135,000 out of 226,000 pro-Obamacare posts, or about 1,350 each. Over a year or two, that might not be unreasonable, but over a week or two or even a month or two, it would. One thing we do know is that one of Obama’s chief strategists, David Axelrod, is very heavily involved in creating the types of pseudo-grass roots front groups that are designed to create the illusion of mass popular support.



Yes. I don’t doubt the that this is done, or that it is widespread.

It will be increasingly hard to discern the truth we will have so many opportunities to lapse into confirmation bias - in this disinformation age.


The " 9AM to 5PM" time frame was Pacific Time. That means it goes to 8 PM Eastern Time - well within the bounds of what people might be done after they come home from work. So the time frame is a red herring, also considering that lots of people engage in social media during work hours as dvdjs pointed out.

Here is another thing about Facebook. A very common practice is “sharing” a posting from someone else. If someone writes a pro-Obamacare posting and it catches on and many people “share” it, did Brown attribute all those “sharings” to the original poster? Or to the individuals who shared it? That needs to be clarified. Because if he counts Facebook sharings as attributed to the original poster, then there would be nothing surprising that a particular surprising about the statistics he came up with, and it would not prove anybody was paid to post.

There is also the question of his selection method to find the 226,000 postings. Facebook postings are made under a variety of individual privacy settings. Some postings you cannot see unless you are a friend of the poster.

And as you said in your other post, there is the question of the time period over which the postings were sampled.

And who is the guy who did the study? The article refers to him as both Michael Brown and Matthew Brown. I wonder what he is being paid to present these confusing findings?


Saul Alinsky voted, both in support of Obamacare as well as for Hillary. Pretty sure of that. After all, he established the left’s rules - for radicals.


My grandfather was a lifelong Republican.

However, after he died, he always voted Democrat.




This isn’t substantiated by anything.




Interesting point from the article:

And Brown said that both sides play the posting game. “There’s no reason to believe that everybody’s not doing it.”

That said, I don’t believe it. 60% of social media posts? That doesn’t ring true. That would mean most posts.

And who is paying.

And I haven’t seen my check yet. I could use the money.


There you go. There’s already an industry for it and it’s offshore.


So funny. :smiley:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.