Currently Online 
Vinther1991 said:
I think the article answers a lot of the questions: "Adding to this, The New York Times revealed that a lot of comments and discussions going around online are from artificially-generated sources. The report read, “Criticism of the ad campaign had come almost entirely from a smattering of accounts with relatively few followers, according to an analysis of social media data by The New York Times. Conversation about the ad did not escalate online or in traditional media until days later, after right-leaning influencers, broadcasters, and politicians began criticizing what they described as a wave of progressive outrage.†Probably very few people were offended initially, if they even gave the ad any thought, but when you are getting bombarded with rubbish posts related to it for days, people feel pushed into having a stance on it. When all they see are MAGA people attacking an "outrage" related to the ad, and they themselves are opposed to said MAGA people, they might feel inclined to jump unto the wagon MAGA is attacking, and MAGA has effectively created the reality they wanted. |
This is another good point; it also doesn't help that the media jumped on it and amplified it for those sweet controversy clicks and the revenue they generate.
Only reason I even heard about it for instance was cos the articles about it starting hitting my feed. I ordinarily would try to ignore the usual nobody grifters on social media spreading ragebait, but I feel like actual media outlets should know better.
