Minneapolis to pay social media influencers to spread messages

The city of Minneapolis is going to pay people to spread messages the city itself approves of.

If I understand correctly, they're going to pay individuals to try to help influence public opinion to align with what they think it should be.

See the quote below.

Regarding social media influencers, the program approved by City Council involves the city entering "paid partnerships with community members who are considered trusted messengers and have large social media presence to share City generated and approved messages."

While it's no surprise that political parties have paid for such influence and propaganda before, mi can't say I've ever seen it done openly like this.

This is taxpayer money, being used by the city leaders, to pay people to influence public opinion.

What's everyone's opinion on this?

https://www.foxnews.com/us/george-fl...-chauvin-trial

What type of messages? If it’s things like reminders about a parade, food event, or road work, then it’s fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hughinn

The city of Minneapolis is going to pay people to spread messages the city itself approves of.

If I understand correctly, they're going to pay individuals to try to help influence public opinion to align with what they think it should be.

See the quote below.

Regarding social media influencers, the program approved by City Council involves the city entering "paid partnerships with community members who are considered trusted messengers and have large social media presence to share City generated and approved messages."

While it's no surprise that political parties have paid for such influence and propaganda before, mi can't say I've ever seen it done openly like this.

This is taxpayer money, being used by the city leaders, to pay people to influence public opinion.

What's everyone's opinion on this?

https://www.foxnews.com/us/george-fl...-chauvin-trial

---

Local, state and federal governments have used TV/radio/printed media to put out public messages for a very very long time. The fact is those mediums are obsolete and so they're moving on to social media.

Fox news is going to put their spin on it. But they've been letting governments have access to their network and audience since Fox News' inception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Test Monsterone

What type of messages? If it’s things like reminders about a parade, food event, or road work, then it’s fine.

---

I'm sure it's more controversial stuff than that. But the whole thing is if people don't like the messages being put out, then vote out everyone n the city government who is responsible for the messages.

If you read the article is actually doesn't sound like a bad idea. If they can influence the masses not to riot and damage the city, etc then it's money well spent. Am I a fan that it's come to this? Hell no, but it is what it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelkel

but it is what it is.

---

Feels like a phrase we have to use way to often these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Test Monsterone

What type of messages? If it’s things like reminders about a parade, food event, or road work, then it’s fine.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelkel

If you read the article is actually doesn't sound like a bad idea. If they can influence the masses not to riot and damage the city, etc then it's money well spent. Am I a fan that it's come to this? Hell no, but it is what it is.

---

To me, the two posts above sum it up.

I also see nothing wrong with the city using a sort of "herald" to disseminate news. Like test m said. Or to try to keep rioting from occuring like kel said.

I'm just not sure that I can agree with them formally using taxpayers money to"influence public opinion". If they're allowed to use your money to influence public opinion that favors them, then how will opposition views ever get heard or get fair and equal consideration?

I guess in my mind, a municipality or governments policy opinions should be guided by the sentiment of it's citizens, not the other way around.

So this doesn't seem right to me, when looked at objectively. And not because of what the intentions in any particular instance may or may not be, but because it's fundamentally backwards to the idea of democracy and government of the people.

I guess my concern, isn't necessarily what the current objective is by taking such a course of action. Because test and kel are right in thier points of it being potentially helpful.

But, it's where such a course of action can ultimately lead. And by accepting or normalizing those actions for a perceived short term benefit , we set ourselves up for the inevitable long term consequences.