ADVERTISEMENT

Appears Twitter is going to accept the $43 billion dollar offer from Elon

They can start "untruth social" and die with all the other start up social media platforms
They still have Facebook, youtube, instagram, and the comments section of almost every news channel and newspaper. So don’t feel too bad for them.
 
Twitter...creates traffic for sure. Truth social won't be around.

But Truth Social is Trump's thing. Devin Nunes retired from congress to work there. Would be a terrible financial decision and he is going to screw people over if he just abandons it and goes back to twitter. He says he is staying on Truth Social, but I have a feeling that wont last.
 
But Truth Social is Trump's thing. Devin Nunes retired from congress to work there. Would be a terrible financial decision and he is going to screw people over if he just abandons it and goes back to twitter. He says he is staying on Truth Social, but I have a feeling that wont last.
Sometimes you have to cut your losses. If Elon Musk’s Twitter is going to be viewed as being more fair, what’s the market projection for a startup in that space. You have to be dynamic in this day and age of business.
 
Sometimes you have to cut your losses. If Elon Musk’s Twitter is going to be viewed as being more fair, what’s the market projection for a startup in that space. You have to be dynamic in this day and age of business.

But Twitter isnt Trump's business. I dont know that simply switching from posting on one platform to another is an example of a dynamic business decision, especially when the platform he would be leaving, is the one he is invested in. I would agree with you if Truth social was still more of an idea, but they have taken over a billion in investments and have developed the platform and it is up and running. I dont think you can simply write that off as "cutting losses".
 
Last edited:
Be interesting to find if some bots were actually twitter creating the narrative




Truth social is a public company. How much is he really invested?

I dont know how much he is personally, but some people are going to lose some serious money. But also, Truth Social itself isnt really public. It is associated with a SPAC, but the company itself is owned by Trump Media at the moment.
 
I originally thought truth social was a stunt by the Onion. Imagine a social media app started by someone who has already alienated 95% of those in the tech sphere. Someone who is also historically bad at actually paying his employees. This idea and implementation has been predictably terrible. I had forgotten it was even a thing to be honest.
 
They still have Facebook, youtube, instagram, and the comments section of almost every news channel and newspaper. So don’t feel too bad for them.
What other news channels websites have comments sections? I've only seen it on Fox News; MSNBC, CNN, don't offer open comment sections...and the online papers require subscriptions.
 
What other news channels websites have comments sections? I've only seen it on Fox News; MSNBC, CNN, don't offer open comment sections...and the online papers require subscriptions.
You know what, I just assumed Vox, Salon, Mother Jones, MSNBC, CNN and the rest that front like they embrace open and honest discourse would have comment sections. But I just went and looked at an article at each and they don’t (or at least I didn’t see them). They all have social media feeds that list the articles, right? I guess that’s their plausible deniability for having comments sections without having them while still making fun of the people that post in FoxNews comment sections.

You do have to wonder at their sincerity in having open and honest conversations but not allowing for comments on their stories on their own websites.
 
You do have to wonder at their sincerity in having open and honest conversations but not allowing for comments on their stories on their own websites.
Uhh, the last thing in the world I'd call the comments section on Fox is honest. It makes this shithole cesspool that is the Water Cooler look 100% normal.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ucfmikes
Uhh, the last thing in the world I'd call the comments section on Fox is honest. It makes this shithole cesspool that is the Water Cooler look 100% normal.
It would be interesting to compare comments between the sites...if opinions were balanced /shared equally between groups of people, that should come out in the comments sections, obviously skew towards political leanings of the particular "news" website.

I had read either CNN or MSNBC used to, but removed. It does make one wonder why that is.
 
Uhh, the last thing in the world I'd call the comments section on Fox is honest. It makes this shithole cesspool that is the Water Cooler look 100% normal.
I’ll take your word for it but wouldn’t that cesspool be a revelation of some people’s thoughts with the veneer of civility removed? Or is it just a bunch of people trolling to post the most vile things trying to get attention?
 
I’ll take your word for it but wouldn’t that cesspool be a revelation of some people’s thoughts with the veneer of civility removed? Or is it just a bunch of people trolling to post the most vile things trying to get attention?
It's a lot of trolling and shit posting, for sure. I mean I will be honest: some of the articles generate tens of thousands of comments, so I don't go through them all, obviously. But what I do read is your typical mixture of faceless internet screeching and trolling. Fox does moderate the comments for certain community standards, but it's a community dump in general.

And let's be clear: were CNN and MSNBC still to have comments, it would be the same thing. I'm just taking issue with the open and honest part. These organizations probably just said eff it and removed them completely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sk8knight
It would be interesting to compare comments between the sites...if opinions were balanced /shared equally between groups of people, that should come out in the comments sections, obviously skew towards political leanings of the particular "news" website.

I had read either CNN or MSNBC used to, but removed. It does make one wonder why that is.
Well, it should. But that's a YUGE conditional "if." I mean, you still have people/bots in the FOX comments who post "want to get rich overnight? click here!!!" nonsense.
 
...[CNN and MSNBC] These organizations probably just said eff it and removed them completely.

...or, they're concerned with the pro/con ratio of user feedback. I've wanted to comment on some extreme left opinion articles on those sites as I do for extreme right opinion articles on Fox.

I've noticed many more radical left pieces over the past 2-3 years on CNN/MSNBC than radical right pieces on Fox, of course that's relative to how far back you establish your political spectrum baseline.
 
...or, they're concerned with the pro/con ratio of user feedback. I've wanted to comment on some extreme left opinion articles on those sites as I do for extreme right opinion articles on Fox.

I've noticed many more radical left pieces over the past 2-3 years on CNN/MSNBC than radical right pieces on Fox, of course that's relative to how far back you establish your political spectrum baseline.
I dunno about that. When 2/3s of the comments are nothing than more than shit trolling, pro/con ratio isn't exactly of a concern.
 
Any open forum is going to be either right or left, and that is ok. There will be some, or a lot of garbage on all of them and that is ok. But an arguing opinion from the other side shouldn't be removed just because the majority side doesn't like it. Now if you are and advocate group, it is a bit of a different matter.
 
Any open forum is going to be either right or left, and that is ok. There will be some, or a lot of garbage on all of them and that is ok. But an arguing opinion from the other side shouldn't be removed just because the majority side doesn't like it. Now if you are and advocate group, it is a bit of a different matter.
A private company should be allowed to moderate content according to their terms and conditions. It’s not just for civil discourse. Allowing inappropriate, hateful, spam content carte blanche has a negative effect on the bottom line as there is a more limited audience that is willing to tolerate unlimited unmoderated speech on a social media platform.
 
Current Twitter just exposed itself for its utter lack of self-awareness, and Bill Maher is totally calling them out. The full quote isn't in the story (see the videos), but this is the core quote...

QUOTE: "‘Sensitive content,’ Twitter said... of video making fun of Twitter for being too sensitive. This is so ‘Through the Looking Glass'... the fact that they flagged this for being insensitive shows their complete lack of self-awareness about what their own problem is." -- Bill Maher​

 
A private company should be allowed to moderate content according to their terms and conditions. It’s not just for civil discourse. Allowing inappropriate, hateful, spam content carte blanche has a negative effect on the bottom line as there is a more limited audience that is willing to tolerate unlimited unmoderated speech on a social media platform.
And that's been beyond proven to be totally bullshit at this point, but Big Tech has the Trust to destroy and obliterate any other site they want and take them off-line, which has been proven time and time again. That's no different than Standard Oil prior.

Facebook and Twitter literally spew not just the most misinformation, but outright fraud. And it's not even Russian! For the past 4 months I've spent most of my time fact checking and finding outright fraud in many of Facebooks cash cow adverts.

I've reported it, others have reported it, Facebook refuses to review it, it blames external parties, and says no review is possible. Even Snopes has been reporting several for months, but Facebook refuses to take them down. They purposely, knowingly, fraudulently prevent their own AI from stopping it, because it's their cash cow.

E.g., and this is just one of the dozens I see 1-3 times a visit!

One way to stop this, since Big Tech all seem to love making money off of fraud, because they know it'll never make it to court, and even if they eventually have to settle, it'll be peanuts compared to the revenue, and they know it, Google is already infamous for it, is this...

Drag their head legal counsel in front of their US state bar associations, cite them, and consider censure or even disbarment.

They can start with Twitter's Vijaya Gadde.

She has no business being legal counsel for an US corporation, and not only has massive conflicts of interest, but has picked that over her duties. It's one thing to serve your client who is committing fraud. It's another to be in a position to greatly benefit from it, even openly promote it.

Every time I read her, I'm like, "Are you literally that ignorant of US civics? How did you get a license to practice in the US?"
 
anotheronelol.jpg
 
ADVERTISEMENT