Thought for the Day

[blackchubby38]

I like how NYC can find the time time to put three bike rental stations in my neighborhood. But can't/won't do something about the litter and trash that is all over the streets, sidewalks, and in the grass. Or do something about the 3 or 4 emotionally disturbed people that I see on a daily basis.

On a side note, nothing sums up the state of this city better than walking into a subway elevator and seeing human shit on the floor.

[blackchubby38]

I couldn't read the article because I've reached my limit of free articles but this is a good point. And not just incriminating statements respecting crimes but liability for defamation which he no longer is protected against.

Since I don't know what the NY Times article says I can't really evaluate it but at the time twitter made its decision they can't know all of the effects. These things are easier to see in hindsight. He had just stoked an insurrection and was continuing to do so when they banned the idiot.

Here let me help you out since you don't want to sign up for the site.

The New York Times examined Mr. Trump’s nearly 1,600 social media posts from Sept. 1 to Jan. 8, the day Mr. Trump was banned from the platforms. We then tracked the social media engagement with the dozens of written statements he made on his personal website, campaign fund-raising site and in email blasts from Jan. 9 until May 5, which was the day that the Facebook Oversight Board, which reviews some content decisions by the company, said that the company acted appropriately in kicking him off the service.

Before the ban, the social media post with the median engagement generated 272,000 likes and shares. After the ban, that dropped to 36,000 likes and shares. Yet 11 of his 89 statements after the ban attracted as many likes or shares as the median post before the ban, if not more.

How does that happen?

Mr. Trump had long been his own best promoter on social media. The vast majority of people on Twitter and Facebook interacted directly with Mr. Trump’s posts, either liking or sharing them, The Times analysis found.

But after the ban, other popular social media accounts often picked up his messages and posted them themselves. (Last week, Mr. Trump shut down his blog, one of the places he made statements.)

On Oct. 8, Mr. Trump tweeted that the then-Democratic presidential candidate Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his running mate, Kamala Harris, lied “constantly.” The post was liked and shared 501,000 times on Facebook and Twitter.

On March 21, Mr. Trump published a statement on his website saying that his administration had handed over “the most secure border in history.” He went on to criticize the Biden administration’s handling of the border crisis. “Our Country is being destroyed!” Mr. Trump said. The statement was liked and shared more than 661,000 times.


The Global Disinformation Index, a nonpartisan nonprofit that studies disinformation, examined the political leanings of the top accounts sharing Mr. Trump’s statements online after he was barred from Facebook and Twitter. The group classified hundreds of accounts as either left- or right-leaning, or a mix of the two, relying on standards that it established through its work on disinformation risk ratings for news sites and other online media.

One thing that became immediately clear: Mr. Trump’s most ardent supporters continue to spread his message — doing the work that he had been unable to do himself.

The top sharers of the March post included the right-wing publication Breitbart News (159,500 likes and shares), a Facebook page called “President Donald Trump Fan Club” (48,200 likes), Fox News (42,000 likes), and Jenna Ellis (36,700 likes), a lawyer who made regular television appearances as Mr. Trump’s proxy to trumpet his debunked claims of a rigged election.

[Stavros]

On a side note, nothing sums up the state of this city better than walking into a subway elevator and seeing human shit on the floor.

That is horrendous and not how I remember the City from my last visit in 2004 -what explains this decline in standards, this neglect?

[broncofan]

Here let me help you out since you don't want to sign up for the site.

The New York Times examined Mr. Trump’s nearly 1,600 social media posts from Sept. 1 to Jan. 8, the day Mr. Trump was banned from the platforms. We then tracked the social media engagement with the dozens of written statements he made on his personal website, campaign fund-raising site and in email blasts from Jan. 9 until May 5, which was the day that the Facebook Oversight Board, which reviews some content decisions by the company, said that the company acted appropriately in kicking him off the service.

Before the ban, the social media post with the median engagement generated 272,000 likes and shares. After the ban, that dropped to 36,000 likes and shares. Yet 11 of his 89 statements after the ban attracted as many likes or shares as the median post before the ban, if not more.

How does that happen?

Mr. Trump had long been his own best promoter on social media. The vast majority of people on Twitter and Facebook interacted directly with Mr. Trump’s posts, either liking or sharing them, The Times analysis found.

But after the ban, other popular social media accounts often picked up his messages and posted them themselves. (Last week, Mr. Trump shut down his blog, one of the places he made statements.)

On Oct. 8, Mr. Trump tweeted that the then-Democratic presidential candidate Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his running mate, Kamala Harris, lied “constantly.” The post was liked and shared 501,000 times on Facebook and Twitter.

On March 21, Mr. Trump published a statement on his website saying that his administration had handed over “the most secure border in history.” He went on to criticize the Biden administration’s handling of the border crisis. “Our Country is being destroyed!” Mr. Trump said. The statement was liked and shared more than 661,000 times.


The Global Disinformation Index, a nonpartisan nonprofit that studies disinformation, examined the political leanings of the top accounts sharing Mr. Trump’s statements online after he was barred from Facebook and Twitter. The group classified hundreds of accounts as either left- or right-leaning, or a mix of the two, relying on standards that it established through its work on disinformation risk ratings for news sites and other online media.

One thing that became immediately clear: Mr. Trump’s most ardent supporters continue to spread his message — doing the work that he had been unable to do himself.

The top sharers of the March post included the right-wing publication Breitbart News (159,500 likes and shares), a Facebook page called “President Donald Trump Fan Club” (48,200 likes), Fox News (42,000 likes), and Jenna Ellis (36,700 likes), a lawyer who made regular television appearances as Mr. Trump’s proxy to trumpet his debunked claims of a rigged election.

I am signed up to the New York Times. I have read enough of their articles that they want me to pay a dollar a week to read their shit.

People don't make decisions with a crystal ball. At the time he was kicked off twitter it was because he was running an account with millions of followers and amplifying messages that got people killed and was continuing to disseminate bullshit. Did twitter know what the outcome of kicking him off their site would be? No. Nobody knew whether there would be another attempted insurrection or whether we would have a peaceful transition of power.

Anyhow anyone who is curious what he has to say can probably find the orange jackass at parler or something like that or maybe a courtroom near you. Also, his dipstick sons and robot daughter are still on twitter.

Are you arguing that because the machine that disseminates lies that gets people killed is so much bigger than Trump he should have gotten a break? Maybe Jenna Ellis should have been kicked off too and every other person spreading hatred and lies.

[broncofan]

But another thing to note is that the message they provide as an example is from March. I would be curious whether his propaganda was being spread as easily in mid-January shortly after his idiot followers decorated the foreground of the capitol with a gallows, a truck filled with napalm, and two pipe bombs that thankfully didn't explode.

Then read this paragraph:

"Before the ban, the social media post with the median engagement generated 272,000 likes and shares. After the ban, that dropped to 36,000 likes and shares. Yet 11 of his 89 statements after the ban attracted as many likes or shares as the median post before the ban, if not more."

I'm reading this as surprise that some of his messages were still disseminated a lot. But although I'm tired here, I'm seeing 11/89 as being something like 14%. I don't know, so I read that as most of his malicious garbage not being spread as much but some of it was. I think kicking his fat ass off twitter was one of the few just decisions they made.

[blackchubby38]

I am signed up to the New York Times. I have read enough of their articles that they want me to pay a dollar a week to read their shit.

People don't make decisions with a crystal ball. At the time he was kicked off twitter it was because he was running an account with millions of followers and amplifying messages that got people killed and was continuing to disseminate bullshit. Did twitter know what the outcome of kicking him off their site would be? No. Nobody knew whether there would be another attempted insurrection or whether we would have a peaceful transition of power.

Anyhow anyone who is curious what he has to say can probably find the orange jackass at parler or something like that or maybe a courtroom near you. Also, his dipstick sons and robot daughter are still on twitter.

Are you arguing that because the machine that disseminates lies that gets people killed is so much bigger than Trump he should have gotten a break? Maybe Jenna Ellis should have been kicked off too and every other person spreading hatred and lies.

No he shouldn't have gotten a break and I was fine with him being banned from January 6th until the end of his term.

After that when became a private citizen again, I think it would have been better suited to keep him around on social media and whenever he tweeted out misinformation, remove the tweets themselves.

People don't make make decisions with crystal balls. But sometimes before you make a decision, you have to think ahead of what some of the probable outcomes maybe. There is also making a decision and when you see that things are not working out as you had hoped, trying something different.

[blackchubby38]

That is horrendous and not how I remember the City from my last visit in 2004 -what explains this decline in standards, this neglect?

In essence, what Bill De Blasio started, a misguided bail reform law, Covid 19, and rush to reform the NYPD finished.

[broncofan]

No he shouldn't have gotten a break and I was fine with him being banned from January 6th until the end of his term.

After that when became a private citizen again, I think it would have been better suited to keep him around on social media and whenever he tweeted out misinformation, remove the tweets themselves.

People don't make make decisions with crystal balls. But sometimes before you make a decision, you have to think ahead of what some of the probable outcomes maybe. There is also making a decision and when you see that things are not working out as you had hoped, trying something different.

Maybe I agree with your first two paragraphs. I didn't realize that you agreed he should have been banned until the inauguration.

I interpret the article slightly differently than you. I see it as indicating that this network of people is much bigger than him and that if you have a large following a private company can't really keep you from reaching your most ardent followers.

I see banning him as the right of a private company not to be associated with or willingly aid the dissemination of that kind of poison. If we accept everything the article says then it kind of undercuts Republicans' argument that they are being silenced. Being shut out of one outlet does not keep someone from talking it just washes the company's hands of complicity.

Twitter will never be able to show they're consistent because it's inconvenient to ban people given that their business model depends on keeping people there. I can think of worse offenders than Trump and they don't ban those people because they want to make money. The decision to ban Trump did not earn them money though.

Slightly beside the point but if you look at that paragraph I pulled out I also see it as contradicting their main thesis. Some of his statements were amplified but apparently most did not have the same reach.

[Stavros]

Is it not time for the 'Republcan Party' to be explicit about its intentions? To limit the people who can take part in elections, to strenthen the powers of invidual States against Congress; to allow those who wish to, ro replace the Constitution of the USA with the Bibe, and to appoint Donald Trump President for Life?

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-b1868426.html

[KnightHawk 2.0]

Mitch McConnell and his Senate Republicans using the filibuster to block Senate Democrats from For The People Act,should be a wake up call to Democratic Senators Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema that Republicans aren't to help them pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement and For The People Acts, and should stop being stubborn and do the right by eliminating the filibuster so that the US Senate can pass those two acts and President Joe Biden can the bills into law, and put an end to the 400 plus voter suppression laws. Because as long as the filibuster is in play, Mitch McConnell and his republican colleagues are going to use it to stop President Joe Biden and the Democrats from passing anything. https://www.axios.com/senate-republi...ebddf5d00.html