Biden Presidency

GowerND11

GowerND11

Well-known member
Messages
6,538
Reaction score
3,287
NDVirginia19 said:


It'd be nice to know who the fucking President is right now
Click to expand...

You know Presidents still work while away right? Like, they still have meetings, get updates on things, conference calls, etc.


Trump made 500 trips to his own properties while in office. He played over 200 rounds of golf. Now, I'm not one to be a whataboutismer... But yeah. Let's not act like a vacation is a real vacation for a President, no matter the party.
 
NDVirginia19

NDVirginia19

Rally
Messages
4,438
Reaction score
5,142
GowerND11 said:
You know Presidents still work while away right? Like, they still have meetings, get updates on things, conference calls, etc.


Trump made 500 trips to his own properties while in office. He played over 200 rounds of golf. Now, I'm not one to be a whataboutismer... But yeah. Let's not act like a vacation is a real vacation for a President, no matter the party.
Click to expand...
He's spent over 40% of his presidency away from the White house on vacation. His schedule for this week is completely blank. He's not meeting with his advisors, not coordinating things with his cabinet secretaries, not meeting with the press. Just sitting on the beach in Rehobeth
 
GowerND11

GowerND11

Well-known member
Messages
6,538
Reaction score
3,287
NDVirginia19 said:
He's spent over 40% of his presidency away from the White house on vacation. His schedule for this week is completely blank. He's not meeting with his advisors, not coordinating things with his cabinet secretaries, not meeting with the press. Just sitting on the beach in Rehobeth
Click to expand...
And Trump spent 18% of his Presidency golfing. Meet the new boss, same as the old one.

Are you there? Do you know he has no meetings? No updates? No phone calls?

I'm not saying Biden is doing a great job, but I am saying "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
 
ulukinatme

ulukinatme

Carr for QB 2025!
Messages
31,518
Reaction score
17,389
NDVirginia19 said:


Good ol' grandpa joe! He's just like George Washington! Put him on Rushmore!
Click to expand...

Interesting to know that not only did they control narratives at Twitter before Musk bought it, but they were influencing Facebook as well. I guess Facebook is going to go down the tube now because that's what they said happened once Twitter was no longer an echo chamber.
 
GATTACA!

GATTACA!

It's about to get gross
Messages
15,106
Reaction score
12,945
ulukinatme said:
Interesting to know that not only did they control narratives at Twitter before Musk bought it, but they were influencing Facebook as well. I guess Facebook is going to go down the tube now because that's what they said happened once Twitter was no longer an echo chamber.
Click to expand...
It says they asked and Meta refused?
 
Irish#1

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,597
Reaction score
20,058
Not all, but I suspect there was some content removed under the guise of public safety.
 
ulukinatme

ulukinatme

Carr for QB 2025!
Messages
31,518
Reaction score
17,389
GATTACA! said:
It says they asked and Meta refused?
Click to expand...
They didn't really ask though. That's a nice way to say what they actually wrote: "they repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor."
Also, they did kill the laptop story at the start. As a result there are still people today that think it's bogus because of the media and government's effort to squelch it from the start.
 
GATTACA!

GATTACA!

It's about to get gross
Messages
15,106
Reaction score
12,945
ulukinatme said:
They didn't really ask though. That's a nice way to say what they actually wrote: "they repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor."
Also, they did kill the laptop story at the start. As a result there are still people today that think it's bogus because of the media and government's effort to squelch it from the start.
Click to expand...
Semantics. It doesn’t matter if they asked, told, pressured, pleaded, etc. Meta themselves said the decision was of course up to them and they chose not to listen to the request.

First of all, if you don’t think Trump and co we’re also pressuring social media companies to suppress stuff like the Russia investigation I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

Second, I thought all these lib blue haired Silicon Valley tech companies were in the hands of the democrats? Guess that is fake news.
 
ulukinatme

ulukinatme

Carr for QB 2025!
Messages
31,518
Reaction score
17,389
GATTACA! said:
Semantics. It doesn’t matter if they asked, told, pressured, pleaded, etc. Meta themselves said the decision was of course up to them and they chose not to listen to the request.

First of all, if you don’t think Trump and co we’re also pressuring social media companies to suppress stuff like the Russia investigation I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

Second, I thought all these lib blue haired Silicon Valley tech companies were in the hands of the democrats? Guess that is fake news.
Click to expand...
No, that's not what he said. He said that they didn't always obey the requests which brought frustration. Even Politico mentioned that Meta bowed to pressure from the Biden administration and that they regretted it:
So, yes, they did use their power to influence the information being put out and censor things.

Maybe Trump and co used their power to do so, but nobody is reporting on it and there's been no mention of it that I've seen. What do you think they would have pushed back on? If anything Trump rumors that turned out to be untrue were blasted from the rooftops. I'm not sure anyone in the media squelched much during his administration outside of Fox.

Until pretty recently Twitter was very much blue. Zuckcerberg claims he's not for any one candidate, but he poured $350 million into CTCL, a liberal non-profit group that used 90% of that cash to assist election campaigns in blue counties within several states. Silicon Valley has historically been blue, the recent shift has a lot to do with Biden/Harris policies and probably Vance's nomination:
time.com

Can Kamala Harris Win Over Silicon Valley Leaders?

While prominent tech execs have backed Trump in recent months, Harris's Silicon Valley history could impact allegiances.
time.com time.com
 
A

ab2cmiller

Troublemaker in training
Messages
11,453
Reaction score
8,532
I'm very hesitant to believe Zuckerberg when he says in his letter that they regretted the decision to censor. It all smells of "saving our ass" when getting called on the carpet.
 
GATTACA!

GATTACA!

It's about to get gross
Messages
15,106
Reaction score
12,945
ulukinatme said:
No, that's not what he said. He said that they didn't always obey the requests which brought frustration. Even Politico mentioned that Meta bowed to pressure from the Biden administration and that they regretted it:
So, yes, they did use their power to influence the information being put out and censor things.

Maybe Trump and co used their power to do so, but nobody is reporting on it and there's been no mention of it that I've seen. What do you think they would have pushed back on? If anything Trump rumors that turned out to be untrue were blasted from the rooftops. I'm not sure anyone in the media squelched much during his administration outside of Fox.

Until pretty recently Twitter was very much blue. Zuckcerberg claims he's not for any one candidate, but he poured $350 million into CTCL, a liberal non-profit group that used 90% of that cash to assist election campaigns in blue counties within several states. Silicon Valley has historically been blue, the recent shift has a lot to do with Biden/Harris policies and probably Vance's nomination:
time.com

Can Kamala Harris Win Over Silicon Valley Leaders?

While prominent tech execs have backed Trump in recent months, Harris's Silicon Valley history could impact allegiances.
time.com time.com
Click to expand...
 
TorontoGold

TorontoGold

Mr. Dumb Moron
Messages
7,364
Reaction score
5,714
GATTACA! said:
Semantics. It doesn’t matter if they asked, told, pressured, pleaded, etc. Meta themselves said the decision was of course up to them and they chose not to listen to the request.

First of all, if you don’t think Trump and co we’re also pressuring social media companies to suppress stuff like the Russia investigation I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

Second, I thought all these lib blue haired Silicon Valley tech companies were in the hands of the democrats? Guess that is fake news.
Click to expand...
They're so good at censoring that all the top stories on every SM site are and always have been conservative lol
 
ulukinatme

ulukinatme

Carr for QB 2025!
Messages
31,518
Reaction score
17,389
GATTACA! said:
Click to expand...
lolRollingStone. Just because GOP tried to get it taken down doesn't mean Twitter actually listened to Trump's requests back then. Very first example from the article is still up:

x.com

x.com x.com
Before Elon took over conservative voices were routinely shadowbanned or outright banned. The article even says more often than not it wasn't Republicans trying to take things down, it was to get Twitter to uncensor information and people. "Usually with the Republicans, most of the time rather than saying, ‘Why are you taking things down?’ it was, ‘You need to put things back up.’
 
Last edited:
ulukinatme

ulukinatme

Carr for QB 2025!
Messages
31,518
Reaction score
17,389
TorontoGold said:
They're so good at censoring that all the top stories on every SM site are and always have been conservative lol
Click to expand...
Not sure what SM you're referring to, but you do know that Twitter in particular tailors your feed based on the types of accounts you interact with and not necessarily your personal beliefs, right? My top stories are often from left wing accounts. I don't follow any of them, but I routinely have nuts like BrooklynDad_Defiant showing up at the top, Ed Krassenstein, Kamala HQ, Lincoln (Pedo) Project, etc. I just refreshed my page and the first two tweets were from Joe Biden and Kamala herself, followed by Republicans Against Trump.

So, if you're referring to Twitter in particular, I would suggest blocking conservative accounts if you don't want to see them in your feed, or quit interacting with them. It's dependent on the algorithm, it has nothing to do with Elon's personal preference trying to sway you. I don't get any political stuff on Facebook, and I think it has to do with my settings. I've squelched a lot of that intentionally so I don't miss actual stuff from family and friends.
 
TorontoGold

TorontoGold

Mr. Dumb Moron
Messages
7,364
Reaction score
5,714
ulukinatme said:
Not sure what SM you're referring to, but you do know that Twitter in particular tailors your feed based on the types of accounts you interact with and not necessarily your personal beliefs, right? My top stories are often from left wing accounts. I don't follow any of them, but I routinely have nuts like BrooklynDad_Defiant showing up at the top, Ed Krassenstein, Kamala HQ, Lincoln (Pedo) Project, etc. I just refreshed my page and the first two tweets were from Joe Biden and Kamala herself, followed by Republicans Against Trump.

So, if you're referring to Twitter in particular, I would suggest blocking conservative accounts if you don't want to see them in your feed, or quit interacting with them. It's dependent on the algorithm, it has nothing to do with Elon's personal preference trying to sway you.
Click to expand...

I made no claim about Elon, Conservatives have always dominated the most shared posts on Facebook and Twitter. This isn't really a controversial claim. If the "Left" was so good at censorship why do Conservatives always have the highest reach?

Facebook - just a sample of what it looks like
2-13-2023-chart-1.png
 
ulukinatme

ulukinatme

Carr for QB 2025!
Messages
31,518
Reaction score
17,389
TorontoGold said:
I made no claim about Elon, Conservatives have always dominated the most shared posts on Facebook and Twitter. This isn't really a controversial claim. If the "Left" was so good at censorship why do Conservatives always have the highest reach?

Facebook - just a sample of what it looks like
2-13-2023-chart-1.png
Click to expand...

I saw this on Media Matters' website. This data is misleading, Facebook was asked about this very recently:



  • Facebook doesn’t challenge the accuracy of Roose’s data, which after all comes from its own subsidiary. But its executives and spokespeople have long insisted — mostly in private, though occasionally publicly — that these lists present an incomplete and potentially skewed picture of what’s popular on the social network. This week, the company took the rare step of offering actual data to support that claim. In a blog post titled, “What do people actually see on Facebook in the US?”, the company’s VP of analytics and chief marketing officer Alex Schultz dove into the methodology that underlies Roose’s lists, then contrasted that with other ways of slicing the data.
Click to expand...
  • But the fourth of Facebook’s lists seems to suggest that while conservative pages may indeed receive the most engagement, the publishers whose stories reach the largest number of Facebook users tend to be much more mainstream. In a chart showing the publisher domains whose links reached the most Facebook users in the week of October 23, the top sites are not Breitbart or the Daily Wire but cnn.com, foxnews.com, nbcnews.com, washingtonpost.com, and nytimes.com. If that’s the best way of understanding what news people are getting from Facebook, then perhaps it isn’t so different from the news they’d be getting off the platform. See the chart below:
Click to expand...
0*V31L9qJAFlua98Tu


  • The question, then, is how to reconcile those lists and make sense of what they tell us. Here, the details of the methodology are important. As Roose openly advertises, his top-10 lists are the output of a specific query on CrowdTangle, which I’ll try to explain in plain terms. He’s looking at “the sources of the 10 top-performing link posts by U.S. Facebook pages every day, ranked by total interactions” (italics mine).
Click to expand...
  • First, “link posts” means posts that include a link to a website, which rules out posts that are just a text status update, a photo, a Facebook Story, an embedded video, or any combination of the above. (That’s a lot of posts!) Second, looking at posts from “pages” means he’s only counting engagement on posts by, well, public Facebook Pages, and not individual Facebook users. That’s important because Facebook has systematically reduced the importance of pages over the years, in favor of posts from individuals and Facebook Groups. Finally, ranking link posts by “interactions” means that Roose is counting only active engagements such as likes and comments. So a post seen by 100 people that gets 20 likes will rank higher than one seen by 1,000 people that gets 10 likes. The point is that CrowdTangle’s data can only give us insight into a subset of a subset of a subset of Facebook activity — a niche that might plausibly be skewed toward some of the platform’s loudest and most emotionally manipulative voices.
Click to expand...
  • Does that mean Facebook’s chart ranking publisher domains by reach — the one led by cnn.com, foxnews.com, and nbcnews.com — is more representative of the news people get from the social network? In his blog post, Facebook’s Schultz argues that it does indeed present “the actual balance of what people saw on Facebook in the week before the election.” He might be right: This sort of data has been long sought by researchers. But even Facebook’s chart is only a snapshot, one that may present an overly sanitized view of how news and political communication spreads on its platform. It doesn’t tell us how many people are actually clicking on those links to cnn.com et al., as opposed to simply scrolling past them. It doesn’t capture all the political content that people share in the form of memes, text posts, or videos. And of course, there’s the fact that Facebook chose to share this data only for a specific week, which may or may not have been representative.
Click to expand...

In short, as they mentioned, the data from the Top 10 came from a query via CrowdTangle which will boost output based on engagement and not necessarily reach or prevalence. In their example, a site that 100 people saw and was Liked 20 times will get higher ranking than a site that 1,000 people saw but only 10 people Liked. There's other examples, but you get the idea. The data is flawed. More mainstream sites are actually getting circulated and the spread is more evenly distributed.
 
GATTACA!

GATTACA!

It's about to get gross
Messages
15,106
Reaction score
12,945
ulukinatme said:
lolRollingStone. Just because GOP tried to get it taken down doesn't mean Twitter actually listened to Trump's requests back then. Very first example from the article is still up:

x.com

x.com x.com
Before Elon took over conservative voices were routinely shadowbanned or outright banned. The article even says more often than not it wasn't Republicans trying to take things down, it was to get Twitter to uncensor information and people. "Usually with the Republicans, most of the time rather than saying, ‘Why are you taking things down?’ it was, ‘You need to put things back up.’
Click to expand...
Nowhere did I say they were successful. I said you'd be naive to think Trump wouldn't be making requests just like Biden. Just like I'm sure Obama did.

I wasn't criticizing Trump.
 
Irish#1

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,597
Reaction score
20,058
Biden’s lack of response is not what I expected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top