Your    absolutely right. I’m blind. I don’t know shit. I’m a Boomer you know. Just because I experience something for 60+ years doesn’t mean shit to those younger generations. They no    better.

Meh. What do you know...

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/oct/21/peter-greenberger-former-twitter-exec-says-trumps-/

Mr. Greenberger wrote that Twitter and Facebook must “muzzle” Mr. Trump as the election nears, even at the “risk of infringing on the principle of free speech” and “hurting their own bottom lines.”

Doesn’t happen. Nuh-uh.

Ok. Check out CNN’s release of the video. Yeah, that is totally not filled with spin... what... so... evar...

Meh. What do you know...

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/oct/21/peter-greenberger-former-twitter-exec-says-trumps-/

Doesn’t happen. Nuh-uh.

Ok. Check out CNN’s release of the video. Yeah, that is totally not filled with spin... what... so... evar...

I’m a Millennial and what I say goes. So there is no evidence of that. So it doesn’t happen. Especially since no one can open my eyes for me....

Like like like

Meh. What do you know...

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/oct/21/peter-greenberger-former-twitter-exec-says-trumps-/

Doesn’t happen. Nuh-uh.

Ok. Check out CNN’s release of the video. Yeah, that is totally not filled with spin... what... so... evar...

Former,  perhaps just maybe...thats why he is a former exec?  People tend to lose their jobs when they are wrong like that.

Interesting video Mac. As tech workers continue to fall of the edge of the ever-shrinking wealth wagon and into the abyss of chaos and poverty (like the majority of Americans now), we are likely to see more "secrets" getting exposed soon.

Former,  perhaps just maybe...thats why he is a former exec?  People tend to lose their jobs when they are wrong like that.

He's now the Forrest Hills Consulting CEO.  Sounds like he left Twitter for an upward career move.

He didn't lose his job.  He left it.

Duh!

SNIP

Meh. . . doesn't happen

Not tangible. . . no, wait, kinda.

Not credible. . . well, of course not credible, because it. . . does. . . not. . . happen. . . evar!!!

You can't listen to this and still believe FB isn't manipulating the elections.

Zuckerberg testified before Congress under oath that FB is not biased against Conservatives and in favor of Liberals.  There is now a DOJ referral for criminal charges against him for perjury.

In response to Sir Omni's KNOWN and UNCONTESTABLE fact that FB would not alienate 50% of their customers by allowing only Liberal posts, listen to the video.

FB actually creates bubbles for Left and Right by recommending friendships among people of like ideologies.  So, all the Conservatives find a home among the Conservatives, and the same with Liberals.  That reduces the contention and trolling to a degree that keeps most people from signing off for good.  In the meantime, much more content is allowed in the Liberal bubble, while content with positive Conservative messaging and negative Liberal messaging are throttled back for Conservatives.

If they manipulate you to remain in the bubbles, they persuade you to stay a member.  However, you're also being mushroomed:  kept in the dark and being fed manure. 

He's now the Forrest Hills Consulting CEO.  Sounds like he left Twitter for an upward career move.

He didn't lose his job.  He left it.

Duh!

Yeah and the bunch of other high ups that decide to retire or leave "voluntarily".  They rarely actually get fired. 

Yeah and the bunch of other high ups that decide to retire or leave "voluntarily".  They rarely actually get fired.

Did you verify that "fact?"  Insider information?  Know something the rest of the world doesn't?

Personal experience is not evidence.  You are not a prominent Republican, public official, well-known journalist, or whatever else.  You do not have hundreds of thousands of friends/followers.

The New York Post still has not had their account unlocked, even though there is ample evidence in the public domain, including a fact witness who gave a press conference, to support the NYP story as NOT unverified.

Personal experience is still evidence, it just is not statistically significant on its own. But since you touched on that I am going to start another thread to see other's experience on this and we can get some more quantitative data.

According to the Twitter CEO the NY Post just needs to delete their old post which will unlock their account and then they can freely post the exact same article. Seems an odd way to unlock the account but it does not appear to be totally accurate that the NY Post has been completely shut down on twitter. Also according to the Twitter CEO, verification was not the reason it was blocked rather he claimed it was because it contained hacked information.

Personal experience is still evidence, it just is not statistically significant on its own. But since you touched on that I am going to start another thread to see other's experience on this and we can get some more quantitative data.

According to the Twitter CEO the NY Post just needs to delete their old post which will unlock their account and then they can freely post the exact same article. Seems an odd way to unlock the account but it does not appear to be totally accurate that the NY Post has been completely shut down on twitter. Also according to the Twitter CEO, verification was not the reason it was blocked rather he claimed it was because it contained hacked information.

If you know how these social media posts work, the initial post is critical.  It makes them MONEY and gets the news they post in the mainstream immediately.  One of the problems with, "We fixed it 24 hours later," is the NY Post misses getting the jump on the other news sites.  Once they miss that window, the shares, clicks and revenue drop dramatically.  Can't unring that bell.

As for the locked account, we only have Jack's word that's the case, and we have no confirmation from NY Post they were ever advised to delete and report the articles that got the account locked.

It's like getting arrested for a red flag report.  Yes, there is a remedy, but it still winds up screwing you in the wallet and your life in general.  No way to unring the bell once it's been rung.

If you know how these social media posts work, the initial post is critical.  It makes them MONEY and gets the news they post in the mainstream immediately.  One of the problems with, "We fixed it 24 hours later," is the NY Post misses getting the jump on the other news sites.  Once they miss that window, the shares, clicks and revenue drop dramatically.  Can't unring that bell.

If that is accurate (I don't use twitter) then that certainly seems to be playing dirty if that was their intent.

As for the locked account, we only have Jack's word that's the case, and we have no confirmation from NY Post they were ever advised to delete and report the articles that got the account locked.

Agreed, I don't know that I believe his explanation but I am not a Twitter software technician to be able to prove or disprove his claim. If Twitter really can unlock an account themselves I think they should put that in their next update.

It's like getting arrested for a red flag report.  Yes, there is a remedy, but it still winds up screwing you in the wallet and your life in general.  No way to unring the bell once it's been rung.

A bit of a hyperbole but I know where you are going with it.

If that is accurate (I don't use twitter) then that certainly seems to be playing dirty if that was their intent.


Agreed, I don't know that I believe his explanation but I am not a Twitter software technician to be able to prove or disprove his claim. If Twitter really can unlock an account themselves I think they should put that in their next update.


A bit of a hyperbole but I know where you are going with it.

This was discussed in detail on several YT videos and webcasts.  An additional facet to making the NY Post take down the original post destroys all the stats and interactions for that post. 

Let's say the original story hit 1 million likes and 800K shares/retweets.  Now they take it down.  They put the exact same story up 2-4 days later.  The stats start at zero.  If they are lucky, they might get half the original numbers -- probably less.  People look at the stats to see how popular it is.  Higher numbers creates more interest.  interest drives interactions, comments, and shares.

Speaking of comments, sometimes those are more important than the original post as visitors will add detail, opinions, and references to other sources that support or refute the story.  If you like to do research on news articles, that's a great place to find leads.  Removing the original post destroys the original story's comments.  All those users' time and effort posting comments was wasted.

Yeah, Jack knows he could fix the original story if he really wanted to.  He wants it taken down to prevent it from retaining all the "value" it generated.  The Social Media companies do this all the time.  You get placed in a penalty box -- rightly or wrongly -- and you miss the "interest peak."  That story was trending all day yesterday.  Today it's old news.

FB and Twitter are censoring Trump as he is telling voters if they mail their votes in, they can/should still go to the poll to verify their vote was counted.  If it has not been counted yet, they can//should fill out a ballot/provisional.  Most states will accept the walk-in ballot UNLESS the mail-in vote is counted either before or after election day.  Then the walk-in ballot is tossed.

Social Media has allowed DEMOCRAT supporters to tell their followers THE EXACT SAME THING!  No censoring.

FB actually creates bubbles for Left and Right by recommending friendships among people of like ideologies.  So, all the Conservatives find a home among the Conservatives, and the same with Liberals.  That reduces the contention and trolling to a degree that keeps most people from signing off for good.  In the meantime, much more content is allowed in the Liberal bubble, while content with positive Conservative messaging and negative Liberal messaging are throttled back for Conservatives.

If they manipulate you to remain in the bubbles, they persuade you to stay a member.  However, you're also being mushroomed:  kept in the dark and being fed manure. 

 No I could be wrong but my impression was that what Facebook was trying to do was figure out what type of information you were most interested in and put that in front of you. So if Facebook algorithms could tell that you liked hot rods you might see advertisements for car parts. If Facebook could tell that  you liked sports that might put more sports news in your feed. If Facebook saw that you liked posts from conservative commentators then that would be at the top of your feed. I do notice that posts by certain friends on Facebook where I have a history of commenting back seem to be towards the top  of my feed. Likewise on Instagram the stories of certain users that I always read get placed in front of other users that I don’t commonly read.

I don’t think Facebook is necessarily trying to keep us in our bubbles, I think that the algorithms try to give us what we like and just end up feeding us information on our side of the aisle more often. I suppose that is sort of a bubble but not one out of intent.

No I could be wrong but my impression was that what Facebook was trying to do was figure out what type of information you were most interested in and put that in front of you. So if Facebook algorithms could tell that you liked hot rods you might see advertisements for car parts. If Facebook could tell that  you liked sports that might put more sports news in your feed. If Facebook saw that you liked posts from conservative commentators then that would be at the top of your feed. I do notice that posts by certain friends on Facebook where I have a history of commenting back seem to be towards the top  of my feed. Likewise on Instagram the stories of certain users that I always read get placed in front of other users that I don’t commonly read.

I don’t think Facebook is necessarily trying to keep us in our bubbles, I think that the algorithms try to give us what we like and just end up feeding us information on our side of the aisle more often. I suppose that is sort of a bubble but not one out of intent.

The bubble idea was told by a FB insider.  Should I believe them, or your feelings?

It's not either or.  They have several ways of manipulating users.  These are just two of them.

No I could be wrong but my impression was that what Facebook was trying to do was figure out what type of information you were most interested in and put that in front of you. So if Facebook algorithms could tell that you liked hot rods you might see advertisements for car parts. If Facebook could tell that  you liked sports that might put more sports news in your feed. If Facebook saw that you liked posts from conservative commentators then that would be at the top of your feed. I do notice that posts by certain friends on Facebook where I have a history of commenting back seem to be towards the top  of my feed. Likewise on Instagram the stories of certain users that I always read get placed in front of other users that I don’t commonly read.

I don’t think Facebook is necessarily trying to keep us in our bubbles, I think that the algorithms try to give us what we like and just end up feeding us information on our side of the aisle more often. I suppose that is sort of a bubble but not one out of intent.

I understand what you're saving if it related to a slap chop or TWIX candy.  But they are trying to swing an election.  I remember when Russia was all the story.  Not once did I see any pro Trump stuff on my feeds on FB.  It was all pro Clinton and anti Trump.  So there is no way Russia influenced FB for me personally like how the DNC stated Russia did.

Social media companies are using "algorithms" as a scapegoat.  "It wasn't us, it was the system" type of BS.

I understand what you're saving if it related to a slap chop or TWIX candy.  But they are trying to swing an election.  I remember when Russia was all the story.  Not once did I see any pro Trump stuff on my feeds on FB.  It was all pro Clinton and anti Trump.  So there is no way Russia influenced FB for me personally like how the DNC stated Russia did.

Social media companies are using "algorithms" as a scapegoat.  "It wasn't us, it was the system" type of BS.

Do we have any figures for advertising amounts?  This might just be a case of democrats spending more money,  that means more advertisements and more chance you see them.  Rather than some conspiracy Facebook is influencing the election on purpose.

Do we have any figures for advertising amounts?  This might just be a case of democrats spending more money,  that means more advertisements and more chance you see them.  Rather than some conspiracy Facebook is influencing the election on purpose.

Does CNN, NYT, MSN, Maddow, all pay to have anti Trump stuff advertised?  Maybe FB got them a good deal, pay $1 and they can promote it.