Critics Call White House Social Media Bias Survey A 'Data Collection Ploy' (sfgate.com) 199
An anonymous reader quotes the Washington Post:
Venky Ganesan, a partner at technology investor Menlo Ventures, told The Washington Post that the White House's new survey about bias on social media is "pure kabuki theatre" and an attempt to curry political points with conservatives. He said the Trump administration's repeated accusations that tech companies censor conservative voices are unfounded because even though most Silicon Valley executives are liberal or libertarian, they wouldn't let politics get in the way of their primary goal: making money...
The Internet Association, a trade association representing Facebook, Google and other tech companies, also pushed back on President Trump's repeated accusations that their products are biased against conservatives. The association says the platforms are open and enable the speech of all Americans -- including the president himself. "That's why the president uses Twitter so much," said Michael Beckerman, the Internet Association's chief executive. "He actually used Twitter for this particular announcement, which is perhaps ironic."
The article adds that the Trump administration "declined to tell The Washington Post what it planned to do with the data it's amassing." But on Twitter the New York Times technology columnist Kevin Roose argued that the survey "is just going to be used to assemble a voter file, which Trump will then pay Facebook millions of dollars to target with ads about how biased Facebook is."
Vice also believes it's a "craven data collection ploy" and "an elaborate way of getting people to subscribe to the White House's email list," adding "If this whole enterprise feels shady, that's because it is... The site isn't even hosted on a government server, but was created with Typeform, a Spain-based web tool that lets anyone set up simple surveys." Mashable also notes that the site "also just so happens to have an absolutely bonkers privacy policy" which includes allowing the White House to edit everything that's submitted.
Click here to read even more reactions.
The Internet Association, a trade association representing Facebook, Google and other tech companies, also pushed back on President Trump's repeated accusations that their products are biased against conservatives. The association says the platforms are open and enable the speech of all Americans -- including the president himself. "That's why the president uses Twitter so much," said Michael Beckerman, the Internet Association's chief executive. "He actually used Twitter for this particular announcement, which is perhaps ironic."
The article adds that the Trump administration "declined to tell The Washington Post what it planned to do with the data it's amassing." But on Twitter the New York Times technology columnist Kevin Roose argued that the survey "is just going to be used to assemble a voter file, which Trump will then pay Facebook millions of dollars to target with ads about how biased Facebook is."
Vice also believes it's a "craven data collection ploy" and "an elaborate way of getting people to subscribe to the White House's email list," adding "If this whole enterprise feels shady, that's because it is... The site isn't even hosted on a government server, but was created with Typeform, a Spain-based web tool that lets anyone set up simple surveys." Mashable also notes that the site "also just so happens to have an absolutely bonkers privacy policy" which includes allowing the White House to edit everything that's submitted.
Click here to read even more reactions.
Newsweek published these responses to the social media bias survey:
- Journalism professor and media critic Jay Rosen: "Everything about this is creepy, stupid and vain."
- NBC reporter Ben Collins: "The propaganda war in 2020 won't happen on Facebook, but in the darkness of a RE:FWD:FWD email to grampa."
And the Washington Post published these reactions:
- The EFF: "While we think companies have a moral responsibility to step up on this, seeing them regulated is not the answer."
- Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon: "The White House move is a major escalation of the right-wing effort to pressure tech companies to leave vile content online, instead of doing the right thing and policing their platforms."
- "In a letter to the White House, sent Thursday, the Electronic Privacy Information Center said there is no evidence that the government ever conducted and published a report on its data-collection activities, a mandatory inquiry called a Privacy Impact Assessment. Absent that, the Washington-based watchdog organization said the administration's social media campaign may be "unlawful.'"
- Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii): "If it's not authoritarian, it's the first or second cousin of authoritarianism."
No surprise there (Score:4, Interesting)
Trump likes 'em dumb
They'll fall for this hook, line, and sinker. And be proud of it.
Re: No surprise there (Score:1)
You are being kind. Team Trump likes them inbred and/or living in mom's basement.
It's called push polling (Score:3)
Okay, the AC got me to peak with the "surprise" subject. That's because I was so surprised the summary doesn't mention "push poll". Nor does the summary of the earlier story on Slashdot. Nor do the comments mention "push poll".
It's really easy to prepare a poll or survey. It's extremely hard to prepare a survey that reveals any truth. If you want to assess the results of any survey, the first thing to check is who paid for it. A skilled pollster can deliver any results you want.
However polls of this sort ar
A Washington Post article gets posted? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Opinion and guesses (Score:4, Insightful)
LOL, you are so hilarious, you haven't cited a single meaningful input on the actual problem here, that Trump is using government resources for his own political benefit, because you don't care.
But heck, even when Trump might have a legitimate cause of action, such as his voter integrity commission (remember that? Remember him incessantly claiming there were millions of illegal votes out there somewhere?), he utterly fails to accomplish anything meaningful.
Just tell us how much your "hero" Scott Addams is paying you to post your propaganda here. Show us the receipts.
Re: (Score:2)
As Trump's two main policies, protectionism and limiting immigration, are historically left-wing policies (to protect union jobs) one could argue CNN is therefore right wing.
Seriously. The side flopping on this issue by pundits on both sides is flabbergasting.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's an actual study [thegatewaypundit.com]showing liberal bias in Google top stories. It has an experimental method, and a well-described method of coming to its conclusion. We can dissect and argue the merits of their technique and the scientific method.
And from the link "The most common being none other than left-leaning CNN". Which is kinda hilarious because I've always considered CNN to be right-leaning.
The papers with the ideological leanings were all paywalls. But I'd posit that Fox News has spawned an eco-system of extreme right wing (and often low quality) news sites and dragged the GOP with it, and so right-leaning sites organizations CNN are now "left-leaning".
Here's a PEW research poll [thegatewaypundit.com] that shows the MSM is more biased than Pravda. We can argue the polling method and questions, and audience specifics.
We can argue all of it, that a ridiculous conclusion. Trump lies to a ridiculous degree,
You literally used Fake news to justify your point (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, and Twitter can't block Nazis since they'd start blocking the GOP [businessinsider.com].
You state a fact when the fact is this is entirely speculative :
https://www.truthorfiction.com/is-twitter-withholding-a-nazi-hunting-algorithm-for-fear-of-inadvertently-banning-republican-lawmakers/ [truthorfiction.com]
The whole thing was started by a single tweet by an Internet nobody, based on a Vice article that quoted speculation by an engineer who compared it to blocking ISIS meant it impacted some Arabic publishers that reported on ISIS.
Trying to moderate away Free Speech would result in people trying to discuss solutions
Re:You literally used Fake news to justify your po (Score:4, Informative)
Except the GOP does have a white supremacy problem. Steve King has been blowing dog-whistles for years [nytimes.com] and it wasn't until he literally defended white supremacy that the GOP turned on him.
And the GOP literally elected a man who spent years promoting a conspiracy theory that the first black president was born in another country and not a US citizen, and is now inviting deranged conspiracy theorists into the Oval Office for photo ops [washingtonpost.com] (I mean seriously, WTF).
Yeah, there exist marginal figures on the left as well, but they're generally held to the fringes of the Democratic party, and they're not the ones who end up calling the shots.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Except the GOP does have a white supremacy problem. Steve King has been blowing dog-whistles for years [nytimes.com] and it wasn't until he literally defended white supremacy that the GOP turned on him.
If you're going to say that, then the Democrats have an anti-semitism problem. What with their association with the Women's March and their ties with Louis Farrakhan.
The difference ? The GOP denounced Steve King. We're still waiting on that Democrat denounciation of anti-semitism by its sitting Congress people.
And the GOP literally elected a man who spent years promoting a conspiracy theory that the first black president was born in another country and not a US citizen, and is now inviting deranged conspiracy theorists into the Oval Office for photo ops (I mean seriously, WTF).
Russia. Collusion.
Checkmate. You don't get to play that card anymore.
Yeah, there exist marginal figures on the left as well, but they're generally held to the fringes of the Democratic party
That's why when it came time to condemn them, Nancy Pelosi simply couldn't do it. Because they are "held to the fringes". Pl
Re: (Score:2)
You don't get to play that card anymore.
You're treating this like it's a game. I'm not a member of either side here, I'm a centrist and see both major parties as full of self serving people and nutballs. So when some idiocy is pointed out about your favorite party and you turn around to point at idiocy in your least favorite party, then you're just playing a game of scoring points. And that's dangerous.
While I have seen dangerous stuff in both the Democratic leadership and the Republican leadership for a very long time, the Republican leadershi
Re: (Score:2)
Hillary Clinton was the primary instigator of that particular theory.
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. One of her campaigners started that and it did not get far at all and fizzled out. Until Trump grabbed that conspiracy theory and ran with it for many years. He never abandoned that theory until the midst of his campaign. At the least is should show that Trump is highly gullible, and at the worst it shows him as treating his voters as gullible.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep this post in mind the next time Ilhan Omar spews something antisemetic. "Fringes," my fucking ass.
CNN & MSNBC are both hard right on economics (Score:2)
They're a little left on social issues. A _little_. They still do "both sides" coverage that does crap like give folks a chance to talk about how homosexuality might be a disease or abortion is murder. Contrast that with Fox News who's gone so far left that they don't even have an Alan Combs style left wing punching back anymore.
TL;DR; Establishment Me
Re: (Score:3)
When Alex Jones got banned, I was surprised to see so many equate this with conservatives being banned, because Alex Jones isn't conservative at all and has no classic conservative viewpoints, just like Trumpism isn't really conservative. Jones is just a nutball and nutball hasn't been a popular political movement since the Know Nothing party (also a nativist movement just like Trumpism). Always amazed at how most people claiming to be conservative or liberal don't even know what the terms mean, it's a du
Anti-conservative bias is well proven by now (Score:1, Insightful)
The problem is that anti-conservative bias is well-proven by now. You get people being banned for having right-wing views, yet groups like BLM and antifa - two actual terrorist groups promoting violence against law enforcement - are allowed to continue using these platforms. Twitter may let Trump use it, but they routinely blackhole conservative hashtags and the "events" that they promote via their "discovery" feature are heavily biased against conservatives. (For a recent example, see their mocking Ted Cru
Re: Anti-conservative bias is well proven by now (Score:2, Insightful)
People donâ(TM)t get banned for being right-wing. They do get banned for hate speech.
They should get banned for demonstrably proclaiming untrue statements as true facts but the will never happen.
Re: Anti-conservative bias is well proven by now (Score:1)
9-11 Truth deniers should be banned. Blaming Islam is a form of hate speech.
AE911Truth dot Org
Re: Anti-conservative bias is well proven by now (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no such thing as hate speech. There is free speech and there is incitement. But there is no "I don't like your opinion, so you must be silenced" speech.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no such thing as hate speech. There is free speech and there is incitement. But there is no "I don't like your opinion, so you must be silenced" speech.
Hate speech is incitement against a protected class, don't make this all complicated and stuff. It ain't.
Re: (Score:3)
Not according to the Supreme Court.
Re: Anti-conservative bias is well proven by now (Score:4, Insightful)
Private platform, private rules and TOS, deal with it
https://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/christian-mingle-same-sex-dating-lgbt-lawsuit-california-1.3663871 [www.cbc.ca]
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/colorado-baker-back-court-over-second-lgbtq-bias-allegation-n949836 [nbcnews.com]
Apparently, "Private Platform, private rules" only works in cases that targets Conservatives.
Re: (Score:2)
When those laws potentially violate the First Amendment protections of religion or speech, yes, Americans should have a problem with it.
It's the unpopular speeh that has always needed protection, as you amply demonstrate.
Re: (Score:3)
How can you source what has been deleted?
What good is a phone call if...
https://youtu.be/rWBntJAvTmY [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. If someone has done such tests, where's the beef?
Re: (Score:2)
No sir, you're looking for potatoes on the side. The beef is out there. I mean, if the Democratic party has bias against it's own candidates (Bernie Sanders) and with shadow banning becoming more rampant you really think all this smoke means there is no fire? To be fair, the American people have been conditioned to be part of the problem, and I often see things on FB like, "White people don't let your president get your ass whooped!" When called out I was told it was "a joke". Just imagine if one had writte
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
BLM and Antifa are terrorist groups? Coward, you need better sources of information. I'm more concerned with anti-progressive bias.
Re: (Score:1)
They are both groups that actively commit acts of violence against others for political reasons. I'm not sure what other word you would use for that. Both of them are violent groups that actively incite violence against others as well as violence against law enforcement. What else would you call them?
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Now, can you describe, in context, why these groups exist? Your descriptions of them lack the crucial reason of why they exist in the first place. Without that, your fevered words about them ring hollow.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Now, can you describe, in context, why these groups exist? Your descriptions of them lack the crucial reason of why they exist in the first place. Without that, your fevered words about them ring hollow.
Why they exist? It's not complicated. They exist to further the political aims of the people who fund them and participate in their activities. Not that it matters. You seem to think that some leftist's distaste for the fact that, for example, businesses exist ... is a reasonable reason to smash up some business owner's store front for likes on Facebook. Or that someone who hates people people because they're Jewish makes it OK to put on their black Antifa costumes and then beat people bloody in order to p
Re: (Score:1)
Because they state that there's a disproportionate amount of violence from police against blacks? While critically ignoring that there is a statistical p probability multiplier that per capita, a person with black skin is committing it?
That's basically shouting that a symptom is unacceptable, while refusing to acknowledge that there's a root problem. Which they will under no circumstances allow to be discussed.
There's definitely a signal that things are not good. But there's no real research allowed into
Re: (Score:2)
Really.. Out of 7.7 billion people, how many are jailed for going to the loo. I suspect you'll find the answer is pretty much exactly the same across all skin colours. That's how I'd explain that.
Yes, I've downloaded songs I've paid for on things like iTunes. What was your point about that?
Now, every time a cop crosses a line they're not supposed to, you and I are dead in agreement. They're a risk to everyone, in countries with gun carrying cops and in countries without. That's why there are internal i
Re: (Score:1)
I can help with that.
BLM exists because the police shoot and otherwise kill black people needlessly and usually get away with it. And black folks are tired of it and want the police to protect their lives.
They made several key mistakes:
- They made their movement political and chose a side. That's just telling half the country you don't care about them.
- They made their movement about race rather than about right and wrong. Black are 12% of the population. They need to work with the other 88% if they wan
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I can help with that.
BLM exists because the police shoot and otherwise kill black people needlessly and usually get away with it. And black folks are tired of it and want the police to protect their lives.
Unfortunately, that statistics show [theconversation.com] that is not the case. Black or white, it is not a matter of skin color that gets you shot by police, it is your involvement in a violent crime. And that, overwhelmingly (based on their percent of the population) violent crimes are caused by black criminals [fbi.gov]. Maybe that is the reason that black and white police officers [psmag.com] shoot black criminals in equal rates - because, as a percent of the population at large, they have a much higher rate of violent crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that is the reason that black and white police officers [psmag.com] shoot black criminals in equal rates - because, as a percent of the population at large, they have a much higher rate of violent crime.
Yeah, like I said, that's one of the problems with BLM. They made it about race. That's a poor choice for organizing a movement. All you get is race talk in response. And black folks aren't going to win when they're 12% of the population and when people can counter with stats about disproportionate black crime.
Police killing anyone needlessly, including "criminals", is a problem. Even if police get it right most of the time, the other times are still a problem. We don't need the police to be a murder
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So why is it racist to say "All Lives Matter", but not to say "Black Lives Matter"? Even the press holds to this message. Perhaps that does show the distinct bias in the press that the President complains about...
Because calling people "racist" is an all-purpose tactic for any and all situations. It meant something once, long ago. It doesn't any more. It's just anger formed into (now) meaningless words with zero thought behind them.
If BLM wants to focus on police killing black people, picking fights with anyone who wants to claim that other lives also matter is very stupid and counterproductive. They become just another group of virtue-signaling finger-pointers for regular people to ignore. It won't help the ne
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, Antifa is a labeled as Domestic terrorists :
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/01/antifa-charlottesville-violence-fbi-242235 [politico.com]
Because that's what you call people who use physical violence as a response to political speech while hiding their identity.
Black Lives Matter is just an activist group who fails to look at the actual data and simply want to push anti-police rethoric. They are mostly harmless, except when they cause strife and divide between communities and the police, instead of creating bon
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Anti-conservative bias is well proven by now (Score:5, Insightful)
"There's no real question that there is bias against conservatives. It's quite real."
Yeah, when your positions are not reality-based, you may find that reality seems biased against you.
Re: (Score:1)
Hey you should compare the number of mass shootings by BLM, Antifa, and your conservative peers, and then you'll discover why nobody wants you around.
Re: (Score:2)
Err.. Compare the coverage the New Zealand shooter got (and the type of coverage misleadingly referring to him as a "right wing" person when his manifesto reads otherwise), compared to the recent Colorado STEM shooter, who even snopes has to use Breitbart to prove the media isn't "biased" :
https://www.snopes.com/news/2019/05/13/colorado-school-shooter/ [snopes.com]
Compare the New Zealand Mosque shooting of Muslims with Sri Lanka's bombing of "Easter Worshipper" (could be anyone really, just folk who worship this Easter
Re: (Score:2)
> Suggesting that someone consume Tucker Carlson, of all people, as part of their regular news intake
Tucker Carlson is not a News anchor. He's a political analyst who gives his opinion on things.
The first step to a healthy news diet is seperating News from Opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
>peddles Tuckers' personal news organization
First, while Tucker partnered to launch the site, there is no indication he is still around it.
Second, the site's Fact check division, https://checkyourfact.com/about-us [checkyourfact.com] is even used by Facecbook as part of their fact checking initiative. Dailly Caller has a mix of opinions and news. Their news pieces, while having a right-wing slant, are no worse than news you'd read on things like CNN or MSNBC or Vox and the Verge for that matter, all sources most people have no qualms using, even though they have anti-
Donald Trump is Following Adolf Hitler's Footsteps (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
nice.
Re: (Score:1)
Really? So why was it that Obama and the Obama administration illegally wiretapped reporters. I mean let's be realistic, for all the ebil fox bullshit people spout, they were right there filing on behalf of other media outlets when the Obama admin did that. If Trump did half the shit that the Obama administration did, you'd be waving pitchforks in the street and demanding impeachment. Let's not forget either, that the Obama administration and the DNC had direct pipelines to multiple media organizations
Re: (Score:2)
Some of us happen to remember that there's still two dozen reporters that sued under the Obama administration for illegal wiretaps and are "just" getting their days in court now. In some cases, the current DOJ pulled their defense, apologized, and gave financial payments over it. Bonus points if you find their names, and I'll give you a hint. It wasn't the reporters married to senior officials inside the Obama White House at the time.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
So your racism & sexism is so strong that you prefer a treasonous weasel over a woman or a black man.
Pathetic. You make me ashamed to be an American.
Re: (Score:1)
I believe the Coward was referring to President Clinton.
Re: (Score:1)
So your racism & sexism is so strong that you prefer a treasonous weasel over a woman or a black man.
Go away, Ivan. You're using 2016's trolling techniques and people finally figured it out.
Re: (Score:1)
Despite the media heralding Clinton as America's first black president, he wasn't.
Re: (Score:1)
Where is the white supremacy. It's OK to be white. (This got the Minecraft creator punished for saying). It's ok to be whatever color you are. That's not white supremacy. That's just not apologizing for being born. The left has tried VERY hard to conflate Nationalism with the National Socialist Workers Party (Nazi's). It's not white supremacy to prefer your own culture and insist on not apologizing to everyone who tries to make you feel guilty for the past. Are there racists and white supremacist in the Uni
Re: (Score:2)
I'd wager, about at least 30% of liberals DON'T like black people.
See I can pull numbers out of my ass too.
Thanks, Captain Obvious! (Score:3)
The purpose of a survey is to collect data.
Re: (Score:1)
She's a journalist, give her a chance, she doesn't understand things like "Surveys are data collection", her skills are entirely about writing her state of mind in catchy prose that generates views, not understanding the world around her.
Wrong data (Score:2)
The purpose of a survey is to collect data. The accusation is instead of collecting data for it's stated purpose, it's being used to generate a mailing list for Donald Trump's re-election campaign.
I'm not sure that's true, but it's a different issue.
Re: (Score:2)
...it's being used to generate a mailing list for Donald Trump's re-election campaign.
If we're going to make up conspiracy theories, let's make them less boring.
Re: (Score:2)
It's sad that people feel the need to be constantly entertained.
Re: (Score:2)
It's sad that people feel the need to be constantly entertained.
If it's going to be sad, it should be sad in a compelling, dramatic way.
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose of a survey is to collect data.
to answer a specific question.
Not to build an ad campaign or donor list (well at least that wasn't supposed to be the purpose of this survey).
Re: (Score:2)
The survey didn't actually state what its purpose is. The President is the Executive branch, so obviously the goal cannot be to Legislate. At most he can push Congress to address the issue. At least he can use it on the Campaign trail and make it a defining part of his re-election bid that he will push for the oft-called for "Internet Bill of Rights" (something even most Slashdot pundits would be for, if it were any other man pushing for it, but will suddenly oppose because it is Trump doing it).
The surv
Re: (Score:2)
The survey didn't actually state what its purpose is. The President is the Executive branch, so obviously the goal cannot be to Legislate. At most he can push Congress to address the issue. At least he can use it on the Campaign trail and make it a defining part of his re-election bid that he will push for the oft-called for "Internet Bill of Rights" (something even most Slashdot pundits would be for, if it were any other man pushing for it, but will suddenly oppose because it is Trump doing it).
The survey is entirely voluntary. Don't want to give them your info ? Then don't.
That misses the two fundamental questions:
1) Is the data going to be used for a different purpose than the participants expect?
2) If so, then is the mismatch intentional?
If the answer to those two questions is yes then it's a big ethical problem.
Re: (Score:2)
That misses the two fundamental questions:
1) Is the data going to be used for a different purpose than the participants expect?
2) If so, then is the mismatch intentional?
If the answer to those two questions is yes then it's a big ethical problem.
If the participant is making assumptions, that's on the participant. The stated goal is quite literally "Share your story with Trump". Literally. From the survey :
SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS should advance FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Yet too many Americans have seen their accounts suspended, banned, or fraudulently reported for unclear âoeviolationsâ of user policies.
No matter your views, if you suspect political bias caused such an action to be taken against you, share your story with President Trump.
All you're doing is sharing your story. The form makes it clear that other than subscribing you to updates from the Trump Campaign, there is nothing else around this. As such, you're free to not submit your information.
If you "expect" anything else than Trump using this in speeches or to maybe at most push for Congress to act (which literally
So what about the bias, critics? (Score:2, Insightful)
Social media is known to protect sexism and violence. An example of this is Clementine Ford, a sexist Australian woman who has tweeted hateful statements against men to goad them into reacting to then turn around and portray herself as a victim (
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd suggest you're wearing you ideology very much on your sleave right now. You've got links to a couple of anecdotes to demonize the other side, then drop "conservatives are being censored in mass" with no data, and then you drop 'terrorism!" for a good scare to cement your case a bit but then follow that with a link to an article about the challenges social media companies are facing combating terrorist groups on their sites. In other words, a link to an article that only deflates the points you seem to b
Re: (Score:1)
then drop "conservatives are being censored in mass" with no data
Ironic considering you're literally responding to a post under an article about someone being criticized for attempting to gather said data. "You have no data!", "Fine let's get data.", "NEFARIOUS INTENT! NEFARIOUS INTENT!". This is all getting too predictable.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you even read my post? What I did was point out that his data was garbage.
Re: How is he wearing it on his "sleave"? (Score:1)
Have you looked at the hamas twitter? None of it is violent. It's posting articles about violence happening. But nowhere in the 15 minutes I spent scrolling thru, did I read one hateful message.
Slashdot Gossip Column (Score:4, Insightful)
Did I really just read a slashdot story that just a list of sound bites?
"The propaganda war in 2020 won't happen on Facebook, but in the darkness of a RE:FWD:FWD email to grampa."
– hardhitting news EditorDavid feels you need to know to stay informed
How about instead of a gossip column of "X believes," "Y said," instead presenting facts and analysis.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
There are facts in them! They used the word "The" and Facebook. Facebook exists ALL FACTS! O.o
Hypocrisy in action, folks! (Score:1)
Conservatives whine and cry about the private property rights of business owners when the subject is making cakes for gay weddings.
Then they whine and cry when business owners exercise those very same private property rights on their social media platforms.
You can't have it both ways, snowflakes.
The truth, of course, is that the usual conservative views about limited government and fiscal responsibility are not being silenced. Racism and bigotry are being silenced. Are the conservatives finally admitting th
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you believe that, then... Liberals believe its ok to force a baker to make a gay wedding cake(IDK how he plans on doing that, didn't even know they liked sex..) and its not ok to force an online service to serve people who they disagree with. See why thats a bad argument. Because both sides went bat shit crazy on both issues..
Wait! (Score:2, Troll)
"A survey... is a data collection ploy"?
Next you'll tell me that books are an "information storage medium ploy"?
What amazing reporting.
EMail list (Score:2)
getting people to subscribe to the White House's email list
So sign up for a throw-away e-mail account on a Russian server. Subscribe to the White House mailing list using that address. Sit back and watch the SHTF.
most the world is biased against conservatives (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't put the equals sign between GOP and the Neocons. Neocons are a very sleazy crowd with no allegiance to a specific party, although they did enjoy an alliance with republicans from circa GWB's time. This is why many of them have joined the "never-Trump" movement (e.g. Bill Kristol) or even jumped the GOP ship (Max Boot). Most of the Republican Trump-critics or "never-trumpers" are neocons. Why?
Trump may have said many many stupid things, but there was ONE good thing that he pledged during his elect
Well... (Score:2)
DUH!
Anyone responding to this survey site is going to begin receiving endless come-ons for campaign donations. You could see this a mile away.
Oh... wishing Slashdot had a... (Score:2)
... kill file feature. I'd be busy this afternoon setting one up.
Re: (Score:2)
It does seem like hes playing a game with the media and social media, I would love to be a fly on the wall when him and his wife are in bed. Hopefully with clothes, well him atleast. She can go nekkid. I bet some interesting shit gets said.