Red Mosquito

BurtReynolds wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:Yeah the weird thing about Trump trying to access twitter through other accounts is that he's the fucking POTUS. If he wants to get a message out, just hold a press conference.

That gets filtered though. He can't go directly to the people.

Yeah ok

BurtReynolds wrote:I'm more worried about the fact that a lot of others were banned, too (including a few lefties), across multiple platforms in a coordinated effort. And that a competitor was cut off by Apple and Google.

Who cares? It’s social media, and the dark web is alive and well. Lyndon Laroche peddled conspiracy theories for decades with small print runs and some elbow grease. If Q’s message is so important and authentic, I’m sure it’ll find its audience.

McParadigm wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:Yeah the weird thing about Trump trying to access twitter through other accounts is that he's the fucking POTUS. If he wants to get a message out, just hold a press conference.

That gets filtered though. He can't go directly to the people.

Yeah ok

Yeah this. Give me a fucking break.

tragabigzanda wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:Yeah the weird thing about Trump trying to access twitter through other accounts is that he's the fucking POTUS. If he wants to get a message out, just hold a press conference.

That gets filtered though. He can't go directly to the people.

Yeah ok

Yeah this. Give me a fucking break.

why?

A tweet is in writing, (somewhat) permanent, available at any time of the day, available weeks later, isn't bookended by commentary (unless you count comments I guess), isn't talked over, isn't clipped or chopped into buzzwords right away...

And how many people have access to Twitter but not FOXnews?

It's clear he can't directly reach his entire audience now. I doubt he can reach most of them.

The amount of people who watch his press conferences are miniscule compared to the people who read his tweets.

BurtReynolds wrote:A tweet is in writing, (somewhat) permanent, available at any time of the day, available weeks later, isn't bookended by commentary (unless you count comments I guess), isn't talked over, isn't clipped or chopped into buzzwords right away...

And how many people have access to Twitter but not FOXnews?

It's clear he can't directly reach his entire audience now. I doubt he can reach most of them.

One in six Americans has a Twitter account, many of them inactive. 1 in 4 households has Fox News, and 77% of Americans would have the internet access needed to reach any website he might create. This is such a joke.

And everyone who has a television has access to free networks over the air. If he called a press conference right now, everyone would cut to it to broadcast it.

McParadigm wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:A tweet is in writing, (somewhat) permanent, available at any time of the day, available weeks later, isn't bookended by commentary (unless you count comments I guess), isn't talked over, isn't clipped or chopped into buzzwords right away...

And how many people have access to Twitter but not FOXnews?

It's clear he can't directly reach his entire audience now. I doubt he can reach most of them.

One in six Americans has a Twitter account, many of them inactive. 1 in 4 households has Fox News, and 77% of Americans would have the internet access needed to reach any website he might create. This is such a joke.

Those numbers don't overlap. Some percentage of people have Twitter and not Foxnews (like me). And how many people are watching FOXnews every day long enough to catch his press conferences?

If it wasn't effective, then why do it? Because its the right thing to do? Now who's joking? It's an attempt to silence him. Maybe for good reason, maybe not, but to say its not at least somewhat effective is crazy.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:And everyone who has a television has access to free networks over the air. If he called a press conference right now, everyone would cut to it to broadcast it.

Sure, today, but a week from now? Nobody is going to carry this.

Maybe you could make the liability argument for why he was removed from social media entirely, but I don't buy that.

BurtReynolds wrote:If it wasn't effective, then why do it?

Why would any company not allow its platform to be used by an individual accused of inciting violence? It’s really hard to say.

It's an attempt to silence him.

Literally every White House press release is at his command. Every single one gets posted online. What’s to stop him from issuing every tweetable thought that way? Why would the public who so respect his direct communication not go there and read them? My understanding is that they’re desperate for his every word.

Some percentage of people have Twitter and not Foxnews (like me).

My god.

BurtReynolds wrote:A tweet is in writing, (somewhat) permanent, available at any time of the day, available weeks later, isn't bookended by commentary (unless you count comments I guess), isn't talked over, isn't clipped or chopped into buzzwords right away...

And how many people have access to Twitter but not FOXnews?

It's clear he can't directly reach his entire audience now. I doubt he can reach most of them.

Yea nothing gets twisted and skewed on the internet.

Geezes burt. You are a parody of your former self. Or actually exactly how youve always been. Im not sure.

You didn't need to have a Twitter account to read Trump's tweets, by the way. That doesn't seem like a great indicator of their reach.

Strat wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:A tweet is in writing, (somewhat) permanent, available at any time of the day, available weeks later, isn't bookended by commentary (unless you count comments I guess), isn't talked over, isn't clipped or chopped into buzzwords right away...

And how many people have access to Twitter but not FOXnews?

It's clear he can't directly reach his entire audience now. I doubt he can reach most of them.

Yea nothing gets twisted and skewed on the internet.

Geezes burt. You are a parody of your former self. Or actually exactly how youve always been. Im not sure.

calm down.

Of course things get twisted and skewed on the internet. But a tweet is a tweet. Short of cropping out parts, you can't twist it that much. It's about as unfiltered as you can get.

disinformation online is a huge issue. making an example of the highest profile offender seems like a solid start to getting it in check.

McParadigm wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:If it wasn't effective, then why do it?

Why would any company not allow its platform to be used by an individual accused of inciting violence? It’s really hard to say.

So you're going with the liability thing? Ok then. I don't think that's it. I mean is Pinterest liable? Come on, man.

McParadigm wrote:

It's an attempt to silence him.

Literally every White House press release is at his command. Every single one gets posted online. What’s to stop him from issuing every tweetable thought that way? Why would the public who so respect his direct communication not go there and read them? My understanding is that they’re desperate for his every word.

posted where? how many people will go wherever his press conferences are posted? What's to stop him from holding a press conference (and having cable news air them) every time he has a tweetable thought? What? How would that work? I can just imagine that.

Does his "tweetable thoughts" have less reach or the same? I don't know how you can argue that his reach is undiminished, but here we are.

BurtReynolds wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:If it wasn't effective, then why do it?

Why would any company not allow its platform to be used by an individual accused of inciting violence? It’s really hard to say.

So you're going with the liability thing? Ok then. I don't think that's it. I mean is Pinterest liable? Come on, man.

McParadigm wrote:

It's an attempt to silence him.

Literally every White House press release is at his command. Every single one gets posted online. What’s to stop him from issuing every tweetable thought that way? Why would the public who so respect his direct communication not go there and read them? My understanding is that they’re desperate for his every word.

posted where? how many people will go wherever his press conferences are posted? What's to stop him from holding a press conference (and having cable news air them) every time he has a tweetable thought? What? How would that work? I can just imagine that.

Does his "tweetable thoughts" have less reach or the same? I don't know how you can argue that his reach is undiminished, but here we are.

Do you really believe that people just check twitter and then move on with their day? His speeches and press conferences are plastered everywhere. Beyond social media. I know you like to live in a little twitter hole but come on man. You are grasping here big time.

spike wrote:disinformation online is a huge issue. making an example of the highest profile offender seems like a solid start to getting it in check.

Who's making the example? What authority do you trust to decide for you what you are allowed to hear? Mark Zuckerberg?

Disinformation online is a bigger threat than tech censorship? I couldn't possibly disagree more.

You're not seeing the total picture.

Strat wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:If it wasn't effective, then why do it?

Why would any company not allow its platform to be used by an individual accused of inciting violence? It’s really hard to say.

So you're going with the liability thing? Ok then. I don't think that's it. I mean is Pinterest liable? Come on, man.

McParadigm wrote:

It's an attempt to silence him.

Literally every White House press release is at his command. Every single one gets posted online. What’s to stop him from issuing every tweetable thought that way? Why would the public who so respect his direct communication not go there and read them? My understanding is that they’re desperate for his every word.

posted where? how many people will go wherever his press conferences are posted? What's to stop him from holding a press conference (and having cable news air them) every time he has a tweetable thought? What? How would that work? I can just imagine that.

Does his "tweetable thoughts" have less reach or the same? I don't know how you can argue that his reach is undiminished, but here we are.

Do you really believe that people just check twitter and then move on with their day? His speeches and press conferences are plastered everywhere. Beyond social media. I know you like to live in a little twitter hole but come on man. You are grasping here big time.

ok man. We just live in different worlds I guess.