TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
The_Honourable wrote:Pennsylvania Pollster Jim Lee: "There is Definitely a Submerged Trump Vote"
Jim Lee, a pollster with Susquehanna Polling and Research, told the WFMZ "Business Matters" panel last week why he believes there is a "submerged" Trump vote that polls are not registering.
Video: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... _vote.html
Dohplaydat wrote:I want to Trump to win just to see BLM protestors lose their sheit
Dohplaydat wrote:I want to Trump to win just to see BLM protestors lose their sheit
Dohplaydat wrote:I want to Trump to win just to see BLM protestors lose their sheit
adnj wrote:'Guns, Protests And Elections Do Not Mix': Conflict Experts See Rising Warning signs
pete wrote:The higher the voter turnout the better, whichever way the vote goes it will show what the population truly wants.
The democrats are not getting complacent as previously suggested. All the time they have been saying to ignore the polls, they're not real and go vote. It seems the other side is worried about it as they're doing everything in their power to stop people from casting their ballot or have them counted.
adnj wrote:Of course corporate censorship is real. It is also disproportionately applied to current conservative views and opinions by the internet social media giants.
All of these companies are publicly traded, ad revenue reliant and profit driven. Current marketing thought leans toward the supposition that the political position that a business takes is assumed to be genuine by its patrons. It is that assumption that helps to drive the company's image.
In all likelihood the content control (or censorship) is a result of the business deciding that the content is contrary to its own consumer-space values. It is a consequence of a business taking a stand. It is a business decision to drive bottom-line profitability. It is a business building its brand.
And it is highly unlikely that those business motivations will change.
---------
How Do Consumers Feel When Companies Get Political?
by James R. Bailey and Hillary Phillips
February 17, 2020
As society became politically polarized, companies became more activist. With a 24-hour news cycle and social media fanning polarization, it’s more problematic for organizations and their CEOs to remain neutral. Consider what’s happened in the past decade: Hobby Lobby — a chain of craft stores that challenged a federal mandate stating companies pay for insurance coverage for contraception — took their case all the way to the Supreme Court and won. Nike featured the controversial athlete and social crusader, Colin Kaepernick, in an ad campaign. Retailers like Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods stopped selling certain weapons in response to tragic mass shootings nationwide.
https://hbr.org/2020/02/how-do-consumer ... -political
shogun wrote:adnj wrote:Of course corporate censorship is real. It is also disproportionately applied to current conservative views and opinions by the internet social media giants.
All of these companies are publicly traded, ad revenue reliant and profit driven. Current marketing thought leans toward the supposition that the political position that a business takes is assumed to be genuine by its patrons. It is that assumption that helps to drive the company's image.
In all likelihood the content control (or censorship) is a result of the business deciding that the content is contrary to its own consumer-space values. It is a consequence of a business taking a stand. It is a business decision to drive bottom-line profitability. It is a business building its brand.
And it is highly unlikely that those business motivations will change.
---------
How Do Consumers Feel When Companies Get Political?
by James R. Bailey and Hillary Phillips
February 17, 2020
As society became politically polarized, companies became more activist. With a 24-hour news cycle and social media fanning polarization, it’s more problematic for organizations and their CEOs to remain neutral. Consider what’s happened in the past decade: Hobby Lobby — a chain of craft stores that challenged a federal mandate stating companies pay for insurance coverage for contraception — took their case all the way to the Supreme Court and won. Nike featured the controversial athlete and social crusader, Colin Kaepernick, in an ad campaign. Retailers like Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods stopped selling certain weapons in response to tragic mass shootings nationwide.
https://hbr.org/2020/02/how-do-consumer ... -political
Yeah, I read that article a while back. Interesting, however when some refer to "disproportionately targeting conservatives" it's kinda misleading. The article, if I remember talked about donations/activism and notably conservative activism as one of the bits of info given to half of the group. Therein lies the problem. Do you believe the "conservative" companies were viewed more poorly BECAUSE they held another ideology? Or because of the impact conservative activism will have on hugely pressing, real world issues like the environment, or gun proliferation, or corporate personhood, or gay rights, same sex marriage, or a woman's right to abortion, or the belief in science over faith? In other words, you can't blame people for being less enthusiastic about an ideology that seems to be miles behind the times and actively working to reverse progress. Not because of the ideology in itself, but because of the kind of results their activism could bring about. I mean just look at the current Supreme Court make up? That's is a direct consequence of conservative activism. It's almost like some offshoot of political correctness where there must be some false equivalence in how both sides are perceived, to prove "fairness." Nonsense.
Social media: Is it really biased against US Republicans?
By James Clayton
When conservatives claim bias, they are usually referring to what they see as unfair moderation. It's the idea that their posts are overly-censored and/or suppressed. But it's difficult to definitively prove social media is biased. For one, the likes of Facebook and Twitter can be secretive - they don't share all of their data or reveal exactly how their algorithms work.
As a result, when Republicans cry foul, it is often "accusation by anecdote". A single example that proves a larger trend. For instance, they note that Twitter "hid" a tweet by President Trump saying "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" during the protests in Minneapolis. But it didn't hide a tweet from Iranian ayatollahs calling for armed resistance in Israel. This - according to many on the right - proves Twitter's double standards. Such examples were repeatedly given during a congressional hearing in July where the bosses of Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon were cross-examined. "I'm just going to cut to the chase", said Republican congressman Jim Jordan. "Big Tech is out to get conservatives." This was something the CEOs denied. But what is certainly true is that several have recently taken a much more hands-on approach to moderation. In doing so, they are grappling with the kinds of issues that newspaper editors face every day: what should should and should not be published?
Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg has openly stated he supports the movement. The Black Lives Matter Facebook page has just over 740,000 followers. However, another Facebook page called Blue Lives Matter has close to 2.3 million followers. It aims to support police officers and push back against an "anti-cop" narrative. The group has been criticised for appropriating the BLM name - and been accused of racism, something the group's founder Christopher Berg denies. Mr Berg believes that Facebook is biased against conservative voices. Can that possibly be true considering the page's popularity? "I wouldn't be looking at the follower count and the reach. I would be looking at things behind the scenes, that individuals can affect… things like demonetising a page," he tells me. This is when Facebook judges a page has violated its rules and prevents it earning money from ads and subscriptions. Mr Berg believes this is a a less perceptible type of bias, and one right-wing pages are more susceptible to. But his suspicion is hard to prove. Facebook doesn't publish a list of pages it has taken action on.
Only a small minority of its users regularly post content of their own. And a Pew study last week found that 70% of highly prolific US adult tweeters were Democrats. This makes Twitter appear to be a more liberal place, but once again it's hard to prove it's biased against conservatives. Let's take Covid-19 as an example. It's true that Twitter has acted on Mr Trump's tweets more than Mr Biden's. For example, it blocked a Trump post suggesting that the flu was more dangerous than Covid. But at the same time, studies suggest Mr Trump is far more likely to spread disinformation around Covid. In fact, one from Cornell University suggested the president was the largest single driver of Covid disinformation. So it's perhaps not surprising that he is targeted disproportionately by Twitter moderators.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54698186
Hwells wrote:most of the early voting is to avoid congestion due to cv19 i feel.
The_Honourable wrote:LOL@ these pro-biden polls
The_Honourable wrote:Oh my...
"If Trump wins, MAGA types are going to crow that “the media” got it wrong again, when in fact everyone in the media is so terrified of being wrong that every other sentence they write now is “Trump could definitely still win."
https://twitter.com/mckaycoppins/status ... 3601490946
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: matr1x, ProtonPowder and 237 guests
