US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians

Status
Not open for further replies.
BidenGIF.gif
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Informative
Reactions: ThisIsGonnaBeGood, The Shredder, ActualCracker and 120 others
Click to expand...
HTTP Error 404 said:
Or worse, fire the lefty tech moles that will no doubt be planning on being "the resistance" over the next few years and blocking any improvements Musk wants to do out of spite or trying to keep everything lefty-biased.
Click to expand...
They can try, but there's really not much they can do. Lefty subversion works well in the shadows, whereas Musk wants to move control out of the platform and back into the user hands, and stop hiding things like how the algo works. And he's now put himself in a place to unilaterally decide this, with full ability to shitcan. It doesn't matter if the left moles try to fuck with it, because the fuckery will be public.

That being said, I don't think he's gonna go nuclear right out the gate. Knowing Musk, he's gonna focus on easy and PR wins. Open source the algorithm, to whatever extent is feasible, and then crack down on an obvious problem tag that Twitter just ignores, like MAP tags. Something no sane human would oppose to crackdowns on. Do this while allowing conservative voices to start joining the conversation again without being shot, and you'll have a big win, and there's not much that plants could do.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: like_shutup_&_drive_scoob, Justa Grata Honoria, spiritofamermaid and 15 others
Gehenna said:
And finally, the Establishment... no one loses as much as the Establishment. Yes, that is in a field where one side is now void of a massive chunk of power and the other just had their central pillar gutted. For the former, they can dial down the rheotric and make more in person rallies. For the latter, they can decentralize their efforts to something much les efficient but still functioning.

The Establishment just fucking loses.

Their power is drawn from a fragile balance of power where they keep in check with what their core base wants to ensure they do not piss them off while also trying to just skirt the line of what the American populace will accept. They have been leaning further and further away from the general populace due to twitter but... losing it is somehow worse. Without the ability to guide the public view because of the losses of BigTech and with the Progs no longer able to rile the base as effectively, the Establishment will now be in a situation of being blinded. They already are out of touch with one half of the balancing equation, now lost their ability to reliably hear the other half, and have lost their ability to actively shape the field all in one fell swoop.
Click to expand...
Is it possible that having less of a monopoly over Twitter discourse (I don't know that they will truly "lose" Twitter) will force the Dems out of their echo chamber a bit? One of their biggest weaknesses recently has been their epistemic closure - in other words, they live in such a bubble that they can no longer understand how people outside think and can only see those who disagree with them as cartoon villains. Could having to share a platform with people who disagree help them better tailor their message and/or disguise their intentions?

For example, if the leaked material from people like Chris Rufo and LibsOfTikTok get more traction on Twitter and become popular conversation topics, it could lead them to think "this CRT and trans child stuff is electoral poison, we need to dial it back" whereas before they were thinking "all the blue checks love our kindergarden dildo lessons, only KKK rednecks disagree, we should push it all forward at full throttle!" It could be a blessing in disguise for them - I might have liked it better if Twitter prepared by the midterms by launching a purge of anyone less than 100% woke and the Democrats took it as the gospel truth of public opinion.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Informative
Reactions: like_shutup_&_drive_scoob, Justa Grata Honoria, spiritofamermaid and 9 others
Vaclav said:
Is it possible that having less of a monopoly over Twitter discourse (I don't know that they will truly "lose" Twitter) will force the Dems out of their echo chamber a bit? One of their biggest weaknesses recently has been their epistemic closure - in other words, they live in such a bubble that they can no longer understand how people outside think and can only see those who disagree with them as cartoon villains. Could having to share a platform with people who disagree help them better tailor their message and/or disguise their intentions?

For example, if the leaked material from people like Chris Rufo and LibsOfTikTok get more traction on Twitter and become popular conversation topics, it could lead them to think "this CRT and trans child stuff is electoral poison, we need to dial it back" whereas before they were thinking "all the blue checks love our kindergarden dildo lessons, only KKK rednecks disagree, we should push it all forward at full throttle!" It could be a blessing in disguise for them - I might have liked it better if Twitter prepared by the midterms by launching a purge of anyone less than 100% woke and the Democrats took it as the gospel truth of public opinion.
Click to expand...
IMO, yes. Not being able to go, “WRONGTHINK! BLOCKED!” will force them to realize that they do not have anywhere CLOSE to an ideological majority. This isn’t just an illusion caused by conservatives getting banned, but moderates and non-extreme liberals self-censoring and towing the party line/not saying anything at all for fear of being banned.

Whether this will be impetus for introspection or change? Up to your speculation (though any answer other than “lmao no” is obviously wrong). But it WILL force them to reckon with the fact that they are a tiny minority that was only tolerated on threat of ostracization. Up til now they’ve been living the good life, but once they lose their ability to send anyone who hurts their fee-fees to the cornfields, they’re gonna find out REAL fast how everyone actually feels about them.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Woe-B-Gon (TM), Trianon and 10 others
Lone Star said:
I admit this isn't stuff I know much about, but since Musk outright owns Twitter, can he just make policy changes instantly? How long would it realistically be before any changes occur?
Click to expand...
Depends on the policy change. Stuff like “you won’t get banned for hot takes” can take effect immediately, stuff like overhauling the timeline will take more time.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Justa Grata Honoria, spiritofamermaid, Yamma Damma and 5 others
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: like_shutup_&_drive_scoob, Justa Grata Honoria, spiritofamermaid and 11 others
Vaclav said:
Is it possible that having less of a monopoly over Twitter discourse (I don't know that they will truly "lose" Twitter) will force the Dems out of their echo chamber a bit? One of their biggest weaknesses recently has been their epistemic closure - in other words, they live in such a bubble that they can no longer understand how people outside think and can only see those who disagree with them as cartoon villains. Could having to share a platform with people who disagree help them better tailor their message and/or disguise their intentions?

For example, if the leaked material from people like Chris Rufo and LibsOfTikTok get more traction on Twitter and become popular conversation topics, it could lead them to think "this CRT and trans child stuff is electoral poison, we need to dial it back" whereas before they were thinking "all the blue checks love our kindergarden dildo lessons, only KKK rednecks disagree, we should push it all forward at full throttle!" It could be a blessing in disguise for them - I might have liked it better if Twitter prepared by the midterms by launching a purge of anyone less than 100% woke and the Democrats took it as the gospel truth of public opinion.
Click to expand...
nah they're gonna double down forever. it's been like this since Reagan was elected. the internet made things worse and more visible but it was already like this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brain Problems
mandatorylurk said:
A lot of conservative twitter are seeing their follows increase thousandfold in just a day, the danger hairs are probably trying to shred documents digitally on the backend to avoid showing the algorithm and known bias.
Click to expand...
Good luck with that. The same tools they probably use to record internal wrongthink and vacuum up every bit of internal correspondence have probably stored all that stuff all over, and in a few backups. Keep in mind there's almost certainly document protection regulations as well related to the SEC due to being publicly owned, as well as having receipts for HR as well. Going mass delete has a very large chance of wiping out their own blackmail as well. And all it takes is a single white or Asian techbro to shrug and say "Whoops, can't find what you're looking for..." when he knows damn well where it is.
Trianon said:
So, getting Biden into office required the business/tech sector to fall in line, along with the DNC, the progressives, the media, etc. So letting Twitter slip through their fingers is a huge sign of weakness, right? It means they've left tech to fend for themselves, and with the Disney scandal, I think more companies are looking at Democrats and thinking they are causing them more problems than they're worth. CNN+ tanking. Just seems like a lot of their power is crumbling because they had to do too much blood-letting to get Biden over the line. @Gehenna, would love your thoughts on how Twitter being in private hands breaks up the factions.
Click to expand...
He pretty much answered your question, but yes. The Left losing their grip on Twitter is going to be brutal. Keep in mind that even though the deal isn't actually done, we've been seeing massive changes already to who can post and what they can post.
 
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Justa Grata Honoria, spiritofamermaid, Trianon and 6 others
Vaclav said:
Is it possible that having less of a monopoly over Twitter discourse (I don't know that they will truly "lose" Twitter) will force the Dems out of their echo chamber a bit? One of their biggest weaknesses recently has been their epistemic closure - in other words, they live in such a bubble that they can no longer understand how people outside think and can only see those who disagree with them as cartoon villains. Could having to share a platform with people who disagree help them better tailor their message and/or disguise their intentions?

For example, if the leaked material from people like Chris Rufo and LibsOfTikTok get more traction on Twitter and become popular conversation topics, it could lead them to think "this CRT and trans child stuff is electoral poison, we need to dial it back" whereas before they were thinking "all the blue checks love our kindergarden dildo lessons, only KKK rednecks disagree, we should push it all forward at full throttle!" It could be a blessing in disguise for them - I might have liked it better if Twitter prepared by the midterms by launching a purge of anyone less than 100% woke and the Democrats took it as the gospel truth of public opinion.
Click to expand...
On one hand it could. On the other you have to recon with them being genuinely spiteful people that hated their opposition long before their opposition hated them.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Yamma Damma, mold and 2 others
northstar747 said:
Could they have put obama as the vice president?
Click to expand...
Nobody knows for sure. Its one of those contested legal things where one interpretation of the amendments would imply "No, because a two term president cannot serve more terms even partially" while another reading of the amendments would imply that the presidential chain of succession does not subject itself to other rules at the time.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Yamma Damma, Open Window Maniac and 1 other person
Kuritan Deplorable said:
Nobody knows for sure. Its one of those contested legal things where one interpretation of the amendments would imply "No, because a two term president cannot serve more terms even partially" while another reading of the amendments would imply that the presidential chain of succession does not subject itself to other rules at the time.
Click to expand...
IIRC the Vice President has to be someone eligible to run for the Office of President. It's a nice catch all for using any kind of rules lawyering to get around the restrictions of who can run for President.
 
  • Informative
  • Feels
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Yamma Damma, Open Window Maniac and 1 other person
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back