Well, Newsweek. That’s really fucking weird of you to say that, because Activote sure isn’t making that claim at all:
So now I’m REALLY fucking curious as to why this article exists, and the data is wrong. Also, Activote is an app, not a “real” polling platform.
Last couple of things I’ve seen from newsweek went hard right. I don’t know when they became part of the propaganda machine, but it’s severe.
Yes, that’s why I checked. It certainly seems there is a concerted effort in their behalf to be publishing positive news for Trump, that is later pointed out to be incorrect and retracted.
Maybe time for the bot to update these factors on Newsweek then:
Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual
It gets those externally, and it’s not a very good source.
Eh, ideally there’s be a way to a) tell the external source it’s time to update and b) have an admin or the bot owner apply a manual patch in cases where the original source won’t obey (e.g. because MFBC is owned by the outlet that they’re reporting on or something). Perhaps a topic best discussed elsewhere though…
How does this address the swing with a single datapoint?
Look at the numbers.
Newsweek has been busted multiple times in previous elections doing this shit, and had to retract and update multiple times this election. They seem to have a real want for good news about Trump’s polls to be true.
I am looking at the numbers. Your graphic says the same thing the article does. That’s why I was asking for clarification
This is not what that poll says at all
Contact the editors and voice your concerns. If they are posting fake statistics, then call them out on it.
Note how this OP is entirely unconcerned with anything but deflection
I didn’t write the article though, so I can’t speak for the writer of the article.
If you have no relation to this or any article, maybe don’t post them.
I post artices that I find interesting. Do you think that only people who are “related” to the articles are allowed to post?!
I think if you post it, you don’t get to pretend you didn’t do so for a specific reason. As others pointed out, you’ll never say why anything is interesting, so you clearly don’t want to talk about anything.
Here’s another chance – what do you find interesting about it?
I don’t have to explain anything to you. Thank you!
I’m writing you directly as the OP that posting propaganda is the same thing as writing it.
This isn’t propaganda. Thanks!
We all disagree.
You’re just a ruble-fueled propagandist (and not a very good one at that).
Like almost everything you post, it certainly is.
Quit trying to stifle conversation within this thread. People are allowed to discuss this issue amongst themselves beyond simply talking to the publication’s editors.
Suggesting that people can contact editors if they feel information is wrong, isn’t stifling the conversation though. Thank you!
Sure it is. People are fully aware they can contact other parties. They want to have a conversation in here though, and you are recommending they take their complaints elsewhere, when they could be discussing them here.
This is pretty obviously a shallow excuse, technically a recommendation, but really just trying to get under people’s skin.
Nope. Just made a recommendation. But you are free to believe whatever you want to. Thank you! :)
Yes, like I said, technically a recommendation, one that you practically copy/paste with no effort. Also one that serves no useful purpose though. Asides a very possible goal of simply irritating people.
No goal. Just a recommendation. Thank you! :)
If you’re going to post a topic, at least attempt to discuss it.
More like spam articles.
Correct! Thank you!
I’m not obligated to do that. Thank you!
Why did you share a low quality article with poorly sourced information? Do you think spreading lies and misinformation is okay just because it supports your agenda?
Thai account has
3801,560+ posts (Voyager doesn’t list all posts) in just over 2 months. They either aren’t reading their articles or it’s a group of shills sharing an account.I’m prolific. Thank you for the shoutout!
It’s from Newsweek. If you think the numbers are wrong, you can write them and voice your concerns. Thank you!
So you’re endorsing the news source and data as accurate and reliable?
It’s Newsweek and it’s an approved source for this community. Thank you! :)
Did someone say it was against the rules?
Which editors instructed you to post it here?
Are people instructed to post Harris articles here?
Nope, just things they’ve corroborated as true, ideally.
In the sixty-three days since this account was created, it has made five thousand one hundred and seven submissions
That averages out to once every seventeen minutes and forty-five seconds twenty-four hours seven days a week
“They” are actually getting marginally faster over time. I am going to make an educated guess that their post frequency will continue to escalate the closer we get to the election. I’ll leave it open for speculation why that might be so my comment doesn’t get scrubbed…
They are enjoying the chaos they are creating in this community and it will get worse as the election get closer.
I wish they would just be banned until November 6th and see if they come back with the same posting frequency after.
Hard agree.
They’re obviously not being paid. A paid campaign would have metrics and would have already abandoned this dumb shit with zero odds of influencing anyone.
At the start I wouldn’t have been able to tell you if they were a MAGA or a useful idiot. After having everything explained to them over and over, I’m more convinced on them being a MAGA cosplaying as whatever they’re doing here.
Also a peevish child delighting in any attention, even negative.
Monk’s script:
- “I didn’t write the article, I just posted it”, even though posting propaganda is the same thing as writing it
- “I’m just posting articles that I found interesting”, even though they can’t ever explain what they find so interesting and will shut down if asked
- “If you feel that the article is against the rules, let the mods know”, even though no one said Monk was breaking the rules by posting propaganda. They like to post the mod log link after someone brings it up, for seemingly no reason.
- “I’m not voting for Kamala or Trump”, even though a vote for third parties is just going to empower a vote for Trump
- “I’m not voting for [third party candidate], I’m voting for [third party candidate]”
- Something about how they don’t have to explain anything about themselves even though they reply anyway
- Something about a community they created to seem more genuine
- Some form of sarcastic or fake “thank you” even though no one asked for their thanks, all likely to appear nice at a passing glance
- Using “:)” in another failed attempt to seem nice
- Calling you “friend” in yet another misguided attempt to appear nice at the surface
- Demanding proof for otherwise reasonable claims (sealioning).
Nailed it.
A lot of their content are tortured contrivances to be able to respond with “no you,” because they are emotionally a petulant child.
For example, regarding supporting a viable candidate instead of throwing a vote in the trash, they respond with, “every vote for your viable candidate harms the chances of [nonviable third party who isn’t even on the ballots].”
Thanks for your input! :)
You need a fresh prompt, you’re replies are getting stale.
Once again, no one asked (as the script says). You need new material.
Websites that have banned this user:
- https://reddit.com/user/universalmonkartist/
- https://lemmy.ca/u/UniversalMonk@lemmy.world
- https://dubvee.org/u/universalmonk@lemmy.world
It seems likely the reason each one banned him is the same reason their every post and comment is sitting at < -25. People detest the anti-democrat messaging and the way it’s delivered. It’s undeniable that this user rubs enough people the wrong way that they get a lot of attention for that alone.
During an election year especially, I expect better of any social media website than to just let this shit happen.
Reddit bans everyone though, that’s not a good marker. ;)
From a modding perspective, I look at it like this:
“Would this link be allowed if it were anyone OTHER than Monk posting it?”
Yes? It stays. I’m sorry you don’t like it, but it’s a valid link from a valid source.
Yeah, I don’t really understand the idea that a long history of a certain type of toxic behavior doesn’t count for anything. I think it should.
.
Oh, we get reports on the articles themselves ALL THE TIME.
.
The point is that the user themselves is toxic to have here, especially during an election season.
“Various organisations in Nazi Germany required their members to swear oaths to Adolf Hitler by name, rather than to the German state”
I’m not sure that’s what this article is about.
It would help greatly if you could read.
Thanks!
I think it is called foreshadowing.
I’m not sure you read any of the “articles” you post, especially since you can never point out what you find so “interesting” about them.
Your next line: “I don’t have to explain anything to you”
I’m starting to notice a trend with your posts.
ha,
So it looks like they have averaged over 28 downvotes per hour since they joined.
40678/(60*24) = 28.24861111111111111111111111That’s about a downvote every couple of minutes. If they weren’t evil it might almost be impressive.
How do you see that? I’m kinda curious about my score now lol
