• @just_another_person
    link
    25
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    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.

    • @chakan2
      link
      English
      91 month ago

      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.

      • @just_another_person
        link
        61 month ago

        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.

        • abff08f4813c
          link
          fedilink
          11 month ago

          Maybe time for the bot to update these factors on Newsweek then:

          Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual

            • abff08f4813c
              link
              fedilink
              11 month ago

              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…

    • @ccunning
      link
      31 month ago

      How does this address the swing with a single datapoint?

      • @just_another_person
        link
        4
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        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.

        • @ccunning
          link
          21 month ago

          I am looking at the numbers. Your graphic says the same thing the article does. That’s why I was asking for clarification

    • Socialist Mormon SatanistOP
      link
      -41
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Contact the editors and voice your concerns. If they are posting fake statistics, then call them out on it.

        • Socialist Mormon SatanistOP
          link
          -211 month ago

          I didn’t write the article though, so I can’t speak for the writer of the article.

            • Socialist Mormon SatanistOP
              link
              -191 month ago

              I post artices that I find interesting. Do you think that only people who are “related” to the articles are allowed to post?!

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                71 month ago

                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.

          • AmbiguousProps
            link
            fedilink
            English
            101 month ago

            I’m writing you directly as the OP that posting propaganda is the same thing as writing it.

      • @Carrolade
        link
        English
        181 month ago

        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.

        • Socialist Mormon SatanistOP
          link
          -211 month ago

          Suggesting that people can contact editors if they feel information is wrong, isn’t stifling the conversation though. Thank you!

          • @Carrolade
            link
            English
            101 month ago

            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.

            • Socialist Mormon SatanistOP
              link
              -181 month ago

              Nope. Just made a recommendation. But you are free to believe whatever you want to. Thank you! :)

              • @Carrolade
                link
                English
                71 month ago

                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.

      • Tony Bark
        link
        fedilink
        English
        161 month ago

        If you’re going to post a topic, at least attempt to discuss it.

      • bobburger
        link
        fedilink
        71 month ago

        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?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          9
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Thai account has 380 1,560+ 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.

        • Socialist Mormon SatanistOP
          link
          -191 month ago

          It’s from Newsweek. If you think the numbers are wrong, you can write them and voice your concerns. Thank you!

  • SatansMaggotyCumFart
    link
    211 month ago

    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

    • @Riccosuave
      link
      81 month ago

      “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…

      • SatansMaggotyCumFart
        link
        5
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        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.

      • @barsquid
        link
        21 month ago

        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.

  • AmbiguousProps
    link
    fedilink
    English
    18
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    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).
    • @barsquid
      link
      51 month ago

      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].”

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    18
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    “Various organisations in Nazi Germany required their members to swear oaths to Adolf Hitler by name, rather than to the German state”

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    17
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Websites that have banned this user:

    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.

    • @jordanlund
      shield
      M
      link
      -21 month ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        121 month ago

        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.

        • @jordanlund
          shield
          M
          link
          21 month ago

          Oh, we get reports on the articles themselves ALL THE TIME.

      • AmbiguousProps
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 month ago

        The point is that the user themselves is toxic to have here, especially during an election season.

  • Tony Bark
    link
    fedilink
    English
    151 month ago

    I’m starting to notice a trend with your posts.

  • @jordanlundM
    link
    41 month ago

    Didn’t we just do this? I swear, we just did this:

    As usual, national polls are useless. We don’t have national elections, and as others pointed out, the poll doesn’t even say what Newsweek says it says. Numbers after the jump.

    Now… ALLLLL that being said… Last time I did this, Harris hit 270 exactly. First time this year any candidate hit the magic number.

    AZ - Toss Up. Harris +1, +3, Trump +1, +4
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/arizona/

    NV - Toss Up. Tie, Harris +1, Trump +1
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/nevada/

    NM - Harris +5, +8, +10
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/new-mexico/

    GA - Toss Up, 5 separate polls show tie votes.
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/georgia/

    FL - Trump +6, +13, +14
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/florida/

    NC - Toss Up, Harris +3, Trump +1, +2, +3
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/north-carolina/

    PA - Toss Up, Tie, Harris +1, +4, Trump +1, +3
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/pennsylvania/

    MI - Tie, Harris +2, +3. 3rd parties 0 to 1%, no impact.
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/michigan/

    WI - Harris +1, +2, +3, +4, Trump +1
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/wisconsin/

    MN - Harris +5, +6, +8
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/minnesota/

    Plotted on the map:

    As usual, PA is a must win. If Harris takes it, that’s it, she doesn’t need anything else.

    Failing that, NC or GA + any 1 other state. AZ + NV alone is not enough, that drops her right at 268.

    For Trump, he has to win PA to stay in, that gives him 238, from there he needs 32 more. So NC + GA. Or NV + AZ and either NC or GA.

    Minimum 1 state for Harris to win, PA. Also a 2 state win of NC or GA + 1 other. Max would be 3 states. AZ, NV + 1 other.

    Minimum 3 states for Trump to win (PA, GA, NC), could be as many as 4 of the 5 outstanding (PA, AZ, NV, + GA or NC)

  • geekwithsoul
    link
    fedilink
    English
    21 month ago

    I really wish we had a rule about posts that mention polling, but don’t link to the polling. Probably impossible to moderate but it’s really low-quality journalism.

    What’s ironic is the article links several other polling sources, but not the one it mentions in the headline.

      • geekwithsoul
        link
        fedilink
        English
        61 month ago

        As you don’t engage in any good faith discussion of anything you post and have had numerous posts/comments removed for forms of trolling and just coming off a temp community ban for a form of trolling, I don’t think your input is needed and certainly wasn’t asked for.

        If I wanted to go to the mods, I would - as I have done before about you and other matters, as you know. I was simply commenting in the hopes that someone maybe had a different perspective or suggestion on it. If you, as usual, don’t have anything constructive to add, maybe don’t reply to folks with inanities.