I wouldn't be shocked to learn Lindsay had inside connections or was otherwise advantaged. He's got a massive crowd of apparent supporters, but they don't even upvote each other or anything.
I was hoping the comments would just be a ton of "found another one," but it's actually all zero engagement "you were so right, James, you're so smart and wise, how do you do it? Wow!"
Very suspicious.
@IfidnRetards here's one. It's a big one, be careful.
Almost every major social media pays some form of bot to boost engagement and manipulate the algorithm in their favor. You'd be retarded not to honestly, just from a business standpoint. Its one of those "all benefits as long as nobody notices too hard" situations.
Until we break the current iteration of the internet, that builds basically everything around clicks, impressions, ads and "showing your content" then that will continue to be life.
Its still pathetic when someone does it, because its usually being done to make themselves seem bigger and more important than they are rather than purely rational.
I don't know how it works, but there's clear selective targeting that happens.
On most posts where someone says absolutely idiotic leftish shit, there will be nothing but mockery in the replies or comment section. On most posts where some idiot like Dan Crenshaw says something idiotic, it will be nothing but mockery in response. And the responses will always be varied -- some meme images, some one-line zingers, some longer responses.
It's like back in the days before Youtube hid the dislike counts, damn near everything that should have been heavily disliked was heavily disliked. The White House couldn't release a single video that wasn't 90%+ disliked.
But occasionally, there will be a post that's been targeted for manipulation where a flood of bot-like responses will come out of the woodworks that are all basically some form of "you're so right" or "you're so wrong" or some other generic off-topic derailment ("he's a convicted felon").
Now if all of those types of responses appeared to varying degrees on all posts, it wouldn't be so weird. But they don't. They just appear en masse on random posts but not others.
I wouldn't be shocked to learn Lindsay had inside connections or was otherwise advantaged. He's got a massive crowd of apparent supporters, but they don't even upvote each other or anything.
I was hoping the comments would just be a ton of "found another one," but it's actually all zero engagement "you were so right, James, you're so smart and wise, how do you do it? Wow!"
Very suspicious.
@IfidnRetards here's one. It's a big one, be careful.
Almost every major social media pays some form of bot to boost engagement and manipulate the algorithm in their favor. You'd be retarded not to honestly, just from a business standpoint. Its one of those "all benefits as long as nobody notices too hard" situations.
Until we break the current iteration of the internet, that builds basically everything around clicks, impressions, ads and "showing your content" then that will continue to be life.
Its still pathetic when someone does it, because its usually being done to make themselves seem bigger and more important than they are rather than purely rational.
I don't know how it works, but there's clear selective targeting that happens.
On most posts where someone says absolutely idiotic leftish shit, there will be nothing but mockery in the replies or comment section. On most posts where some idiot like Dan Crenshaw says something idiotic, it will be nothing but mockery in response. And the responses will always be varied -- some meme images, some one-line zingers, some longer responses.
It's like back in the days before Youtube hid the dislike counts, damn near everything that should have been heavily disliked was heavily disliked. The White House couldn't release a single video that wasn't 90%+ disliked.
But occasionally, there will be a post that's been targeted for manipulation where a flood of bot-like responses will come out of the woodworks that are all basically some form of "you're so right" or "you're so wrong" or some other generic off-topic derailment ("he's a convicted felon").
Now if all of those types of responses appeared to varying degrees on all posts, it wouldn't be so weird. But they don't. They just appear en masse on random posts but not others.
I enjoy his historical perspectives. He does some good deep dives on American communism and the founding of the UN.
His politics are retarded and get more retarded every day the less people take him seriously.
He should stick to history.
The comments I saw were going after him. One suggests he might be fishing for a spot on the DW.
Weird. I'm not signed in, so maybe Nitter does things differently, but what I saw was as I described; a bunch of zero-likes saying how correct he was.
Now I am seeing a different set though, odd. Still a bunch of low engagement agreement, but also some people ripping him.