placeholder

You can thank the right wingers on the Supreme Court for the influx of dark money.

Actually, if I were to bet on it, I'd bet that Truth Social will survive longer than Twitter. Unless Musk sells it at a firesale price to more competent people.

You could hardly be more wrong if the discussion is about whether a poll is statistically valid. If it's just about vote totals, then it might be a valid total. Or it might be due to that 20% of bots or more that Musk claimed were contaminating Twitter

It was an open poll. Just because a poll is open doesn't mean it's statistically valid. In fact, it means the opposite. So not a valid survey of Twitter members' opinions.

Precisely. They selected themselves. Do you really believe that a poll where people can elect to participate is a valid one? Gee, if that were the case, pollsters could save themselves a lot of money by just putting polls online and opening them to anyone. I imagine your reply will be that that's a good idea. Yet oddly enought, I don't know of any pollsters who do that? Do you wonder at all why that's the case? Do you think it's some kind of conspiracy? That pollsters don't want the rest of the world to know how simple it is?

Even if there were zero bots, it wouldn't matter. Valid polls require random selection. Without that, a "poll" is just a gimmick.

The thing is that you confuse Twitter with a venue that doesn't depend on advertising. So criticizing Twitter as it was for its speech policies means that you don't understand that it's a business. And Musk has been successful in business that don't require a great deal of tact. A Social Media venture like Twitter isn't one of them.

If you're referring to that so-called poll on twitter, I suggest you look at the Scientific American article recommended by Sparktrader. What's crucial in polling is that there is random selection. Participants in that "poll" were not selected randomly.

Elon Musk says Twitter has had ‘massive’ revenue drop as advertisers pause spending https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/04/elon-musk-says-twitter-has-had-massive-revenue-drop.html

This only confirms that wherever you get your news from lies somewhere in an alternative universe. Try using this phrase to do a search advertisers pause on twitter

And as I'm sure Gervais would endorse, it's anybody's right not use Twitter. The thing is, Twitter gets 90% of its income from advertisers. So if people refuse to view Twitter, or refuse to buy products that advertise on its site, advertisers might not be so happy. Do you believe that advertiser should be compelled to advertise on Twitter?

John Durham set out to prove that it existed in the Justice Dept by prosecuting corrupt officials. He failed to find any.

In this case not deserting a sinking ship but rather not boarding it. Rarely, Trump makes sense. This is one of those times.

.Does anybody remember all the predictions that Obamacare was going to fail big time? Now America has its lowest rate of uninsured ever.

I'm surprised that no has as yet noted what makes this all very comical. Just a short while ago, the question about Trump was whether he would jump ship from his financially failing Truth Social to go to Twitter. Now there's an excellent chance that Truth Social will outlive Twitter.

And if you believe what's allowed on it is going to hurt your brand, don't advertise on it. Why is it so difficult for some people to understand that Twitter is a business?

in comparison to non-randomly selected participants? It is to laugh.

Texas AG launches investigation against Twitter for allegedly misreporting fake bot accounts The issue of Twitter bots has come to the fore in recent days after Tesla CEO Elon Musk accused the social media giant of "actively resisting and thwarting" his information rights by failing to provide calculations supporting the social media platform’s internal estimate on spam and fake accounts. https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/texas-ag-investigation-twitter-fake-bot-accounts

Did you even read the first paragraph? "How is it that a survey of only 1,000 people can reach this level of accuracy? You must first assume that the survey respondents have been sampled at random from the population, meaning that people are selected one at a time, with all persons in the U.S. being equally likely to be picked at each point. For most polls, this is approximated by calling phone numbers generated randomly by computer." In other words, self selected participants are not selected randomly. If they, as pointed out above, all pollsters would have to do is do online polling with no filters. To most people with even a rudimentary understanding of probability, that obviously doesn't work.

But they are constructed to reflect the general population within a margin of error. If polling was as simple as you think it is, then pollsters could just invite people to register their opinion. You take no account of motivation. And as noted above, you also take no account of bots.

It's funny. When Musk took over, his supporters were incensed about bots. Now that Musk is in charge, for them bots are no longer an issue.

You clearly don't have a clue about the math behind polling.

I got news for you. This forum also regulates speech. Got a problem with that?

Twitter is a commercial enterprise. I don't understand why you seek to connect that to his election.

The situation in the judiciary is worse than that. How about those 9 Marxists on the Supreme Court who repeatedly turned down appeals of the 2020 election despite overwhelming evidence of voter fraud? The USA is doomed.