Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-10 > #180632 > unrolled thread

Is Usesent (and/or Reddit) social media?

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.os.windows-10

Contents

  Is Usesent (and/or Reddit) social media? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2024-12-16 14:46 -0500
    Re: Is Usesent (and/or Reddit) social media? sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2024-12-16 14:22 -0600
      Re: Is Usesent (and/or Reddit) social media? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2024-12-16 16:12 -0500
        Re: Is Usesent (and/or Reddit) social media? sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2024-12-16 16:30 -0600
        Re: Is Usesent (and/or Reddit) social media? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-16 23:56 +0100
        Re: Is Usesent (and/or Reddit) social media? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2024-12-17 10:20 +0200
          Re: Is Usesent (and/or Reddit) social media? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2024-12-17 06:33 -0500
            Re: Is Usesent (and/or Reddit) social media? sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2024-12-17 10:21 -0600
              Re: Is Usesent (and/or Reddit) social media? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2024-12-18 23:23 -0500
                Re: Is Usesent (and/or Reddit) social media? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2024-12-19 08:24 +0200
                Re: Is Usesent (and/or Reddit) social media? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-12-19 03:50 -0500
                  Re: Is Usesent (and/or Reddit) social media? sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2024-12-19 11:31 -0600
                    Re: Is Usesent (and/or Reddit) social media? Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2024-12-19 17:00 -0600
                Re: Is Usesent (and/or Reddit) social media? sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2024-12-19 11:27 -0600
                  Re: Is Usesent (and/or Reddit) social media? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2024-12-22 07:33 -0500
                    Re: Is Usesent (and/or Reddit) social media? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-12-22 08:32 -0500
                    Re: Is Usesent (and/or Reddit) social media? The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> - 2025-02-07 14:32 -0800
    Re: Is Usesent (and/or Reddit) social media? clams casino <cc@invalid.cc> - 2024-12-16 13:24 -0700
    Re: Is Usesent (and/or Reddit) social media? "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2024-12-16 15:48 -0500
      Re: Is Usesent (and/or Reddit) social media? bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-12-16 18:04 -0500
    Re: Is Usesent (and/or Reddit) social media? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2024-12-17 10:14 +0200
      Re: Is Usesent (and/or Reddit) social media? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2024-12-17 06:22 -0500
        Re: Is Usesent (and/or Reddit) social media? The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> - 2025-02-07 14:36 -0800
    Re: Is Usesent (and/or Reddit) social media? John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> - 2024-12-17 09:41 +0000
    Re: Is Usesent (and/or Reddit) social media? Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2024-12-17 09:03 -0500
      Re: Is Usesent (and/or Reddit) social media? John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> - 2024-12-17 16:49 +0000
      Re: Is Usesent (and/or Reddit) social media? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2024-12-18 23:35 -0500
        Re: Is Usesent (and/or Reddit) social media? Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2024-12-19 08:37 -0500
          Re: Is Usesent (and/or Reddit) social media? sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2024-12-19 11:18 -0600
    Re: Is Usesent (and/or Reddit) social media? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-12-17 18:38 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#180642

On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 14:46:26 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
wrote:

>I'll get back to everyone who posted in my previous thread, but I need
>to know if you all think Usenet is social media?    
>                                Or Social Media?  Which?  

Usenet is indeed a social medium, and more social than most other
social media, because one's communication is not controlled and
manipulated by algorithms.

>And would you answer the same for Reddit? 

I know nothing about Reddit. 

>
>They're social because they involve people, but people don't make
>friends on any of them, normally.   And people don't talk about little
>or even big things that happen in their personal lives much, and when
>once in a while I do, most people are bored and ignore them in any
>replies they make. 
>
>To me that means it's not social. 

There was a time when Usenet was primarily academic rather than
social, but that time is long past. And there always was a social
element. Interactions between people vary depending on the nature of
particular newsgroups, but it is the same with other social media
platforms like Facebook. 



>
>But if some webpage that matters to me asks how I heard about it, and I
>say "internet" but NOT through social media, they will likely think its
>a page with good or bad informative text but no way for readers to
>reply.  That Usenet and Reddit do allow replies, depend on replies, sort
>of makes them *social* media. 
>
>So all in all, in your opinion, are Usenet and Reddit social media? 

-- 
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web:  http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180647

In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 17 Dec 2024 10:14:39 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 14:46:26 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I'll get back to everyone who posted in my previous thread, but I need
>>to know if you all think Usenet is social media?    
>>                                Or Social Media?  Which?  
>
>Usenet is indeed a social medium, and more social than most other
>social media, because one's communication is not controlled and
>manipulated by algorithms.
>
>>And would you answer the same for Reddit? 

>I know nothing about Reddit

It does have loads of control.  I got 6 emails from bots last night
saying that one or another post had been cancelled because I was new and
they said new people often posted spam (even if you read it it clearly
was on topic and not spam) , but I could object  I'd only posted 2,
maybe 3, things (one twice with changes, but I still don't know how it
got to six. 

And I still don't know if my question about noise filters for tv
antennas is "consumer" electonics or like how to find bad diodes, which
would be on topic.  

OTOH, they have a "subreddit" called spinalcordstimulator and I don't
know where else in the whole world you could find people to discuss
that, and it's a mucho important topic to those who have one or are
about to.  

It is apparently very easy to start a "subreddit" on maybe any topic. I
don't know where the bots come from or the humans who eventually oversee
them.   
    Even alt ngs were never as easy to start. OTOH, and this is so
important, it's so very easy with a ng reader to look at all the topics
and choose those that interests you.  I never found a good medical ng --
was there one? -- but but you could have one for all medicine, or one
for each standard medical specialty.   
    And with usenet, all the quesstions are there and all the replies.
With all the other fora, they send you an email, you have to open the
mail, click on it, and devot a browswer tab to it.  Plus the one or two
you had to have to ask the question, and then if you want to look at it
again, you have to find the tab, And I have far too many tabs already..
Web fora are so inefficient.  With a newsgroup reader, you can find a
thread easily.    Plus there is no moderation except in
misc.legal.moderated and maybe a few more I've never noticed. 

And I haven't found a list of all the subs.  Instead I google a topic
with the word reddit to see the names that come up.  But I did that last
night:  TV interference, subreddit. and most hits were for cutthecord,
but when I posted there, the bot cancelled me twice, I do't remember
why.    

The suggestions of how to find the right sub are lengthy and some are
absurd, 
https://old.reddit.com/r/findareddit/comments/12bkfp/meta_guide_to_finding_subreddits/

Different subreddits have different rules.  Spinalcordstiumulator has
never cancelled me. . 
. 
>
>>
>>They're social because they involve people, but people don't make
>>friends on any of them, normally.   And people don't talk about little
>>or even big things that happen in their personal lives much, and when
>>once in a while I do, most people are bored and ignore them in any
>>replies they make. 
>>
>>To me that means it's not social. 
>
>There was a time when Usenet was primarily academic rather than
>social, but that time is long past. And there always was a social
>element. Interactions between people vary depending on the nature of
>particular newsgroups, but it is the same with other social media
>platforms like Facebook. 

I red one newsgroup that actually had two get togethers over a couple
years.  ONe in NYC that I went to from Baltimore and about 15 of us had
dinner together, and one I could not go to.  But people wandered away
and the ggoup folded.  I guess that one was social.    A travel forum,
what's the big onet called, TripAdvisor, had a get-together in another
country and about 6 of us went to a restaurant. About half were locals
one of whom answered 25% of all the questions asked, and half tourists. 
>
>
>>
>>But if some webpage that matters to me asks how I heard about it, and I
>>say "internet" but NOT through social media, they will likely think its
>>a page with good or bad informative text but no way for readers to
>>reply.  That Usenet and Reddit do allow replies, depend on replies, sort
>>of makes them *social* media. 
>>
>>So all in all, in your opinion, are Usenet and Reddit social media? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182103

On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 06:22:47 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
wrote:

>It does have loads of control.  I got 6 emails from bots last night
>saying that one or another post had been cancelled because I was new and
>they said new people often posted spam (even if you read it it clearly
>was on topic and not spam) , but I could object  I'd only posted 2,
>maybe 3, things (one twice with changes, but I still don't know how it
>got to six. 

I recently got a similar message from Quora (which for me does much
the same as Usenet with the exception that it has better photos but
less interesting messages). I e-mailed them back asking for the
specific posting they found off topic or offensive and eventually got
an e-mail saying they had reconsidered and I was back in their good
graces again.

I reached the conclusion that their bot had tagged something I had
written and that when it was actually read by an actual human being
they realized I was in the paths of righteousness and that they had
reversed their bot's decision.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180644

In message <c701mj1ok5mue46nmiedj4ve1qcindpiqm@4ax.com>, micky 
<NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> writes
>I'll get back to everyone who posted in my previous thread, but I need
>to know if you all think Usenet is social media?
>                                Or Social Media?  Which?
>
>And would you answer the same for Reddit?
>
>They're social because they involve people, but people don't make
>friends on any of them, normally.   And people don't talk about little
>or even big things that happen in their personal lives much, and when
>once in a while I do, most people are bored and ignore them in any
>replies they make.
>
>To me that means it's not social.
>
>But if some webpage that matters to me asks how I heard about it, and I
>say "internet" but NOT through social media, they will likely think its
>a page with good or bad informative text but no way for readers to
>reply.  That Usenet and Reddit do allow replies, depend on replies, sort
>of makes them *social* media.
>
>So all in all, in your opinion, are Usenet and Reddit social media?

Yes. Even if people don't make friends, they are interacting with one 
another ,and that makes it social IMO. Not that I've ever used this 
new-fangled Reddit thing. :)

[rm newsgroup where it seems most off-topic.]
-- 
John Hall
                "I look upon it, that he who does not mind his belly,
                 will hardly mind anything else."
                                            Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-84)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180650

On 12/16/2024 2:46 PM, micky wrote:
> I'll get back to everyone who posted in my previous thread, but I need
> to know if you all think Usenet is social media?
>                                  Or Social Media?  Which?
> 
> And would you answer the same for Reddit?
> 

    To my mind, usenet is not really social. Socializing is
"off topic". It happens around the edges, in the form of lonely
old men asking frivolous questions or bickering.... or even just
adding provocative "signatures" without ever taking responsibility
for their outbursts. (See John Hall's post, scorning those who
don't work out as wastrels. :)

    I don't use any of the mainstream social media. TikTok,
Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, NextDoor.... How social are they?
Is it socializing to post one's 2 cents and try to increase
"followers"? Is it social to post a short paragraph about Kim
Kardashian's ass or Travis Kelce's shirt? I'm afraid that many
young people view that as all of social engagement, but in that
capacity it's really just serving as an artificial peer group, so
that one knows what to think about Kim Kardashian's ass.

   Facebook started out as a social medium. What is it now?
Google news on acid that people can't pull away from because
it's still where they hear about parties? Instagram? What is that?
Facebook for illiterate people?

   It seems that seeing a reflection of oneself in a cellphone
screen is passing for social relationships in many case. So
what is social media?

   Reddit is the only site I use. The voting is childish, and many
of the groups are tightly controlled. On the other hand, many
usenet groups were ruined by lack of control -- taken over by
spam or antisocial cliques.

   I don't know of any site other than Reddit where one can
actually take part in discussions. There are a lot of serious
people in those discussions. There are topics where I can be
helpful. And when I need help, I often find it. Just about any topic
is covered.

    Some of the groups, like home repair, are run by weird fascist
cabals who tightly control the discussion. That's unfortunate.
And of course the Linux groups are frequented by the usual gangs
of anti-social Linux devotees. But in general I find that it works
and it's useful. The old.reddit.com version is surprisingly well
designed so that one can follow the back and forth of discussion.

   On the down side, Reddit recently partnered with Google. It's
become tricky to even log in. They're enforcing tracking. The site
was seemingly invented by teenagers. The up/down voting, the
awards, the "avatars".... It's all childish. But I'm often impressed by
the sincerity of posters.

   It would be nice to see something like Craigslist social -- a site
not existing merely as a profit strategy that could serve as a
meeting place. But maybe the very notion of a meeting place
online is faulty. None of it substitutes for actual relationships.

   Of course, I haven't made friends or got dates on Reddit. Maybe
I could if I gave up anonymity, but I find it too public for that. So,
is discussion social? Can online ever truly be social when both input
and output are primarily designed to keep people scrolling? When the
young father from Tennessee stormed the pizza parlor to save children
from Hillary's sex slavery ring, he believed that the world he knew
online was the real world. But people are using that world to conduct
group fantasy, and he didn't see the distinction.

   I was reading yesterday that Bill Gates, self-appointed genius, finally
said something intelligent. He recommended a book by Jonathan Haidt, who
was co-author of Coddling the American Mind (Atlantic Monthly) and is
one of the few voices speaking for human values in an intelligent way.
Apparently Haidt has a new book analyzing the implications of a
generation of kids raised by screens, who only see the outdoors when
they're being punished for misbehavior by having their screens taken away.

   So we have an ongoing laboratory of "social media". It seems to be
producing brittle personalities who find real life to be "unsafe"; young
people who don't want to live without supervision, to make sure that no
one can "gaslight" them or make them feel unsafe. People who need to
consult their psychotherapist before accepting a social date. People, in
short, who only know life in a shopping mall -- a world owned by exploitive
commercial interests that's been curated to keep them coming back.

   I guess that leads to the next level of such a question. A more 
existential
exploration: What matters in life and what is the role of social 
connections?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180654

In message <vjs0aa$1p06e$1@dont-email.me>, Newyana2 
<newyana@invalid.nospam> writes
>On 12/16/2024 2:46 PM, micky wrote:
>> I'll get back to everyone who posted in my previous thread, but I need
>> to know if you all think Usenet is social media?
>>                                  Or Social Media?  Which?
>>  And would you answer the same for Reddit?
>>
>
>   To my mind, usenet is not really social. Socializing is
>"off topic". It happens around the edges, in the form of lonely
>old men asking frivolous questions or bickering.... or even just
>adding provocative "signatures" without ever taking responsibility
>for their outbursts. (See John Hall's post, scorning those who
>don't work out as wastrels. :)

Either that was some other John Hall (it's a common name) or you've 
misattributed that post. I don't work out myself and certainly don't 
view those who don't as wastrels.

<big snip>
-- 
John Hall
                "I look upon it, that he who does not mind his belly,
                 will hardly mind anything else."
                                            Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-84)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180689

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 17 Dec 2024 09:03:29 -0500, Newyana2
<newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>On 12/16/2024 2:46 PM, micky wrote:
>> I'll get back to everyone who posted in my previous thread, but I need
>> to know if you all think Usenet is social media?
>>                                  Or Social Media?  Which?
>> 
>> And would you answer the same for Reddit?
>> 
>
>    To my mind, usenet is not really social. Socializing is
>"off topic". It happens around the edges, in the form of lonely
>old men asking frivolous questions or bickering.... or even just
>adding provocative "signatures" without ever taking responsibility
>for their outbursts. (See John Hall's post, scorning those who
>don't work out as wastrels. :)
>
>    I don't use any of the mainstream social media. TikTok,
>Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, NextDoor.... How social are they?
>Is it socializing to post one's 2 cents and try to increase
>"followers"? Is it social to post a short paragraph about Kim
>Kardashian's ass or Travis Kelce's shirt? I'm afraid that many
>young people view that as all of social engagement, but in that
>capacity it's really just serving as an artificial peer group, so
>that one knows what to think about Kim Kardashian's ass.
>
>   Facebook started out as a social medium. What is it now?
>Google news on acid that people can't pull away from because
>it's still where they hear about parties? Instagram? What is that?
>Facebook for illiterate people?
>
>   It seems that seeing a reflection of oneself in a cellphone
>screen is passing for social relationships in many case. So
>what is social media?
>
>   Reddit is the only site I use. The voting is childish, and many
>of the groups are tightly controlled. On the other hand, many
>usenet groups were ruined by lack of control -- taken over by
>spam or antisocial cliques.
>
>   I don't know of any site other than Reddit where one can
>actually take part in discussions. There are a lot of serious
>people in those discussions. There are topics where I can be
>helpful. And when I need help, I often find it. Just about any topic
>is covered.
>
>    Some of the groups, like home repair, are run by weird fascist
>cabals who tightly control the discussion. That's unfortunate.
>And of course the Linux groups are frequented by the usual gangs
>of anti-social Linux devotees. But in general I find that it works
>and it's useful. The old.reddit.com version is surprisingly well
>designed so that one can follow the back and forth of discussion.
>
>   On the down side, Reddit recently partnered with Google. It's
>become tricky to even log in. They're enforcing tracking. The site
>was seemingly invented by teenagers. The up/down voting, the
>awards, the "avatars".... It's all childish. But I'm often impressed by
>the sincerity of posters.
>
>   It would be nice to see something like Craigslist social -- a site
>not existing merely as a profit strategy that could serve as a
>meeting place. But maybe the very notion of a meeting place
>online is faulty. None of it substitutes for actual relationships.
>
>   Of course, I haven't made friends or got dates on Reddit. Maybe
>I could if I gave up anonymity, but I find it too public for that. So,
>is discussion social? Can online ever truly be social when both input
>and output are primarily designed to keep people scrolling? When the
>young father from Tennessee stormed the pizza parlor to save children
>from Hillary's sex slavery ring, he believed that the world he knew
>online was the real world. But people are using that world to conduct
>group fantasy, and he didn't see the distinction.
>
>   I was reading yesterday that Bill Gates, self-appointed genius, finally
>said something intelligent. He recommended a book by Jonathan Haidt, who
>was co-author of Coddling the American Mind (Atlantic Monthly) and is
>one of the few voices speaking for human values in an intelligent way.
>Apparently Haidt has a new book analyzing the implications of a
>generation of kids raised by screens, who only see the outdoors when
>they're being punished for misbehavior by having their screens taken away.
>
>   So we have an ongoing laboratory of "social media". It seems to be
>producing brittle personalities who find real life to be "unsafe"; young
>people who don't want to live without supervision, to make sure that no
>one can "gaslight" them or make them feel unsafe. People who need to
>consult their psychotherapist before accepting a social date. People, in
>short, who only know life in a shopping mall -- a world owned by exploitive
>commercial interests that's been curated to keep them coming back.
>
>   I guess that leads to the next level of such a question. A more 
>existential
>exploration: What matters in life and what is the role of social 
>connections?

Very, very intesting post. I don't disagree with any of the parts I know
about   I don't know about Facebook and Twitter, for example, but you've
enhanced my desire to stay away from them.    It would take me an hour
just to reply to the important parts, and it's already 11:30.  But I
really enjoyed your remarks.   (And don't worry, I've forgotten what you
said about John Hall.) 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180697

On 12/18/2024 11:35 PM, micky wrote:

> Very, very intesting post. I don't disagree with any of the parts I know
> about   I don't know about Facebook and Twitter, for example, but you've
> enhanced my desire to stay away from them.    It would take me an hour
> just to reply to the important parts, and it's already 11:30.  But I
> really enjoyed your remarks.   (And don't worry, I've forgotten what you
> said about John Hall.)
> 

   It's become a very real threat to democracy. In the last election
we had more than half the country believing that Trump is going
to help poor people! They'll probably all still believe it when they lose
their home.

     Not so long ago, the presidency was decided
mostly by knowledgeable power brokers. The general public might
see a glimpse of the candidate, but they were mostly just told who
to vote for. Thus the electoral college -- to prevent the hoi polloi
from electing a nut. A sense of noblesse oblige would ensure that
the poor and uneducated were looked after, at least to some extent.

    With Trump, the electoral college has done just
what it was designed to prevent, because everyone now has information
and opinions about candidates, provided by Russia, China, propagandists,
psychos, political operatives, and marketing companies. People who
never leave their farm in Tennessee think they have their finger on the
pulse of society by reading about Hillary's child sex ring on Facebook.

   There's a movie about Brexit, showing how Cambridge Analytica
used Facebook data to direct the Brexit vote. Then it started going the
other way, with entities controlling what shows up on Facebook feeds,
because Zuck's algorythms only care that you stay worked up enough
to keep scrolling. A 30-something fool who started out trying to collect
data on easy lays at Harvard is, in some ways, running the country.

   In the 2016 election, Eric Shmidt tried to sell Hillary on a plan to
give her the election by targetting individual voters using the vast
Google spyware trove of data. (Hillary is said to have turned him down.
Probably because she didn't understand the power of the data.)

   So now we have a populace that's almost all informed... in some manner.
And we have entities who are dedicated to shaping that information.
The Internet was supposed to provide information to everyone. We
didn't foresee that such information could be the marketing campaign
of the next Hitler, or worse. Autocrats used to get into power and then
kill off the educated while seducing the uneducated. Now they don't need
to eliminate the people who know what's going on. No one's listening
to them.

   I suspect that social media has also had a big role in cancel culture.
The gossip mills of Twitter and Facebook generate delicious outrage
on a mass scale. "Didn't Travis bring flowers to Taylor at her concert?!
That son of a bitch!" No one is above being put into the town stocks
for punishment. Last year the Dalai Lama was seen in a Chinese propaganda
video, kissing a young boy. As it turned out, the DL was giving a public 
talk,
he knew the boy, who had asked for a hug, and the boy's mother was
seated a few feet away. The kiss on the mouth is something that's
common in Tibet. Basically the DL was like a  playful grandmother, 
smothering
the child with hugs to tease him. But no one was listening. "The Dalai Lama
is a child molester!" The mob had its next victim. (The Chinese propaganda
machine knows how to push our buttons. Sex is the most dependable way
to blackball anyone in the US.) All that mattered was
having another topic to Twitterize.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180702

On 12/19/2024 7:37 AM, Newyana2 wrote:
> On 12/18/2024 11:35 PM, micky wrote:
> 
>> Very, very intesting post. I don't disagree with any of the parts I know
>> about   I don't know about Facebook and Twitter, for example, but you've
>> enhanced my desire to stay away from them.    It would take me an hour
>> just to reply to the important parts, and it's already 11:30.  But I
>> really enjoyed your remarks.   (And don't worry, I've forgotten what you
>> said about John Hall.)
>>
> 
>    It's become a very real threat to democracy. In the last election

---snip---

>      Not so long ago, the presidency was decided

---snip---
> 
>     With Trump, the electoral college has done just

---snip---
>    There's a movie about Brexit, showing how Cambridge Analytica

---snip---
>    In the 2016 election, Eric Shmidt tried to sell Hillary on a plan to

---snip---

>    So now we have a populace that's almost all informed... in some manner.

---snip---
>    I suspect that social media has also had a big role in cancel culture.

---snip---

Nice.  This is his usual micky on steroids routine.

-- 
I Stand With Israel!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180655

On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 14:46:26 -0500, micky wrote:

> Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.home.repair,comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.software.firefox

Followup-To: alt.clueless

(What's 'Usesent'?)

-- 
s|b

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.os.windows-10

csiph-web