I've always had problems with identifying the employer of a donor. The assumption is that the donor somehow shares the political orientation of the employer or is donating to further the employer's interests, neither of which we know anything about.
Another assumption is that without laws requiring employer disclosure for sizable political donations ($200 or more for federal elections, I believe), an employer could launder its campaign donations through its employees without detection.
I'm not saying the info should not be collected for regulators but that reporting it is disinformative.
FWIW, from OpenSecrets’ FAQ:
“We know that not every contribution is made with the donor’s economic or professional interests in mind, nor do we assert that every donor considers their employer’s interests when they make a contribution. But our research over more than 20 years shows enough of a correlation between individuals’ contributions and their employers’ political interests that we feel comfortable with our methodology. We have also observed that the donors who give more than $200, and especially those who contribute at the maximum levels, are more commonly top executives in their companies, not lower-level employees.”
Musk is getting rid of all the anti fascists on Twitter. Don’t forget this dude was born and raised in the apartheid system of South Africa. Just let the right wing nuts take over twitter.
It's going to be a wild, right-wing batsh*t crazy ride on this one.
.@RealJamesWoods tells Tucker Carlson that he will be suing the DNC following the bombshell revelations regarding Twitter’s suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story.
These numbers -- assuming they're accurate -- have to be understood in the context of 500 million Tweets per day, which suggests that one's chances of encountering hate speech on Twitter are less than walking around randomly in America.
Elon and Matt Taibbi, exposing the political corruption at Twitter before the takeover
In a one-word tweet afterward, you called Twitter “Liars” for telling the FEC that the Biden campaign didn’t ask it to review the NY Post articles. That was after Taibbi posted a Twitter email, labeled “More to review from the Biden team,” that listed five URLs for posted tweets.
Were you able to determine that those tweets were related to the Post articles?
“While Musk might be hoping we see documents showing Twitter’s (largely former) staffers nefariously deciding to act in a way that helped now-President Joe Biden, the communications mostly show a team debating how to finalize and communicate a difficult moderation decision.”
The people excited by the Musk and Taibbi "bombshell" are ranting that the Twitter "violated the First Amendment", which means they're either dishonest or incredibly misinformed.
These numbers -- assuming they're accurate -- have to be understood in the context of 500 million Tweets per day, which suggests that one's chances of encountering hate speech on Twitter are less than walking around randomly in America.
It all depends on what one's "Twitter diet" consists of. It also depends on whether the hate speech is random or directed to specific people or peoples.
The bottom line is, the facts are the facts, and your sudden conversion to "but the context" doesn't change the facts.
Have to wonder if Elon Musk is going to be able to handle the overbearing fanboy support he is going to get once Putin commits suicide. i suspect that Elon is going to be turned off by it.
These numbers -- assuming they're accurate -- have to be understood in the context of 500 million Tweets per day, which suggests that one's chances of encountering hate speech on Twitter are less than walking around randomly in America.
It all depends on what one's "Twitter diet" consists of. It also depends on whether the hate speech is random or directed to specific people or peoples.
The bottom line is, the facts are the facts, and your sudden conversion to "but the context" doesn't change the facts.
It's a fact that the US has problems with race and antisemitism. The research described appears to show that Twitter's problems with race and antisemitism are quantitatively less than they are in society in general.
It's a fact that the US has problems with race and antisemitism. The research described appears to show that Twitter's problems with race and antisemitism are quantitatively less than they are in society in general.
It's a fact that the US has problems with race and antisemitism. The research described appears to show that Twitter's problems with race and antisemitism are quantitatively less than they are in society in general.
That's beside the point.
If the point is that Twitter is part of the modern day public square, it's relevant.
It's a fact that the US has problems with race and antisemitism. The research described appears to show that Twitter's problems with race and antisemitism are quantitatively less than they are in society in general.
That's beside the point.
If the point is that Twitter is part of the modern day public square, it's relevant.
No, the point is a before-and-after comparison. It's facts.
Pointing to "society in general" is irrelevant to those facts.
Have to wonder if Elon Musk is going to be able to handle the overbearing fanboy support he is going to get once Putin commits suicide. i suspect that Elon is going to be turned off by it.
Elon's in the beginning of a beautiful relationship with another world leader.
Another assumption is that without laws requiring employer disclosure for sizable political donations ($200 or more for federal elections, I believe), an employer could launder its campaign donations through its employees without detection.