Funny but 400 posts with #TrumpIsACoward and 16500 with #Trump2024 . It really just shows how unpopular truth social is more than anything.
More bots
He is indeed a coward. He is also far too old.
And apparently he smells weird too
He bravely ran away
When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled
The brave Sir Robin!
That reads like a Terry Pratchett joke
It’s a Monty Phyton one
Or like a Monty Python sketch.
Thatsthejoke.jpg
Was that a swallow flying over their head?
And there was much rejoicing. Yay!
A strategic full speed ahead in the opposite direction
First out-loud laugh of the day. Truly, this was awesome. Cheers!
Strategic retreat.
He ran away from a debate and tried to start a new one. What a wimp.
What a
wimp.What a baby!
he clearly hates being called a baby so we should use that more often ;)
He has baby hands. They really look ridiculous. I’m not one to make fun of physical appearance but trump is a white supremacist piece of shit weirdo.
It’s hard to find anything wrong with what you said.
What a weirdo
Whatta weird loser
I sense ketchup splattered walls and a wildly swinging ban-hammer in the near future.
I’ll be happy when that “man” can’t afford ketchup at all.
I’ll settle for him having to clean it up himself.
Trump must be calling Elon to check what to do
“Flush Truth down the Xitter”
They both call Peter Thiel
Yeah but his only advice is to harvest the blood of your children to prevent aging.
Stock market advice? Invest in blood transfusions
Dating advice? Blood transfusions make you look young and sexy
High cholesterol? More blood
Low potassium? More blood
Too much blood? Weirdly enough, also blood transfusion.
Maybe the billionaires are finally figuring out that having the Dynamite Monkey for president is bad for business.
Simple, ban the Trump counter protesters from the platform under some fake sweeping guise like “breaking community guidelines”.
He probably would if his Media company wouldn’t be in free fall. I believe he’s happy for every user that pushes the active user number above 20000, even if it means getting memed on his own platform.
He doesn’t want to get fact checked.
He couldn’t care less about that, he doesn’t want to look weak getting manhandled by a woman because then his bullshit strongman thing dissolves.
FTFY:
TruthWeird SocialAlways has been.
So, is it trolls or are his followers starting to drop?
Most of the internet’s organized troll groups are already the ones pushing right wing narratives (even when those right wing narratives come with a thin coat of red paint.) Truth social is definitely infested with trolls, but they are the kind trying to get Trump elected. A mutiny on his own platform would almost certainly have to be organic.
Not to be “that guy” who doesn’t trust everything he reads on the internet, but… what credible sources are saying that "most of the internet troll groups are … pushing right wing narratives? I wonder how they would track such a thing.
You’ll get the hang of detecting paid trolls (or peoplec onvinced by them), there are lots of signs like Never back down, change the narrative (die hard people do not often do that), has lots of info that is somewhere in betweed what you are discussing and line USAbad/Russia_china-not-bad, Always lean onto one side, even if it’s subtle… sometimes not.
And dude are they 99% pro dictators/trump/anti-demicracy/… you get the idea.
For example, people calling out Biden for the Israeli war crimes, but conveniently forgetting Trump. And also because it was a pro Trump thing, now when Biden stepped down for reelection (shouldn’t change anything, right? A warcrime or genocide is still there) they all vanished…
It’s equally possible you’re just assuming everyone who doesn’t share your opinion is a paid troll. I got called a Russian troll multiple times for saying Biden had no business being in this election and that we could do better. Imo it’s far more likely you’re talking to a child than a “paid troll” if their opinions don’t make sense and they dig their heels in. Assuming everything is some grand conspiracy instead of accepting that some people have different beliefs and opinions, or might just be that stupid, simply isn’t healthy. Trolls and such exist, sure, but I don’t think they are anywhere near as common as you’re implying.
No, there’s more to it. All the troll farms that get busted are disinformation machines, and most of them are sponsored by Russia.
There’s also Cambridge Analytica. And there was the Mueller report.
It isn’t a feeling, it’s facts. And I have said it way before there was evidence. OP is right, it’s easy to detect them. I use the tag feature to keep track. A lot of my tags vanished a couple weeks ago, so I assume there was a sweep or bills haven’t been paid… Some I had to readjust because my first impression was wrong, and they were indeed organic users that argued like bots.
I had been hunting bots on reddit for years, you get a sense for it, and also where they’re from and what their intentions are.
They’re plentiful but currently at a low, at least on Lemmy and Youtube.
Edit: For a while there appears to be also bots from everything left of Putin and Trump now, but they seem to be informative and fighting against the disinformation of the farms that have wrecked havock since 2015.
Edit 2: I agree with you though, there’s a lot of real people that believe and repeat the lies they’ve learned from the bots
Sure, but it’s also quite obvious when you stumble upon a real one. And I mean for example thinking 100.000 recent deaths is okay because NATO scary (for example) just boils down to either deluded or paid. IMO.
Maybe they “vanished” because they got what they wanted: an anti-genocide candidate. There’s not much point in saying that Trump is a fascist here because we all agree on it.
It was just an example. Among many.
Kamala Harris is still abetting a genocide in Gaza. Walk away /s
There’s a difference?
Maybe trolls. In the article there is a picture of trending phrases, all of which have 1000s of posts except for Trump is a coward, which has less than 500, but I assume they were all made within a short time span so that’s how they made the trending list
It’s his NPCs search for any post correctly calling him a coward, so they can attack the person.
Trump is a scaredy cat man
And very weird too!
Are we sure they aren’t just responding to the hashtag from Twitter? I don’t plan to check but just a thought…
Yeah, it’s pretty obviously not what it sounds like. This would be a pretty big headline if the story behind it was true but no other media outlet has reported it except Raw Story, which is considered to have a Strong Left bias. If I were to guess I would say the hashtag is being used to mock progressives now that the Harris campaign is being reported by right-leaning media as having “declined” the Fox debate.
Raw Story - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Raw Story:
MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.rawstory.com/news/trump-is-a-coward-trending-on-truth-social/
Ground News is a conservative op
Care to elaborate?
It presents center-biased stories as unbiased. There’s no such thing as unbiased news. Nearly every news organisation that’s ever been founded uses “he” and “she” pronouns (or a localised equivalent) for various people, indicating a male or female gender. Gender is a social construct; it has no objective, or unbiased, existence. Gender only exists because we believe in it and treat it as real. Nearly all news participates in the social construct of gender and is therefore biased in favour of gender. And belief in gender isn’t universal. Gender abolitionists would say that gender should not be believed in or participated in. Now, I disagree strongly with gender abolitionists, but I am using their views here to illustrate the point that participating in gender implicitly is a bias. So all news is biased. But Ground News would call a centrist story that uses gendered pronouns unbiased, despite the implicit pushing of socially constructed and subjective identities.
Implicitly affirming gender isn’t bad. It’s a good thing. But it’s not unbiased. News SHOULD be biased. It should be biased in favour of fair and just treatment of all people. You have to be biased, biasless news is impossible. But Ground News lies and says biasless news does exist, and it just so happens to be the news that occupies the center of the overton window. A window that is rapidly drifting rightwards, and a window that Ground News is intentionally following, while telling users to come join them.
I believe they’re saying it’s impossible to not have a bias. The center of left and right isn’t unbiased - it’s a bunch of biased positions, as well. And you can figure out the position of a site like this by what they think is neutral.
I kinda got that part, the part that caught me off guard was the big gender rant. Like, I’m very amused because I can tell what their current brainworm is lol.
Do you consider biases hierarchical or all horizontally equivalent? Because believing in a core of grounding facts and agreeing on basic principles is what allows you to agree, disagree and to communicate. If you go around saying nothing means anything in an equivalent manner, you just explode social cohesion in exchange for very little.
If you take a hierarchical approach, people can deviate from convention (what has brought us here) as much as they are willing and have the time to read up and explore, but always with a way to pull back into safety at a less abstract layer where more people recognize each other’s positions.
E.g. you may debate gender definitions if you are settled on the idea of civic rights, human rights. Do you think that makes you a civic rights “conservative”? But civic and human rights rest on an already high abstraction level that depends on people being well-fed, educated, an economic system that works in practice at scale, etc.
This is the bullshit that is going to get Trump elected by the way.
I am impressed that you were asked about bias and could have gone with anything and decided the best thing to do was out yourself as a transphobe with dogwhistles. Why did you do that?
I’m perplexed: How do you go from someone saying “gender is a social construct” to them being trasphobic? I got the “spot the vegan” vibes that they were trying to suddenly make this about trans rights…
I didn’t out myself as a transphobe, in fact I made it very clear that I’m in favour of trans rights by adding an aside about how I disagree with gender abolitionists. The fact that I said recognising gender is a bias doesn’t make me a transphobe. And I was worried people would think that, so I made it clear that I think recognising gender is a good bias. But clearly you stopped reading before you got to that point.
Why did you go off on one about gender at all? It had nothing to do with anything and yet you filled your comment with transphobic dogwhistles. Of all the things you could have chosen you chose that?
Gender is an easy example of a social construct. It was more relatable to most people than talking about how consensus reality is fake.
deleted by creator
Whut?
