[consteval]

> As someone who purports to care so much about facts, how can you open with this statement?

You just answered it, lol. Because I care about facts.

> people are voting against this sort of cognitive dissonance disguised as arrogance, not for Trump.

Right, the arrogance of pointing out things that are blatantly untrue. If you're trying to paint your side as anything but bumbling idiots, you're not doing a very good job.

The really fun thing about Trump supporters this go around is that they pretty much shoot themselves in the foot whenever they can.

Virtually every Trump supporter I know considers him a liar. The leftists I know don't - they actually have more respect for him. But Trump supporters will defend him constantly with "he doesn't mean that" or "he meant it as a joke" or whatever.

Your defense is that the person you support is not evil, but just a liar? In fact, they vote for him under the assumption that he won't be able to execute most of his plans, and they'll fall through. Their faith in him is paradoxically based on complete non-belief. It's very interesting to me.

Musk is in a similar position. His defenders proclaim his innocence by requiting his crimes on the grounds of abject stupidity. That doesn't do much to convince me.

[lend000]

Ironically, you're attacking someone who is neither a Trump apologist nor voter. There are more than 2 uniform perspectives in the global stage of ideas. I imagine it's easier to argue with an imaginary Trump supporter (like you spent most of your comment doing) than engage civilly with the questions I posed you. Maybe you could use a break from the comments sections...

[consteval]

I never attacked you, I said, quote "trump supporters" and "musk defenders". Do you identify with that? Because on one hand you say no, and on the other you say yes.

I answered your questions as best I could, but to be honest, I have very little patience on account of how stupid the questions were. I mean, it's not exactly groundbreaking news that Twitter is a dumpster fire and algorithms purposefully boost the most toxic content.

I'm working under the assumption you're playing stupid, which is actually rather charitable of me. The alternative would that you just are stupid.

But, because today I feel extra generous, I'll answer your incredibly naive question:

> Did you know you can unfollow him? How is this worse than where you get your news?

Social Media like X is specifically engineered to keep you on it via engagement. This means rage bait.

I know this because I've tried, very hard, to scrub my socials of politics. I am very disciplined, but even for me it is impossible. No matter what, I will get some pinhead saying women shouldn't vote or black people are genetically inferior. I can unfollow, I can click "not interested", doesn't matter.

The algorithm will, eventually, go back into showing me the most vile content imaginable, almost always extreme right-wing content.

The reason why is obvious - this content is extremely controversial and garners the most retention. Nobody cares about rainbows and butterflies, they care about skinheads and rapists.

The news, at least, does not feature this kind of content. The news, also, typically does not outright lie. Musk outright lies, almost always, but he's one example. If you go through the timeline of the typical right-wing pundit, almost none of their tweets are true.

The news isn't going to tell me Haitian immigrants are eating cats and dogs. Twitter, and evidently the president elect, will.

[lend000]

> Twitter is a dumpster fire and algorithms purposefully boost the most toxic content

Proceeds to be extremely toxic.

@dang