|
Julio Cruz posted:yes I know he knows he's not on the electoral roll though, he says he's Traveller so I assume he knows why and has his own reasons for not jumping through whatever hoops to get registered. He can still be part of the movement even if he's not personally voting in state elections but why should that have anything to do with an internal party election, y'know? If you're a member shouldn't you get a vote, and that's it? I mean hell quote:Am I eligible to join? quote:What can I do as a member? I don't get why he's being excluded, he has every right to vote same as anyone else
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 23:58 |
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:No, people decided that anyone with that username format (which has been the default for at least a few years) was automatically a Russian bot because people with that username format often say things that the sort of person who blames Russia when they poo poo their pants disagree with. It's a perfect example of selection bias (and bubble mentality, possibly with a bit of racism mixed in). Ok I genuinely didn't know that that username format is something done by Twitter, rather than something done by whatever script the Russians were using Sorry, didn't mean to bash the poor guy, just... Yeah Putin has already won hasn't he. How am I gonna trust anything or anyone on Twitter now? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 20:21
|
|
|
Not So Fast posted:Morning Star is run by the CPGB which has been transphobic for a while now. Trans issues are a distraction from the workers paradise etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 20:32
|
|
|
jaete posted:Yeah Putin has already won hasn't he. How am I gonna trust anything or anyone on Twitter now? I mean: BBC: Study finds quarter of climate change tweets from bots Maybe you shouldn't? e: Also it's more than quarter for ones opposed to any action or supporting oil companies. quote:Tweets about "fake science" were found to have been written by bots 38% of the time and 28% of tweets about oil company Exxon were posted by bots. Humm, I wonder why. Private Speech fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Feb 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I mean if you go down the road of that kind of class reductionism then so is transphobia, because women's and LGB issues are a distraction from the workers' paradise, so why do they care so much? beat me to it I sent an email to the Star's letters address, but doubt anything will come of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 20:46
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:I mean: Actual bot-spotting is pretty easy. Do they only ever post about one particular subject/have recently started posting about that one thing to the exclusion of all others? Do they have a number of followers that seems unlikely for the length of time they've been on the site? Non-celebs follow a pretty reliable curve - anyone considerably above that (e.g. >1000 followers in three months) either bought them or are in a botnet. Are they reliably among the first responders to posts about a subject? Do they never engage in conversation? If the answer to 3 or 4 of those is "Yes", that's a bot. Of course the ones who scream the most about Russian bots often fulfill at least two of them (#FBPE I'm looking at you). Algorithmically you can test for other tells along with the above: Fast retweets - if their retweets are all within minutes of the post. "Smooth" usage profile - even the most monomaniacal posters have a day/night cycle, if they're posting the same amount at every hour of the day that's a huge tell. Common or single-substitution phrasing with other suspect posters. *Consistent* use of trending hashtags before they start to show up as trending One thing that's noticeable is that almost none of the posters accused of being bots exhibit *any* of this behaviour. "Bot", like "troll" before it, has become the go-to excuse of Very Sensible And Reasonable People for people daring to disagree with them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 21:05
|
|
|
You can always fling it at the Botometer if you are suspicious. This isn't foolproof - the "tells" are by now well-documented and won't pose any serious barriers to a dedicated bot writer who intends to evade them. Twitter assigns the user's name plus 8 random digits if they register with Twitter on the mobile app. Most human users affected by this will go on to change their handle, because it will appear in tweets made to them and it's kind of jarring (this is likely the first time such a user will see that others see their handle, as opposed to their display name). However, if they're just quietly lurking and don't tweet much and aren't tweeted at much (most people are not Extremely Online after all), then their odds of their tweets showing up suddenly in your feed or social network are pretty darned low too. If it's showing up suddenly in your feed, maybe it's happenstance that it managed to catch the eye of a user who could pass it on. Or maybe it's a bot network that has now decided to cash in on their submerged bot accounts. In the circumstances, in most cases it'll be the latter. Without any network analysis, "Timbo75948987" does have some sketchy aspects - no bio. One picture for both banner and avatar; could be stock imagery. Never posts photos or media. - doesn't actually tweet much from a quick eyeball of the tweet history. It is virtually all replies or retweets of a mix of high-impact handles and obscure ones. This could be a human doggedly scrolling down other people's replies to look for people to argue with but that would get old fast surely? - seems to have too many followers - many of the replies are in a broken English that could be from a natural language generator On the other hand: - if it is from a generator it is astonishingly coherent. Consider this tweet, which is surely near and dear to this thread's heart: https://twitter.com/Timbo75948987/status/1180500856736751618 (even this kind of thing isn't a guarantee - if the other user is also a bot then they could just be replaying a conversation from the dataset! But from a look the other user seems real enough).
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 21:10
|
|
|
my go-to is that anyone with a retweet:original tweet ratio of >100 is probably a bot
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 21:11
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:he knows he's not on the electoral roll though, he says he's Traveller so I assume he knows why and has his own reasons for not jumping through whatever hoops to get registered. He can still be part of the movement even if he's not personally voting in state elections It’s part of how the party are checking sign ups are bona fide UKers and not, say, a Russian botnet interfering in the election or gammons signing up under fake names to sabotage the party Not a perfect system, but nothing ever would be
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 21:16
|
|
|
On that point:quote:To be and remain eligible for membership, each individual member must:... There's the dodgy email that got sent out, but even so if you tell party staff that you're not on the roll for personal reasons, don't be entirely shocked if they revoke your membership; you might not even have to flounce in a huff for that to happen. Many slipped through during the registered-supporter surges - but party members are actually required to be on the roll, or have a good reason for why they're not on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 21:33
|
|
|
mehall posted:beat me to it They're not gonna do anything about it. I think they're in full blown siege mentality now where they're doing stuff like giving Women's Place a platform and if lgbt+ people say anything it's going to be "those evil trans" and they'll just hunker down more. I legitimately don't get how you'd solve it short of just changing the entire editorial staff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 21:36
|
|
|
ronya posted:There's the dodgy email that got sent out, but even so if you tell party staff that you're not on the roll for personal reasons, don't be entirely shocked if they revoke your membership; you might not even have to flounce in a huff for that to happen. Many slipped through during the registered-supporter surges - but party members are actually required to be on the roll, or have a good reason for why they're not on it. Yeah and arguably the guy has a good reason, that's why he's complaining. I'm not saying it's not really in the rules, just why is it at all? Cerv's explanation makes sense, but they should still be flexible about it so people aren't excluded plus couldn't bots just sign up with someone's name and address from the electoral roll anyway? so long as they ignore the membership pack arriving how would the party know it's fraud?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 21:57
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Yeah and arguably the guy has a good reason, that's why he's complaining. I'm not saying it's not really in the rules, just why is it at all? Cerv's explanation makes sense, but they should still be flexible about it so people aren't excluded It would delegitimize the mandate produced by the membership - quote:The NEC shall issue procedural guidelines on issues relating to membership from time to time, including a code of conduct on membership recruitment. In particular, the NEC wishes to highlight the following areas of potential abuse of membership rules: "But why is it disreputable, I consider it perfectly fine to vote in party ballots but not vote at elections as a matter of principle" is a turtles-all-the-way-down question, though. Claiming someone else's identity altogether escalates it from "having a laugh" to "criminal misdemeanour". I don't think outright false pretences fraud is the principle threat envisioned, but rather mobilizing disengaged people who do not intend to vote for Labour as a party... (I note here that this used to be a danger envisioned from the left about the right until circa ~2016ish; the left used to believe it tended to do worse, not better, by having low-engagement people participate in party processes).
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 22:26
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/WillAustin1964/status/1231233902720749569?s=19
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 22:44
|
|
|
Someone just put this on and it's thread relevant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2wySIVZegE
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 22:47
|
|
|
"where eligible" again I'm not saying "its not in the rules", I'm saying the rules can be read as discriminatory against certain people and communities, so maybe those shouldn't be the rules? and no I don't really see the problem with letting those people, or people who aren't old enough to vote, join the party to be part of the movement and help out? Why is being a registered voter actually better - it's not exactly proof you're voting for Labour is it, especially during a leadership election where people literally say "join Labour to give them a bad leader har har" baka kaba fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Feb 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 22:47
|
|
|
Here’s a fun song a guy on the RLB team made in his spare time to encourage people to phonebank: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0Hq_EysHHM
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 22:56
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/bdomenech/status/1231341535469416449?s=20 Sanders is winning overwhelmingly today and going forward. James Carville melted the gently caress down on live tv 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 23:18
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:https://twitter.com/bdomenech/status/1231341535469416449?s=20 yeah it's great https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1231343189396803584 same channel where one of the millionaire hosts was going I DON'T KNOW IF BERNIE SANDERS WANTS ME ROUNDED UP AND SHOT IN CENTRAL PARK, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE BELIEVES e- lmao he's at it again https://twitter.com/KeithJCarberry/status/1231345934891724802 sure been a wild ride watching our countries reacting to a resurgent left over the past few years baka kaba fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Feb 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 23:53
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:No, people decided that anyone with that username format (which has been the default for at least a few years) was automatically a Russian bot because people with that username format often say things that the sort of person who blames Russia when they poo poo their pants disagree with. It's a perfect example of selection bias (and bubble mentality, possibly with a bit of racism mixed in). 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2020 00:20
|
|
|
There’s been no post in like 10 hours, are you all alright or has your island gone under?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2020 10:42
|
|
|
It's 9:45 in the morning and only like, me and Ms A are awake all night and Grey is busy LPing at 5 in the morning like a madman. I tend to read the us dem primary thread at night as it has comparable energy and is seemingly equally full of raving commies at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2020 10:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It's 9:45 in the morning and only like, me and Ms A are awake all night and Grey is busy LPing at 5 in the morning like a madman. Assume you mean the CSPAM thread. D&D US threads are bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2020 10:51
|
|
|
Nah the DnD dem primary thread is good it's like 90% bernie people and they've got a pretty good shitpost/serious ratio.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2020 11:00
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:he's saying Labour won't let him vote in internal party elections just because he's not on the electoral roll Well, if you care enough to join a political party and want to vote in their internal elections, surely you'd care enough to get on the electoral roll? There's options for homeless and travelling people to register.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2020 11:02
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Team GB It upsets some people here, yeah. Anyone from NI competing for the UK is going to be sore about it. Nationalists can choose to compete for Ireland instead iirc. It also excludes the crown dependencies and, well, everything that isn't in GB. Personally I don't care at all though
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2020 11:13
|
|
|
So BoJo-a-GoGo, the mad Prime Minister is at it again. Apparently the reason he hired Braveman was because the previous AG wouldn't come up with a way for England not to honour their Brexit obligations. That is going to set a really good tone for all future deal negotiations. https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2020/0223/1117043-brexit-northern-ireland-protocol/
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2020 11:15
|
|
|
"british" at least does technically mean the archipelago but "team gb" is flat out wrong even without the political implications.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2020 11:15
|
|
|
The Question IRL posted:So BoJo-a-GoGo, the mad Prime Minister is at it again. You can see why he wants that bridge. Also amazing to see how the French have so naturally rediscovered their historic role in the world as a nation predisposed to give the English as poo poo a time as possible 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2020 11:30
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:"where eligible" There's a certain frame of political mind, thoroughly marinated in a tacitly neoliberal outlook, that is stunned to learn that political parties might impose any kind of duty upon members besides a monetary fee... it would not shock me if this user is amongst them. (assuming he is a real person who is conveniently a white working class Traveller construction worker lifelong anti-fascist street fighter veteran who subscribed to twitter in Dec 2018 and instantly began replytweeting UKpol and virtually nothing else... such people exist out there, but well before there were Twitter bot armies there were the sundry trolls and sockpuppets... it's hmm-worthy at the least) The old CLPD objection was that "armchairs" would be disproportionately influenced by the Tory press (as opposed to the "activists" much-ballyhooed in the old parlance). The old conventional wisdom was that the "armchairs" tended to vote for the Labour right whereas the "activists" tended toward the Labour left. Hence the CLPD objected to OMOV and, when this battle was lost, objected to postal ballots, proxy votes at motions, synchronizing voting cycles so that low-turnout selections could co-occur on the same ballot card with the high-turnout ones, &c. - anything that would diminish the power of machining local activists to show up at low-turnout branch meetings (it was still waging this battle as late as the Mandelson-led Millbank review in the oughts). The ideal CLPD process was the annual delegate election to GCs with public ballots cast in person. Conversely the Progress types similarly always assumed that the "armchairs" would indeed tend to back them - that there would always be masses of working-class voters who would never vote for a leftie but would tribally still show up to vote for Labour and in Labour for non-left candidates, and hence the great mass of the armchairs would overwhelm the left-wing activists and the perennial left candidate. The best laid plans of men, as we now know... I don't think you're coming from an unreasonable perspective, but it does illustrate the depth of change in the party to primarily view it as a free-associational movement of a political banner embraced in common as individuals, rather than one with a natural demographic constituency anchored in social class. As to whether it should be in the rules in our brave new neoliberal identity-as-consumption world... well, there is the problem Cerv put a finger on. In the old model where someone from a working class background is assumed to have an inviolable place in the party of Labour even if all they do is show up to curse at pinkos, there's no real reason to detect masked attitudes and bad faith. Class is a material characteristic. But if it is a subscription to a club membership, then suddenly this kind of disambiguation will be critical... I think it would depend on many factors outside the party's immediate control. If the LDEMs continue to see no hope under FPTP and begin to see locals as a resource-draining trap (say), then it's assuredly the case that Labour will see many members who assert that they are true red Labour but coincidentally oppose everything the Labour incumbents stand for. Or likewise in Scotland members who assert that their place is in the Labour party but they regretfully believe that only the Tory candidate can keep the Nats out of their Westminster seat. Not that they endorse the Tory candidate, oh no, that's just their read of the polling. &c... Five years after the Corbyn surprises, it doesn't seem necessarily the case that low-engagement members will be reliable supporters of the hard left of the party; a great deal depends on Momentum's continued cohesion and effectiveness in whipping this kind of vote to shape critical selections. I think it does, for now, but its edge might be closer by the time any big rule changes settle in. It's a one-man Lansman vehicle presently (in a literal sense) but it might not always remain so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2020 11:36
|
|
|
The Question IRL posted:So BoJo-a-GoGo, the mad Prime Minister is at it again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2020 11:37
|
|
|
from the RR boxing thread and lol at brits abroad
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2020 11:38
|
|
|
Mano posted:There’s been no post in like 10 hours, are you all alright or has your island gone under? Nah it's just everyone who read the 'left wing' Guardian this morning had a rage induced stroke.  Silly left wing people, why won't you listen to the ELECTABLE CENTERIST (who caused most of the current lack of faith in your party to generate real change).
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2020 11:41
|
|
|
Every time I see that guy's av I feel like he teleported here from 1970's america.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2020 11:45
|
|
|
I'd love a columnist to actually explore how Blair ignoring the "red wall" areas led to this but lol at them actually doing their job
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2020 11:50
|
|
|
Jose posted:I'd love a columnist to actually explore how Blair ignoring the "red wall" areas led to this but lol at them actually doing their job [Gove alien comic voice] Actually, I'm an opinion writer, not a journalist*. For the Observer, actually. So my job is to blast my lazy opinions at people's faces like Homer's make-up gun, not do any research. *except when it's convenient to call myself a journalist
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2020 12:03
|
|
|
Jose posted:from the RR boxing thread and lol at brits abroad
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2020 12:13
|
|
|
Angrymog posted:Well, if you care enough to join a political party and want to vote in their internal elections, surely you'd care enough to get on the electoral roll? There's options for homeless and travelling people to register. He shouldn't have to register a fixed address to be eligible to vote, is the point. That there are workarounds for a discriminatory rule does not make it not discriminatory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2020 12:55
|
|
|
Jose posted:I'd love a columnist to actually explore how Blair ignoring the "red wall" areas led to this but lol at them actually doing their job Also the fact that Blair lost 4 million votes in 8 years
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2020 12:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 23:58 |
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Bro Quran Bro'ko Haram e: I responded to a six day old post 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2020 13:02
|
|
