I mean, yah, there’s no libs to trigger on right wing sites. And what’s the point of spouting right wing rhetoric if you’re not making someone visibly angry about it?
Also, twitter and Facebook let them all back in, so why go to the shitty knock offs?
You may be joking, but I think that is a big part of what they look for, consciously or not. Progressives can be pretty happy discussing news and ideas with other progressives. Conservatives don't want to talk about things too much unless there's an argument to be had.
There's a certain level of amusement in trying to picture what those college end-of-party conversations that turn into breakfast at Denny's look like for conservatives. I enjoy a good, heated argument, but you don't bond over those except under very specific circumstances one doesn't run into at that time.
I've been in some of those groups. They don't discuss ideas. They discuss people and events, sports, maybe what they did last weekend or plant to do this weekend, talk about their families.
I thought this would be about Truth Social, but it's mostly about stuff like Breitbart. But then at the end:
Baragona observed that Trump's Truth Social platform also saw a significant decline in unique users. In May of 2024, Truth Social had just 2.7 million unique users, which is a 14% drop compared to May of 2023. This marked the platform's second-worst performing month since its launch.
So that's dropping, too. I wonder where all the users are going?
That's a very good question as it sure doesn't feel like misinformation has declined much in this timespan. My guess would be that the traffic is finding its way to smaller websites, like those used in astroturfing campaigns, though the article speculates that Facebook's algorithm changes may have lessened the flow of traffic to rightwing sites, and I'd guess that'd include these one-offs. Maybe X is picking up the slack there? They've certainly gotten fully unhinged and pandering to this crowd.
Could YouTube be another possibility? I think the algorithm is going strong there in favor of extremist content. My disabled dad, for example, spends his days jumping between watching shows like Cops, and watching YouTube videos of sovereign-citizen types harrassing cops. That's mixed in with all the other garbage his algorithm throws at him. Over the years he's gone from economically centre-left to fully buying into the Trump bandwagon (and we're not even American).
Whatever the answer, I think people are still getting this info from somewhere and apparently in droves.
Facebook, if my feed is any indication.
Curate your feed, report+block does wonders on Facebook.
I don’t spend enough time on Facebook to bother with any of that shit, I just notice it’s incredibly prevalent whenever I do happen to open it up
Rage isn't sustainable. Enthusiasm is down across the board, and the question will be whether enthusiasm among left-leaning voters has wanted waned to the same degree as among Trump's base.
I wonder if it has anything to do with Russia
This is not a case of great editing ... solid reporting, good numbers, takes a turn in the last graf and then summarily falls off a cliff. You can't claim a trend, show one data point and then run the tagline.
And where does he get the traffic data from?
The websites would be guarding that and Google Analytics (if installed/enabled) would not divulge it to a third party.
...whether you trust their methodology, is a separate matter.
That does not answer my question.
No I don't trust their methodology. In fact I am suspicious the numbers are entirely fictitious. I imagine they are highly guarded confidential information which is not public.
You asked where do they get the data from... well, that's the answer 🤷
The numbers could be fictitious (you didn't ask whether they get "reliable data"), or they could be doctoring them themselves... but there is a number of companies whose work is to let sites put trackers that gather user data, so they can in turn use it as a point when luring advertisers.
It isn't "highly guarded confidential" information, websites would happily submit their access logs if that could make them look more appealing to advertisers... but they don't, because: a) they could be sending fake data, which would make the aggregating company lose face, meaning they won't accept self-reported data, and b) site logs contain a lot of users' personal information, sharing which could fall afoul of privacy legislation.
They may still have to pay for access to parse that data, or extract it from the data made publicly available (...which could still be doctored, but 🤷)
they can in turn use it as a point when luring advertisers.
Wouldn't that be shared only with potential advertisers upon request via a password rather than just making it publicly available?
I am only speculating, are you?
The intermediary companies also want to attract clients, whom to sell more detailed data. It isn't unusual for them to release basic data like total number of users per domain, for free. For further segmentation, like interests, keywords, geolocation, client's system properties, etc. they do require subscribing.
I'm not speculating, I've had a chance to work at server maintenance (where basic data comes from), website design and maintenance (where 3rd part user trackers go), and both offering ad space and contracting ad services (dealing with these companies, ad networks, and website owners).
Thanks. Google Analytics doesn't work that way though does it?
The overall data flow works the same, but Google has its own ad network, Google Ads.
Analytics showcases to any webmaster what are Google's data gathering capabilities, Trends showcases comparative segmenting capabilities, while Ads, GA360, and Google Cloud, are what they try to sell.
Google doesn't publish website statistics, because they don't want to sell a tool that would enable website owners to shop around for different ad networks.
Thanks.
Yeah, it's all on Twitter and Facebook.
Why hang out in the run down Nazi bar when the big chain bars are all accepting Nazis now?
That's because the far right cannot meaningfully distinguish themselves from the modern GOP.
I mean, yah, there’s no libs to trigger on right wing sites. And what’s the point of spouting right wing rhetoric if you’re not making someone visibly angry about it?
Also, twitter and Facebook let them all back in, so why go to the shitty knock offs?
You may be joking, but I think that is a big part of what they look for, consciously or not. Progressives can be pretty happy discussing news and ideas with other progressives. Conservatives don't want to talk about things too much unless there's an argument to be had.
There's a certain level of amusement in trying to picture what those college end-of-party conversations that turn into breakfast at Denny's look like for conservatives. I enjoy a good, heated argument, but you don't bond over those except under very specific circumstances one doesn't run into at that time.
I've been in some of those groups. They don't discuss ideas. They discuss people and events, sports, maybe what they did last weekend or plant to do this weekend, talk about their families.
I thought this would be about Truth Social, but it's mostly about stuff like Breitbart. But then at the end:
So that's dropping, too. I wonder where all the users are going?
That's a very good question as it sure doesn't feel like misinformation has declined much in this timespan. My guess would be that the traffic is finding its way to smaller websites, like those used in astroturfing campaigns, though the article speculates that Facebook's algorithm changes may have lessened the flow of traffic to rightwing sites, and I'd guess that'd include these one-offs. Maybe X is picking up the slack there? They've certainly gotten fully unhinged and pandering to this crowd.
Could YouTube be another possibility? I think the algorithm is going strong there in favor of extremist content. My disabled dad, for example, spends his days jumping between watching shows like Cops, and watching YouTube videos of sovereign-citizen types harrassing cops. That's mixed in with all the other garbage his algorithm throws at him. Over the years he's gone from economically centre-left to fully buying into the Trump bandwagon (and we're not even American).
Whatever the answer, I think people are still getting this info from somewhere and apparently in droves.
Facebook, if my feed is any indication.
Curate your feed, report+block does wonders on Facebook.
I don’t spend enough time on Facebook to bother with any of that shit, I just notice it’s incredibly prevalent whenever I do happen to open it up
Rage isn't sustainable. Enthusiasm is down across the board, and the question will be whether enthusiasm among left-leaning voters has
wantedwaned to the same degree as among Trump's base.I wonder if it has anything to do with Russia
This is not a case of great editing ... solid reporting, good numbers, takes a turn in the last graf and then summarily falls off a cliff. You can't claim a trend, show one data point and then run the tagline.
And where does he get the traffic data from?
The websites would be guarding that and Google Analytics (if installed/enabled) would not divulge it to a third party.
You can see the source of the data in the table:
https://therighting.com/traffic-reports/news-websites-endure-traffic-tailspin-in-may/
They publish monthly traffic reports:
https://therighting.com/traffic-reports/
https://www.comscore.com/
...whether you trust their methodology, is a separate matter.
That does not answer my question.
No I don't trust their methodology. In fact I am suspicious the numbers are entirely fictitious. I imagine they are highly guarded confidential information which is not public.
You asked where do they get the data from... well, that's the answer 🤷
The numbers could be fictitious (you didn't ask whether they get "reliable data"), or they could be doctoring them themselves... but there is a number of companies whose work is to let sites put trackers that gather user data, so they can in turn use it as a point when luring advertisers.
It isn't "highly guarded confidential" information, websites would happily submit their access logs if that could make them look more appealing to advertisers... but they don't, because: a) they could be sending fake data, which would make the aggregating company lose face, meaning they won't accept self-reported data, and b) site logs contain a lot of users' personal information, sharing which could fall afoul of privacy legislation.
They may still have to pay for access to parse that data, or extract it from the data made publicly available (...which could still be doctored, but 🤷)
Wouldn't that be shared only with potential advertisers upon request via a password rather than just making it publicly available?
I am only speculating, are you?
The intermediary companies also want to attract clients, whom to sell more detailed data. It isn't unusual for them to release basic data like total number of users per domain, for free. For further segmentation, like interests, keywords, geolocation, client's system properties, etc. they do require subscribing.
I'm not speculating, I've had a chance to work at server maintenance (where basic data comes from), website design and maintenance (where 3rd part user trackers go), and both offering ad space and contracting ad services (dealing with these companies, ad networks, and website owners).
Thanks. Google Analytics doesn't work that way though does it?
The overall data flow works the same, but Google has its own ad network, Google Ads.
Analytics showcases to any webmaster what are Google's data gathering capabilities, Trends showcases comparative segmenting capabilities, while Ads, GA360, and Google Cloud, are what they try to sell.
Google doesn't publish website statistics, because they don't want to sell a tool that would enable website owners to shop around for different ad networks.
Thanks.
Yeah, it's all on Twitter and Facebook.
Why hang out in the run down Nazi bar when the big chain bars are all accepting Nazis now?
That's because the far right cannot meaningfully distinguish themselves from the modern GOP.