Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

𒂠_𒍣𒅀_𒊑 pfp
𒂠_𒍣𒅀_𒊑
@m-j-r
I could *say* how brutal that interview was. in *showing* how brutal the impression of that interview was, there may be more deductive value here. - chat is really darkforest (look at the gossipspam & moderation), but some are clearly organic & ambivalent, so there's some authentic recoil in that chat. - this was more of a "check my phone and vent in the editor's room" break. - substantive policy is really difficult to articulate in any hostile territory, slogans = memes = crutches, and everyone should know that these interviews only exist for farmable soundbites from any participating POV. yet, with UX like twitter/twitch, everyone can fork these snippets. "relax, I've got it covered" would have gone so far, in fact it was probably the only way to survive. - there's a distinct possibility that internal pollsters are overfit away from the internet culture that mobilized the 2020 vote. either way, this was a quasi-forced, erroneous October surprise.
5 replies
0 recast
2 reactions

Alex pfp
Alex
@asenderling.eth
I would not rely on the chat of a tankie who does puff interviews with a Houthi and plays terrorist propaganda videos on stream uncritically to be a good indication of the average voter's impression of that interview.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions

𒂠_𒍣𒅀_𒊑 pfp
𒂠_𒍣𒅀_𒊑
@m-j-r
nobody said this impression generalizes to the average voter, which seems especially relevant to a heterogenous coalition candidate. there is no monolithic base. do you have any good examples of other stream chats covering this interview?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction