Wut?

I think the so-called KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) are a major problem of our time, because they are often defined incorrectly or misunderstood. All too often, decision-makers seem to think that the pure number of followers, for example, or engagement metrics such as likes would indicate that an account or post is successful. However, this is often not the case when other important metrics are taken into account. In e-commerce, for example, a large number of followers or high engagement figures in themselves mean nothing at all: it is not uncommon for e-commerce companies to invest a lot of money in social media management and for the KPIs of their accounts to rise accordingly - but still not sell anything via this channel (that means that the investment is not worth it, of course, because the costs are disproportionate to the sales generated; the ROI is often not good at all). I think a similar situation can be assumed for many science accounts on Mastodon, for example. Although the number of followers maybe not very high here because there are less active useres, the quality of comments can still be a lot higher. But unfortunately this cannot be quantified, or at least not easily. I therefore think that everyone should first think about what they want to achieve with their social media accounts. It then makes sense to define suitable KPIs instead of being impressed by what can be considered an indicator of success elsewhere and in a completely different context.

Exactly. What’s more, demographic change alone has led to an urgent need for workers from abroad in Germany. This applies to low-skilled as well as highly skilled workers - for example in crafts, catering, healthcare, nursing, IT or engineering, just to name a few sectors. What the right-wing parties and their supporters are propagating is not only inhumane and amoral, it is also economically disastrous. It is these unscrupulous opportunists who are ruining the country with their racist hate; not the migrants - quite the opposite.

Why would you ask him anything? His answer will always be the same: Biden, Harris or foreigners are to blame is what he would say. Why bother? It’s a waste of time.

It’s not some anonymous force forcing you to act like many of your fellow citizens do on social media. It’s what the US believes, I’m affraid. Even on Lemmy. It’s all “I don’t like Trump” but strangely enough many still agree to some of his key positions when his name is not mentioned. It’s weird.

You might want to check out the Patriot act (especially section 215) and how that plays into your believe of your constitutional rights. If there are any questions, just ask Clarence Thomas - he knows his stuff. I really don’t get how you could be so blind to issues like that just because this post is about China. This is not a popularity contest - it is not US vs the world. This is about your rights, your data and your democracy. I’m from Europe and I’m kinda getting tired of reminding people from the US that your blind patriotism is just that…a blind spot that is used against the US citizens on every corner.

1984 is already a reality - in every country of the word, especially the US. Apple’s famous Superbowl commercial from the same year, which suggested that data privacy (…) was important with regard to their strongest competitor at the time (IBM), does nothing to change this. On the contrary - none of this was even halfway true even back then. I really don’t get why people think this is just an issue in China. It is an issue all over the world. For years and years.

That is certainly not wrong. However, I believe that it’s not just the Chinese but that the US government (and other states around the world) has very far-reaching access to its citizens’ data as well. Among other things, the Patriot Act makes it very easy to demand user data from companies without appropriate checks and balances, if the NSA is not already aware anyway. Without somewhat decent legal regulations such as those that exist in the EU for example, citizens have to trust that the state will not abuse this largely unregulated power. With regard to the question of who will form the next US government, I see a significant problem in this context: I think that Trump’s right wing GOP will use this power against their political opponents and also, as a precaution, against ordinary citizens. I don’t think they would shy away from setting up a surveillance state based on the Chinese model - the conditions for this are certainly met in the current legal situation.

By concepts of a plan, he probably means Project 2025, the plan that his “strategists” have drawn up to install him as a fascist autocrat if people are stupid enough to actually vote for him. It is hardly surprising that he does not want to comment publicly on the details of this deeply anti-democratic endeavor.

I think the only way to solve this problem for good would be to tie social media accounts to proof of identity. However, apart from what would certainly be a difficult technical implementation, this would create a whole bunch of different problems. The benefits would probably not outweigh the costs.

Well, unfortunately, the internet and especially social media is still the main source of information for more and more people, if not the only one. For many, it is also the only place where public discourse takes place, even if you can hardly call it that. I guess we are probably screwed.

It’s what AI makes of her, I guess.

That bothers me far less than seeing a single Trump tbh.

I don’t think so. It’s just the same lies he repeats over and over again.

I can’t argue with that.

Yes, it’s certainly not easy to check facts live. But you can at least be well prepared, especially as the questions are asked by the journalists and they should also know the usual claims made by the candidates. I also don’t think it’s necessary to check every figure. I just mean that it makes sense to name obvious false statements as such - Trump has made enough of them, and most of them were anything but new. And yes, it is of course also true that there are fact-checks after the fact, but I think that this is often not noticed at all. The presidential debates are an event that many people watch, but unfortunately only a few inform themselves afterwards. That’s why I think it’s necessary to expose at least the grossest untruths immediately.

No, but I thought the US public wouldn’t let him get away with never engaging in a (factual) debate. That would make him look weak, because that’s how democracy usually works. You know, arguments and counter-arguments - that sort of thing.

I watched the debate between Trump and Biden and could hardly believe that there were no fact checks at all from the moderators. Sure, it would have been good if Biden had pointed out more clearly that almost every statement Trump made was factually incorrect. But can you really just tell any tall tales in your presidential debates without even mentioning any facts? That seems absurd. Is that the norm for presidential debates in the US? Or is it just that Trump would not have participated if there were fact checks?

Yes, that is apparently pretty much what the supreme court says. But unfortunately at least Thomas and Alito are obviously corrupt as well.

Whenever I read something like this, I think about that and wonder why there is still no meaningful prosecution whatsoever.