Tag Archives: Niggas

May 15 2023

Scalia & the Right to Secede


Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law Re-Posted May 15, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Marty; There are those who say Scalia was wrong for he claimed the civil war was correct and he changed the meaning of the Second Amendment. You are the real constitutional scholar on these issues. Is there a right to secede by a state? Did Scalia really change the Second Amendment?

Thank you so much for your diverse background.

Kirk

ANSWER: As far as the question of the Civil War, Scalia answered a question for a movie and it was simply a letter and not a court decision that he rendered. Saying that question was decided by the Civil War and that the precedent was that there is no right to secede was not his opinion, but the established law of the Court. Scalia could not respond otherwise for that was in fact the law, right or wrong. The decision of the Court was not Scalia’s. The argument for secession is not nearly as clear-cut as people think. The Supreme Court in 1869 ruled that secession is illegal.

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869), was a case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869 where Texas sought to recoup its bond losses. The case involved a claim by the Reconstruction government of Texas that United States bonds owned by Texas since 1850 had been illegally sold by the Confederate state legislature during the American Civil War. Texas filed suit directly with the United States Supreme Court under the Constitutional provision giving the Court original jurisdiction.

The court ruled that Texas had remained a state of the United States ever since it first joined the Union. The fact that it joined the Confederate States and was at the time under military rule. Therefore, they decided on the merits of the bond issue. That is where the Court held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States. Consequently, that meant that all the acts of the legislatures within the Confederate states were “absolutely null” and void. Hence, that decision was mandatory or the US would have to also honor the bonds of the Confederate States. That is why the 14th Amendment was passed stating that the Confederate states would not question the debt of the North, but there would be no compensation for the debt of the South.

Therefore, those who ridicule Scalia are just typical soap-box lawyers who pretend to know things they do not. Scalia’s response was correct for that was the precedent and we see that the same position is taken in Europe. Once you join, there is no divorce. We see the war in Ukraine is also over the secession of the Donbas. This was the difference between Lenin and Stalin. Lenin believed that the states could secede from the federation and Stalin said no way.

Scalia is correct. The power of the federal government will NEVER acknowledge any right of any state to secede. Scalia said that the Civil War decided that issue which is correct because any secession today would also have to be by force of arms – not in some court.

What people seem to wrongly think is that Justice Antonin Scalia made some ruling on this subject. Scalia was responding to a letter from a screenwriter working on a comedy dealing with secession in 2006. Scalia wrote he could not imagine such a case ever reaching the Supreme Court. Scalia wrote in 2006:

“I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be.  Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment?

But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.”

Scalia said that the last attempt at secession also established a clear precedent.

“If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.” 

Scalia is correct insofar as Texas v White established that there is no right to secede. However, there is no strict construction of the Constitution to support that. Many historians and legal experts also say the Civil War clearly established there is “no right” to secede. However, that was by force of arms – not law! Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution lists acts that states cannot undertake, and secession is not on that list. That was a decision that was biased and necessary at the time to prevent having to pay the debts of the South. The real question is when the United States breaks up, I seriously doubt that it will be a legal case asking permission. I personally believe that the Constitution does NOT prohibit secession. That is simply the self-interest of Washington and thus the only real right will be by force of arms. Anyone who claims otherwise is a toss-up between an idiot and a fool.

As far as Scalia’s decision in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER back in 2008, his strict construction came shining through. Many people who want to eliminate gun ownership argue that bearing arms was only for a militia that has been supplanted by a standing army and therefore the Second Amendment is no longer valid.

It was Scalia who shot that argument down. He held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the 2nd Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts, and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. That shows what I am talking about with strict construction. The liberal view would have said the right was tied to a militia exclusively. He wrote:

” We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. “

So I do not see where anyone can say that Scalia somehow rewrote the Second Amendment to deny gun rights. All things, including speech, have limits and regulations. It is not free speech to yell fire in a movie theater. Judge Amy Coney Barrett has vowed to follow Scalia. It was Apprendi v New Jersey, the decision championed by Justice Scalia was based upon strict construction. Before then, it was Judges deciding facts – not juries. The denial of a right to a jury trial was common practice in the United States. It was Scalia who change the Judiciary and defended the people. No other judge would protect citizens and finally, Scalia was able to convince others that this was a violation of the Sixth Amendment. Anyone who disparages Scalia must be a leftist who loves government power. Scalia had no problem ruling against the government.

When I got to the Supreme Court, they ordered the government to explain how they were keeping me in prison on civil contempt without a trial indefinitely when the law, 28 USC 1826, said the maximum sentence was 18 months. They were rolling it every 18 months. Only when the Supreme Court ordered the government to respond, then I was released and they told the court the case was “moot” for I was suddenly released. Without Scalia, I would probably have died in prison. He at least stood up for the law and 18 months was one-term, not indefinitely, where the NY judges protect the bankers. Trump will NEVER get a fair trial in NYC. From what I saw with others, nobody gets a fair trial in the Second Circuit or State court. When my case began, my lawyer, Richard Altman, said NYC practices law differently. Boy was that an understatement. Nobody should do business with any bank domiciled in NYC.

May 15 2023

Protect The Kids – Powerful Testimony by Democrat Shawn Thierry Texas Bill to Restrict Gender Modification in Children


May 14, 2023 | Sundance 

Texas State House Representative Shawn Thierry, D-Houston, joined with Republicans to support Senate Bill 14 which would restrict gender modification in children. As a Democrat from the Houston area, Mrs. Thierry came under blistering assault from organized alphabet activists in her decision to support the House version of the Texas bill.

Facing threats, ostracization, ridicule and direct personal attacks against her, Ms. Thierry stood against the rage of the mob and voted to support the bill. Explaining her position, Representative Thierry delivered eloquent and powerful remarks on the issue to the House chamber. WATCH:

.

At times it feels like we are living in a dystopian era well beyond the prescient writing of George Orwell.  Indeed, I think we can all feel the shift that has taken place as the battle between commonly accepted right and wrong has morphed into a spiritual battle between good and evil.

Joe Biden was installed as a one-term disposable Cloward-Piven opportunity for the most destructive elements of political activism.  Every left-wing fantasy operation is now enveloping the United States and tearing at the fabric of the nation.  In this era, any Democrat who stands up for moral values with an intent to protect the children becomes a mortal enemy to the tribe of wicked enterprise.  Shawn Thierry should be appreciated for taking a stand against the raging mob.

TEXAS – Texas is one step closer to banning gender-affirming care for transgender minors who live in the state.

On Friday, the Texas House of Representatives voted to preliminarily advance Senate Bill 14, a measure that would prohibit the administration of puberty blockers and hormone therapy to people under 18 years old who are transitioning.

Rep. Tom Oliverson, R-Cypress, told lawmakers from the House floor that he believes gender dysphoria should be treated with counseling rather than gender-affirming care.

“In contrast to experimental medicine and surgery, professional counseling and psychotherapy is a proven alternative that helps children overcome gender dysphoria,” he told lawmakers.

The legislation is one of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s priorities and has already passed the Senate.

Under the Senate version, minors currently on transition-related medical care would have to stop their treatment after the bill goes into effect in September.

The version passed Friday in the Texas House, however, would give transgender minors a period of time to wean off treatment.

Still, trangender-rights advocates say the legislation is hateful and will have a negative effect on the lives of transgender minors.

Sofia Sepulveda, the community engagement and advocacy manager with the LGBTQ advocacy group Equality Texas, said SB 14 is just one of many measures targeting people in the LGBTQ community.

“It feels like every other day there is legislation or there’s a hearing targeting the trans community,” Sepulveda told reporters Friday morning. “We are literally fighting for our lives.”  (read more)

The ideological leftists have gone totally nuts on this issue.

Their activism on the mutilation of children is evil.  These are not issues that can be debated in nuance and soft pastels.

Protect the children.

The mentally ill alphabet people are filled with psychosis.

Where is the Nashville mass murderer’s “Manifesto”?

May 13 2023

Disney Shareholder Dumpster Fire, Bud Light Disaster Spreads | MEitM #403


By Midnight’s Edge Posted ordinally on Rumble on May 12, 2023

May 12 2023

Biden Administration: “Birthing Persons” or “Unpaid Caregivers” are Bad for the Economy


Armstrong Econo9mics Blog/WOKE Re-Posted May 12, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

Happy early Mother’s Day to the women in charge with shaping our society. The vital role of a mother, arguably the most important responsibility one can take on, has been dismissed in recent years as society changes drastically. The woke agenda feels that the word “mother” is offensive and wants to replace the term with “birthing persons.” I have not heard anyone refer to fathers as “inseminating persons,” as part of the woke agenda is to eliminate the importance of women in society. Economic conditions have made it nearly impossible for the average family to survive on one income. Yet, those who can and do choose to stay home deserve appreciation for the role they play in our society.

The Biden Administration recently took a jab at stay-at-home mothers, claiming they are hurting our economy. His administration supports sending “free” money to “hard-working families” as long as they are receiving some income tax revenue. The schools can raise our children according to their way of thinking.

“[M]any Americans — particularly women — stay out of the workforce to care for their families, making it hard for businesses to attract and retain a skilled workforce and for the economy to grow. A BCG brief forecasts losses of $290 billion each year in gross domestic product in 2030 and beyond if the U.S. fails to address the lack of affordable child care.”

The cited report from the BCG refers to parenting as “unpaid caregiving” as it lowers the number of taxable workers. Instead of staying home with your children or elderly relative, the government believes you should move into “paid caregiving.” “About 1.8 million critical-care jobs, including nursing assistants, home health aides and childcare workers, are open, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics,” the report noted. The report also noted that these jobs often have terrible pay and poor benefits. Furthermore, the study noted that 40% of caregivers have missed “more than five days of work over the last year simply because their paid-care support has fallen through.” Other countries will laugh at the US for that one. They also talk about implementing a “government-run childcare system that begins at birth.” That is sad prospect. Even dogs have an 8 to 10 week grace period before their puppies can be adopted, a luxury not provided to women living in the financial capital of the world.

Caretaking roles are only seen as essential is they benefit the government. It is almost impossible for one 40-hour salary to support a family comfortably. Preschools and childcare centers often cost more than the salary a parent would bring home. And they wonder why there is a steep decline in the birth rate. The nuclear family has no place in woke America. Whether you stay home or choose a career, a mother’s role is essential.

Ca

May 12 2023

Elon Musk Hires Ultra Woke Linda Yaccarino as CEO of Twitter – Former Head of NBCUniversal Advertising – WEF Board Member – Pioneer of DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) Wokeism


Posted originally on the CTH on May 11, 2023 | Sundance 

Elon Musk has reportedly hired Linda Yaccarino as the CEO of Twitter.  Unfortunately, this decision is the exact opposite of what everyone hoped about Musk’s intentions with the platform.

Ms. Yaccarino is the head of NBCUniversal Advertising and Partnerships [Example Here], and she is the tip of the spear in the creation of DEI (Diversity Equity and Inclusion) indexing and corporate scoring.  You might be familiar with ‘DEI’ as a result of the Bud Light woke advertising campaign to promote beer for transgenders.  Well, that’s DEI in action, and Ms. Yaccarino is one of the pioneers in the advertising industry.

Additionally, Linda Yaccarino is the Chairwoman of the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Taskforce on Future of Work.  As she noted in her position, “every CEO and executive needs to look inward, and build workplaces that ensure our employees, current and future, can always succeed amid rapid transformation.” Overlaying the Diversity Equity and Inclusion mindset, you will note Yaccarino says, “long-term benefits for the unemployed, women, and communities of color.”

Why would Elon Musk bring the most woke NBC advertising executive to become the CEO of Twitter?  Obviously, he is focused on generating revenue, and Yaccarino can bring woke credentials to the platform luring corporate advertisers.  Unfortunately, in order to achieve that objective, the platform content will have to be modified.

That means the public square of Twitter needs to become a platform of non-controversial NPCs (Non Player Characters) which generally are identified in memes [SEE HERE].  The content on Twitter must fit an approved standard for advertising. Leading this effort to control platform content through the control of the monetization, is literally what Yaccarino has done in her work at NBCUniversal.  Thus, her efforts to promote DEI take on a new level of importance.

Ms. Yaccarino also supports Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and follows him and his fellow influencers through her Twitter account.  Politically this puts her in alignment with Elon Musk and the acceptable Republican group that promotes the Florida Governor.

Keep in mind, for DeSantis, the “woke issues” are political tools to achieve an objective; nothing more.  Ms. Yaccarino supporting Ron DeSantis is not a misnomer, it’s just politics.

Similarly, for Elon Musk, it appears Ms. Yaccarino brings a greater financial value to the table offsetting any contradictions in his belief system about wokeism as a danger to speech and culture.   Obviously, this hire says Musk is more concerned about revenue generation than actual free speech.

Regarding opposition or alignment with what is colloquially called “wokeism”, Ms. Yaccarino is somewhat of a touchstone.  Her bona fides on DEI make her a subject matter expert on the weaponization of advertising to advance a cultural objective.

Just accept things as they are and not as you might wish them to be.  That way you are not disappointed later.

Accept the Musk selection of Ms. Yaccarino as exactly what it says for the Twitter platform.  First, money is the most important issue right now; revenue generation for Musk is the #1 priority.  Second, the content of the platform will modify accordingly.

[ Yaccarino on Twitter ]

Jun 2 2022

The Rise in Violence – Who to Blame?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Civil Unrest Re-Posted Jun 2, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

While the Texas school shooting is a politician’s dream, for they suddenly can pretend to care and look authoritative, the real culprit here, I fear, has been the COVID-19 lockdowns. What government will not talk about is the statistics. Homicides increased by nearly 30 percent in 2020. Overall, violence and aggravated assaults have increased.

The homicide rates normally increase in the summer months. The real culprit may be the additional social interaction that happens when people spend more time outdoors during the summer months, NewsNation reports. There’s simply a greater number of interactions happening, which means there are also more opportunities for them to go awry.

Everywhere we look, homicides are up. In Chicago, 228 people have been killed this year alone. In Philadelphia, over 200 homicides have already taken place in 2022. Houston exceeded 100 homicides so far in 2022.

The National Library of Medicine reported a drastic increase in homicides post-lockdowns in Peru. Even CNN reported that a series of homicides took place during the first six months of  2021. In 22 cities, the number of murders increased by 16% or greater compared to the same period in 2020 and by 42% compared to the first six months of 2019.

So while the elites are listening to Klaus Schwab, who will probably become an evil villain for a future movie, there is ZERO understanding of human nature. The sharp rise in homicides is NOT because of guns; lockdowns have driven many to extreme behavior and stress. There was a man killed over an argument involving a parking spot. I have a friend who worked in an office in Philadelphia. The violence is so great and random that the staff no longer need to go into the office.

Monkeypox is less deadly than smallpox, with a mortality rate below 4 percent. Nevertheless, there are those in governments actually talking about lockdown 2.0. Johns Hopkins University reported, “Lockdowns in the U.S. and Europe had little or no impact in reducing deaths from COVID-19, according to a new analysis. The lockdowns during the early phase of the pandemic in 2020 reduced COVID-19 mortality by about 0.2%, said a broad review of multiple scientific studies. We find no evidence that lockdowns, school closures, border closures, and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality,” the researchers wrote.

I can say that I was tested for COVID-19 five times, and all were negative. I was still thrown into a COVID wing in the hospital, and when I explained I knew nobody with COVID, I was told that it did not matter. The nurses said it could travel in the air or I could have contracted it from pumping gas into my car. So I asked, “Do masks do not work?” They said, “Pretty much.” I asked why I needed TWO negative tests to be released. “Does one test not work?” They admitted that the tests were invalid. So after FIVE negative tests, they said, “OK, but we still think you had it.”

Another friend said his son in his early 20s is lost. Since the lockdowns, he stayed in his room, glued to social media. He will no longer have a conversation with his father. These lockdowns not only FAILED to work, but they appear to have caused significant damage psychologically to many, and the stress appears to have manifested in violence. It is time we face the fact that guns do not kill — people do. We need to respect what is taking place and stop the experiments for political power. Our computer’s forecast of a rise in civil unrest is manifesting before our very eyes.

May 25 2022

Bear Spray Doesn’t Work Like Bug Spray


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on May 24, 2022 | Menagerie 

h/t WeeWeed

This made me think about really dumb things I’ve seen people say or do over the years. You know, the ones that are just a head and shoulders above the usual.

While I’m quite sure every profession has their own share of stupidity, years of working in retail management left me convinced that a huge number of people have no common sense whatsoever, and as most of us know, common sense is often inversely related to IQ. And education!

Here is perhaps my all time favorite unbelievably dumb story. You’re going to think I’m making this up, and it was an attempt at a joke, or someone trying to aggravate me. I promise you, it wasn’t.

Before I went into retail sales and then management, I sold building materials wholesale. My favorite part of that was selling millwork, in particular high end windows and doors like Marvin and Kolbe & Kolbe. There are dozens of details that must be exactly right when dealing with a large custom order of windows and doors, and any mistake can result in the windows not fitting, or other costly problems. Because of the complexity and expense of Marvin orders, most of my retailers simply refused to deal with their own customers and always had me deal directly with the orders.

One of the lumber yards in town had a guy who just wasn’t too bright, and he was kind of treated like the unpopular kid in school by his fellow salesmen. He was a challenge to deal with because he had a way of making errors happen and also promising his customers things that could not be delivered. I wish now, looking back, that I’d been more patient with him, not that I was cruel or unkind. But he sure made my job extra hard. Anyhow, there’s no one left after thirty plus years to harm in an anonymous story.

One job he sold had a pair of french doors in the great room. They were to be placed at the end of the long room, one on either side of a center fireplace, so naturally there was one of each hand. A few days after the order was delivered he called me in a panic, insisting I meet him at the job site to discuss a major problem with the contractor. When I asked him what the problems was, he told me the doors were the wrong hand, both of them.

I never did find out for sure if the contractor and his employees were as dumb as the salesmen or making him the butt of a bad joke. Of course I suspect the latter, but I worked with some really, really dumb contractors too.

I can’t tell you how many times they came in to Home Depot and told me they needed to know how much siding they needed for a 2,000 square foot house. Or how many roof shingles, also giving me square footage without roof pitch and other pertinent information.

Share your best stories, be they professional or from some other walk of like. It’s time to toss a little fun in the day.

May 17 2022

Pennsylvania Senate Republican Race is a Dead Heat as Candidates Make Closing Arguments


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on May 16, 2022 | Sundance

The republican primary race in Pennsylvania is essentially a three-way tie going in to voting day tomorrow.  All three of the top candidates are carrying approximately 25 percent of the vote with around 15 percent still undecided.   It really is anyone’s race.

President Trump has sent robocalls into Pennsylvania to support Mehmet Oz as a last-minute effort to push his endorsement over the line. “I’ve just spent a lot of time with him. I did endorse him, and the reason is he’s tough, he’s smart and he really loves our country and he wants to do a great job for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”

Fox News Sean Hannity also hosted Mehmet Oz on his evening broadcast to deliver his closing arguments, while Fox News Laura Ingraham provided the same opportunity for David McCormick.  In the counterbalancing effort, Steve Bannon hosted Kathy Barnette for an interview Monday providing her the opportunity to speak to the Bannon audience.

The wild aspect to this race is the still high number of undecided voters as the final hours count down.   McCormick representing the party candidate, with both Oz and Barnette splitting the MAGA base.  Pennsylvania undecideds have a tough decision.

Mehmet Oz is not trusted by the base despite President Trump’s endorsement.  Kathy Barnette is the landing place for many base voters who do not want to support the establishment McCormick and cannot bring themselves to vote for Oz.  However, democrats and left-wing media are already showing their intent to weaponize Barnette’s attendance at the J6 rally in Washington DC, if she should win the primary {Video Here}.

As expected, David McCormick’s current position tying all three of them at the top of the polling, appears to have resulted as a splitter strategy from the fractured MAGA base.

Many people just cannot support Mehmet Oz because of his prior positions on issues of importance.  Oz is by far President Trump’s most controversial endorsement of the year.  As an outcome, those who refuse to vote for Oz lean heavily toward Kathy Barnette.

(Via Politico) – […] “You are seeing people move to McCormick because he is a trustworthy conservative,” said James Schultz, a former Trump White House lawyer who is close to McCormick’s campaign. “We have seen for this entire cycle Mehmet Oz’s struggle with the truth. With Barnette, there have been many questions surrounding her truthfulness as well.”

Messaging from McCormick’s campaign on Monday appeared to concede that he is one of multiple candidates crowded at the front of the pack. The campaign wrote in an election eve press release that McCormick would make the case to Republicans that he is “the only front-runner who grew up in Pennsylvania and shares the same conservative values as PA voters.”

A series of other twists in recent days have added to the sense of volatility ahead of Tuesday’s primary election. Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, the leading Democratic Senate candidate, remains hospitalized after suffering a stroke over the weekend. And Trump, on Saturday weighed in with a last-minute endorsement in the governor’s race, picking Doug Mastriano, the candidate who is publicly backing and campaigning with Barnette.  (read more)

This race will be very interesting to watch on Tuesday as the votes come in.  However, with the race so close, and with all three of the leading candidates willing to request a recount, we might not even know the results tomorrow.


May 17 2022

Project Veritas Releases Video of Senior Twitter Engineer Describing Culture and Ideology of The Platform


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on May 16, 2022 | Sundance 

A senior engineer working for the Twitter social media platform is captured on undercover video explaining the culture and ideology of the people who work within the organization.

In the video Twitter Sr. Engineer, Siru Murugesan, a self-described communist, explains why most of his colleagues are freaked out about Twitter being purchased by Elon Musk and operating as a capitalistic company.  Many might have to work more than 4 hours a week to earn their salary. WATCH:

[NEW YORK – May 16, 2022] Project Veritas published explosive undercover footage on Monday night featuring one of Twitter’s senior engineers discussing the dynamics behind internal reactions to the acquisition of the tech company by business magnate, Elon Musk.

In the video, Twitter Sr. Engineer, Siru Murugesan, says many of his colleagues have voiced “this would be my last day if it happens,” referring to Musk’s high publicized intended purchase of Twitter. He also says employees at Twitter are “stress-eating” and “worried for our jobs.”

More significant than those soundbites are the reasons he says employees at Twitter feel this way. (read more)

May 17 2022

The Twitter Bot Inquiry Intensifies as Musk is Seemingly Stiff Armed


Posted Originally on the conservative tree house on May 16, 2022 | Sundance

The ramifications for Twitter surrounding fake users or algorithmic bots are considerable.  One issue is overcharging advertisers for ad impressions based on mDAU’s, which are “monetized Daily Active Users.”  The second issue is an outcome of the first and relates to the valuation of Twitter.  If Twitter bots are higher than Twitter estimates, then the mDAU rate is overstated.

Elon Musk is indicating there may need to be a lowering of the purchase price unless Twitter becomes transparent with how they are calculating the number of bot users at less than 5%.  All outside reviews attempting to estimate the number of fake accounts, or bots, puts the estimations considerably higher than the claims by Twitter.  Elon Musk tweeted:

At “The All In Summit 2022,” Elon Musk gave the impression the purchase price of Twitter may be tenuous.  He said that a deal with a lower price tag is not “out of the question,” Bloomberg reported.  “Currently, what I’m being told is that there’s just no way to know the number of bots… It’s like, as unknowable as the human soul,” Musk said at the Miami conference, per a social media video, Bloomberg added.

Twitter CEO Parag Agrwal has responded to the controversy in a very obtuse twitter thread:

Let’s talk about spam. And let’s do so with the benefit of data, facts, and context…

First, let me state the obvious: spam harms the experience for real people on Twitter, and therefore can harm our business. As such, we are strongly incentivized to detect and remove as much spam as we possibly can, every single day. Anyone who suggests otherwise is just wrong.

Next, spam isn’t just ‘binary’ (human / not human). The most advanced spam campaigns use combinations of coordinated humans + automation. They also compromise real accounts, and then use them to advance their campaign. So – they are sophisticated and hard to catch.

Some final context: fighting spam is incredibly *dynamic*. The adversaries, their goals, and tactics evolve constantly – often in response to our work! You can’t build a set of rules to detect spam today, and hope they will still work tomorrow. They will not.

We suspend over half a million spam accounts every day, usually before any of you even see them on Twitter. We also lock millions of accounts each week that we suspect may be spam – if they can’t pass human verification challenges (captchas, phone verification, etc).

The hard challenge is that many accounts which look fake superficially – are actually real people. And some of the spam accounts which are actually the most dangerous – and cause the most harm to our users – can look totally legitimate on the surface.

Our team updates our systems and rules constantly to remove as much spam as possible, without inadvertently suspending real people or adding unnecessary friction for real people when they use Twitter: none of us want to solve a captcha every time we use Twitter.

Now, we know we aren’t perfect at catching spam. And so this is why, after all the spam removal I talked about above, we know some still slips through. We measure this internally. And every quarter, we have estimated that <5% of reported mDAU for the quarter are spam accounts.

Our estimate is based on multiple human reviews (in replicate) of thousands of accounts, that are sampled at random, consistently over time, from *accounts we count as mDAUs*. We do this every quarter, and we have been doing this for many years.

Each human review is based on Twitter rules that define spam and platform manipulation, and uses both public and private data (eg, IP address, phone number, geolocation, client/browser signatures, what the account does when it’s active…) to make a determination on each account.

The use of private data is particularly important to avoid misclassifying users who are actually real. FirstnameBunchOfNumbers with no profile pic and odd tweets might seem like a bot or spam to you, but behind the scenes we often see multiple indicators that it’s a real person.

Our actual internal estimates for the last four quarters were all well under 5% – based on the methodology outlined above. The error margins on our estimates give us confidence in our public statements each quarter.

Unfortunately, we don’t believe that this specific estimation can be performed externally, given the critical need to use both public and private information (which we can’t share). Externally, it’s not even possible to know which accounts are counted as mDAUs on any given day.

There are LOTS of details that are very important underneath this high-level description. We shared an overview of the estimation process with Elon a week ago and look forward to continuing the conversation with him, and all of you.  (Link to Twitter Article)

Methinks Parag Agrwal doth protest too much….  Especially if you overlay the ideological incentives that Twitter carries into its operational platform.

If you accept that Twitter is manipulating the public conversation intentionally (they are), then Twitter bots would serve an ideological function.  However, the issue of ‘bots’ operating on the Twitter platform is interesting when you consider the cost of platform operation.

On one hand, extensive auto-generated ‘bots’ would be an issue of cost and data-processing, a net negative.  On the other hand, the use of bots would be a manipulative practice for the creation of false impressions to generate advertising revenue.

If the scale of data-processing was subsidized, an outcome of a network of data processing centers -the AWS cloud- linked to government resources, the bots would not be a cost issue for the operation.  Despite the false impressions generated, bots would, however, under this weird situation, be useful for the manipulation of the conversation.

At the root of Elon Musk’s line of inquiry is the need to discover if this suspicion is true.

If the scale of bots has been underestimated (likely by a willfully blind operation) the advertising fees charged by Twitter were potentially fraudulent.  This is another operational reason (mitigating lawsuits from advertisers) for Musk to make the determination prior to the final purchase of the platform.

Taking Twitter private as a company, eliminating bots (which is essentially removing fraudulent users) then carries the potential benefits of both lowering costs and positioning the company to increase genuine ad revenue from authenticated users as real people.

Many people suspect the size of the political left on the Twitter platform is manipulated by programatic bots.  Meaning there seems to be more people on the left side of the spectrum because bots are deployed to give the impression of like-minded users.  I am one of the people who believe this suspicion is accurate, because it would be a typical way the ideological left operates.

The bots would be in addition to the deployment of algorithms that are designed to suppress speech the platform operators do not like.

I have long suspected the Twitter algorithm process is essentially assigning certain users into specifically designed data-processing containers where their voice is suppressed.   Some people call this ‘shadow-banning,’ I simply call it suppression.

Elon Musk represents a threat to the way the platform was/is designed to operate.  If Musk removes the discussion constraints, opens the containers and removes the restrictions, while simultaneously eliminating bots and fake accounts, the entire perspective of the platform could change very quickly.  This is what I think the current board and operators are trying to avoid.

Another rudimentary way to look at it…. Think about the last several months of public opinion polls.   Despite the efforts of a compliant media, repeatedly we see a 75/25 split against Biden and leftist policies.  The 3:4 and/or 4:5 ratio has been a consistent pattern for several months.  That ratio shows up in almost every poll.  However, if you look at Twitter that ratio is not present in the “organic” conversation about the same issues.

As CTH has said for many years, there are more of us than them.  However, Big Tech controls the mechanisms we use to communicate – and as a consequence the scale of our assembly is severely understated.

Twitter user fraud is the digital and social media equivalent to voter election fraud.   The voices raised in opposition to researching both issues are exactly the same.

Suspicious Cat remains, well, suspicious….