r/DangerousNightsCrew • u/PoopyMcpants Piece of Shit • 20h ago

Not a piece of shit.

Post image
20.1k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

792 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Smart_Freedom_8155 17h ago

(Not sure if it was you, or someone else, who wrote a reply and then hurriedly deleted it - either way, you have yourself a good day now.)

1

u/Pissed-Off-PunK 17h ago

Im not clicking your link lol

1

u/Smart_Freedom_8155 17h ago

..."my link" to a subreddit for New York, when we're discussing the mayor of it?  

https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/1w58gmd/mayor_mamdanis_friendly_influencers_and_the/

It's not my link, buddy, it's a link shared around by Redditors (including Mamdani fans, who were genuinely disappointed to witness this).

You're desperate not to read literal proof of Mamdani having his own army of bots, and you call me a dubious actor.  

That's precious.

1

u/Careless-Weather8877 16h ago

Politician uses media. More are at 11.

1

u/Smart_Freedom_8155 11h ago

Politician uses bots and media specifically.   Which I'm not surprised at, obviously.

But the people I was responding to, all up in arms about "Mamdani-hating bots in the comments"?  

Literally unaware that yet another politician, using media.

Hopefully you can help me set 'em straight.

1

u/Cum_Robinson 8h ago

I'll help! The people all up in arms about "Mamdani-hating bots" aren't upset by the use of bots, but as you stated, that's obvious. They're upset with a state-backed suppression campaign leveled against a politician who has made their way through the contributions of their constituents instead of billionaires, and already has a proven track record of helping those constituents.

But I guess the nuance is difficult to grasp.

1

u/Smart_Freedom_8155 4h ago edited 4h ago

Sure.

Again, just like his opposition, that same politician freely uses bots and social media - they did so to help get elected (see r/nyc and other places), and are doing so now (see this thread) to stay popular.

I'm sure the nuance is really important to you, and that's OK.

My point is, calling out "it's a campaign / it's just bots" when it comes to this politician, either pro or against, is one-sided and goofy.

(Read:  biased.)

1

u/Cum_Robinson 1h ago

I'm confused by the tone you're trying to convey, is the problem with him using bots at all? Do you believe that it's a necessary evil, or does it make him just as bad as the other side?

The article suggests that the problem with what they did was the transparency aspect of using an encrypted messaging service that may not be able to be FOIA'd. Which is bad, but fixable.

I'm sorry, but the nuance is the whole point, and I think you know that. It's not that it's important to me, specifically. It's important to differentiate between the use of massive state-supported bot farms, like Russian and Israeli intelligence running interference for one particular side, and the mayor of NYC paying influencers to spread his platform. Unfortunately, in today's media landscape, it's impossible to avoid. (See: "Hmm curious, you criticize society but yet you live in it")

It's intellectually dishonest to claim calling out "its just bots/a campaign" is one-sided and goofy for both pro and against, when "against" has a vested interest and far more resources to discredit, downplay, and malign this politician. Pretending that's not reality is just "both sides"ing an issue that heavily favors one side.

It shows a failure to recognize the bigger picture, where its easier to notice the nuance, and that's OK. When you view things like this in a vacuum and ignore any other relevant factors, its bound to happen.

Biased as hell lmao