Live data from Hacker News

More than 10 firms pay up to $100k a month for access to Truth Social posts

bbc.com

201–210 of 338 posts

Re: More than 10 firms pay up to $100k a month for access to Truth Social posts

#201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If nobody was trusting the country, the economy would collapse. The Greenland drama was dumb, but there is zero reason to think it’s a next 50 years thing. Is the force even still there, or are they gone? Nobody takes the Greenland thing seriously already, and 50 years have not passed.

Why? I don't trust a wood chipper or angle grinder or fireworks on the Fourth of July, so I'm extra careful around them. Doesn't mean I don't use them. > Is the force even still there… Yep.

> Doesn't mean I don't use them.

And the goalposts keep moving. You’re proving my point by admitting that you still use it.

Re: More than 10 firms pay up to $100k a month for access to Truth Social posts

#202
post #33

If a rival political party takes power in 2029 and they decide to do nothing about this, are they complicit? If the cops drive past a mugging, observe, and then drive on past allowing the law to go unenforced, are they not just as corrupt as the robbers?

This is such an amazing take because it is a constant in US politics. Like how in the world did you think it appropriate to pivot like this? The standards for the Democrats are impossible perfection, regardless of the challenges. The standards for the Republicans is...there are literally zero standards. Thieves, grifters, rapists, pedos, just the absolute worst human garbage imaginable, and somehow Americans convince…

> The standards for the Democrats are impossible perfection

No, the standard for Dems is "don't rock the boat". The Right moves things further to the right, the Dems don't let them go back to the left.

Re: More than 10 firms pay up to $100k a month for access to Truth Social posts

#203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? I don't trust a wood chipper or angle grinder or fireworks on the Fourth of July, so I'm extra careful around them. Doesn't mean I don't use them. > Is the force even still there… Yep.

> Doesn't mean I don't use them. And the goalposts keep moving. You’re proving my point by admitting that you still use it.

Consider: I may also try and make/buy safer tools so I don't ever have to use them again at some point in the future. I may hire someone else (China!) to do the work.

A lack of trust does not mean an immediate cessation of use, but it does meaningfully change the relationship.

"I use x" is not evidence of "I trust x". Sometimes it's evidence of "I have no choice but to use x for now".

If you put in your notice at a job, and they desperately double your salary to keep you, do you trust that they're happy to keep paying that, or do you reasonably assume they're probably gonna start interviewing for a cheaper replacement?

> And the goalposts keep moving.

Falsely conflating usage with trust is a goalpost move.

If you'd posted "people still trade with the US", I'd have heartily agreed. But that wasn't the question.

Re: More than 10 firms pay up to $100k a month for access to Truth Social posts

#204
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, the fact that the current administration had a 4 year hiatus only extended this period. Think about all the young people that grew up with this as normal.

Sorry, as an outsider, I think it has been a clown show for much longer. The whole Hunter corruption scandal in Ukraine + the laptop made it quite clear to me back then. And I can go on.

yep, they have a hard time grasping the fact that its been the same for the past 40-60 years

the only exception now is not the corrupt administration, but the one being the most inept and blatant at being corrupt as opposed to its predecessors

Re: More than 10 firms pay up to $100k a month for access to Truth Social posts

#205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100%. Clearly you've nailed it, and you should vote for Trump's third term. Let's be real here - when people do the "both parties are the same", usually citing some chickenshit bullshit like you just did, they're almost always a terrible person who just loves Trump but won't just admit it. Just own it, man.

Way to address actual criticisms. Also, it's a strawman of your creation to say both parties are the same. They're two different facades for the same underlying monetary interests. Sorry you're so easily fooled by that, but it shows that it works.

> We have a faux democracy / uniparty of capital interests where one "side" manufactures consent for the other.

That's your quote. Strawman? Not really, friend.

Do you know what the prefix uni- means? Let me quote Google for you-

"The prefix uni- means "one," "single," or "having only one." It comes from the Latin word unus"

I mean, you literally just blamed the Dems for Trump, which is simply amazing stuff. The reaching...don't your arms hurt?

Re: More than 10 firms pay up to $100k a month for access to Truth Social posts

#206
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or possibly ever again. Eras like this one can be what kills an empire/great power. I think one of the greater risks to a power like the U.S. is getting old enough where it's felt like things always were , and therefore always will be . When there is no-longer a grandparent at the dinner table who can even tell you when his grandparent at the dinner table spoke about the before times.

Right, the fact that the current administration had a 4 year hiatus only extended this period. Think about all the young people that grew up with this as normal.

Grandparents telling about their grandparents is a very different timescale than two presidential terms with a gap of just one between them.

The "what changed in the 1970s?" meme graphs are the kinds of timescale for forgetting what is and isn't "normal" for your grandparents, and the Great Depression for your grandparents' grandparents.

Eternal growth? Nah.

Even the worst of times will be shortly followed by a recovery, soon enough you survive on savings? Pft.

The President surely wouldn't consider to order the removal of protesting veterans, with the Army Chief of Staff implementing this order with a contingent of infantry and cavalry, supported by six tanks, burning the belongings that the veterans had left behind after being cleared from where they had been protesting? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

Conscription? Concentration camps? These are also in the "grandparents' grandparents" timescale in the USA. Go back only a one more generation and you get lynching *postcards*.

Re: More than 10 firms pay up to $100k a month for access to Truth Social posts

#207
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US also arguably lost the Iran war. So far it can't claim any minor fraction of a victory, at least; seems to be the general consensus. I like to read Bret Devereaux (from the frequently HN posted https://acoup.blog/ ) takes on this in his Bluesky ( https://bsky.app/profile/bretdevereaux.bsky.social )

It doesn't win wars, but it provides the necessary equipment for carnage and stalemates all over the globe. Remember war is just a pretext, the objective is always profit, so as long as a lost war is very profitable it's a success in their books.

IMO the last real war the US participated in and helped to win was WW2 giving it a massive ego. And even then it was drawn in via Pearl Harbor. After that it was a bunch of "wars" it fabricated to satisfy its ego with various (often poor) outcomes.

Re: More than 10 firms pay up to $100k a month for access to Truth Social posts

#208
post #33

If a rival political party takes power in 2029 and they decide to do nothing about this, are they complicit? If the cops drive past a mugging, observe, and then drive on past allowing the law to go unenforced, are they not just as corrupt as the robbers?

A robber isn't corrupt. A robber betrays no principle except to seize when hungry, and a robber has no institution to corrupt.

Re: More than 10 firms pay up to $100k a month for access to Truth Social posts

#209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Way to address actual criticisms. Also, it's a strawman of your creation to say both parties are the same. They're two different facades for the same underlying monetary interests. Sorry you're so easily fooled by that, but it shows that it works.

> We have a faux democracy / uniparty of capital interests where one "side" manufactures consent for the other. That's your quote. Strawman? Not really, friend. Do you know what the prefix uni- means? Let me quote Google for you- "The prefix uni- means "one," "single," or "having only one." It comes from the Latin word unus" I mean, you literally just blamed the Dems for Trump, which is simply amazing stuff. The reac…

Nowhere does that say same, like you're trying to force.

It makes sense you'd resist and twist what I'm saying, because it means people like you are literally part of the problem.

Since you edited your post, I'll respond:

> "The prefix uni- means "one," "single," or "having only one." It comes from the Latin word unus"

They are still undeniably two separate parties that both inherit the most important traits from the root problem of dominating capital interests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniparty

> Uniparty is a political term referring to the idea that seemingly separate political parties, typically the two dominant parties in a liberal democracy, function in practice as a single entity. It is often applied to the Republican Party and the Democratic Party in the United States, or to the Conservative Party and the Labour Party in the United Kingdom.[1] The concept implies that despite their outward disagreements, the parties collaborate behind closed doors and share a unified set of political and economic interests, effectively creating a de facto one-party state. Proponents of this idea argue that such a "uniparty" suppresses genuine political alternatives and dissenting viewpoints by exercising control over the media, grassroots organisations, and ballot access regulations.[2]

Re: More than 10 firms pay up to $100k a month for access to Truth Social posts

#210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The messed up part is that it's not even technically insider trading as long as they release the same information publicly shortly after... so they're not actually breaking any laws. So much of the way the US government has operated is based on some shared standard of moral sense that the current administration lacks completely.

> it's not even technically insider trading as long as they release the same information publicly shortly after... so they're not actually breaking any laws No, that’s a canonical example of insider trading: acting on pre-release inside information before it’s made public; it doesn’t matter if it’s days, hours, or even minutes before it goes public. People have been convicted for executing trades when they saw or han…

Insider trading requires breach of duty, if you don't have fiduciary duty with who you're trading against it's not insider trading. The required chain in the link is someone inside a contractual agreement providing information.

It's right in your own link, the filing-agent employee was convicted because he stole information he was contractually obligated to protect. Remove that obligation and there's no case. Truth Social owns the posts and is selling them with the source's blessing, nobody's stealing anything.

As much as I hate to say it, what they're doing with Truth social is very likely legal. The president does not have any contractual financial obligation to these companies, if he posts "everyone sell Intel, I'm going to regulate out of existence" to a group of people who paid him for this post early... there's no breach of contract anywhere.

Post reply on HN