This is going to sound tinfoil hat... But seriously, now, was that on purpose?
Do mistakes like that do more harm than good?
We've now all seen that advert. We wouldn't have seen it had it been correct.
You know I don’t tend to buy your crazy conspiracy theories and that you’re clearly the Alex Jones of the forum (that’s a joke!) but the comic sans tweets and the tweets around those at the time show that they are not above doing deliberately stupid things in order to see if they can go viral so... maybe.
There used to be an art to going viral back in’t day, now it’s almost too easy to game.
Boris Johnson is a twat.
Boris Johnson is evil.
Boris Johnson is ignorant.
Boris Johnson is an idiot.
The only repeat name is Boris Johnson, all negative but the algorithms will push his name onto trending lists because of its repeat use.
So even a misspelling can bump you up the trending list and get people talking about you.
There used to be an art to going viral back in’t day, now it’s almost too easy to game.
Boris Johnson is a twat.
Boris Johnson is evil.
Boris Johnson is ignorant.
Boris Johnson is an idiot.
The only repeat name is Boris Johnson, all negative but the algorithms will push his name onto trending lists because of its repeat use.
So even a misspelling can bump you up the trending list and get people talking about you.
It all comes back to how the internet is primarily funded by advertising, which means that "engagement" is the supreme metric of success. Good, bad, it's all engagement.
1. A concerned mother shares a photo of her 4-year-old boy who was forced to wait hours on a hospital floor with suspected pneumonia. 2. The photo circulates online so a journalist challenges Boris Johnson about it during an interview by showing him the picture of the boy on his phone. 3. Johnson repeatedly refuses […]
Section 66a of the Representation of the people act:
No person shall, in the case of an election to which this section applies, publish before the poll is closed—
(a)any statement relating to the way in which voters have voted at the election where that statement is (or might reasonably be taken to be) based on information given by voters after they have voted.
She's said, live on TV (or was it Twitter?) - I've seen the video - that people who have seen the postal vote have told her it's going to be difficult for Labour.
Surely that's a criminal offense? No-one is supposed to be able to discuss any counted results of votes until the official totals are revealed.
That's got to be a sacking, surely? She's a journalist! The world's gone mad!
Comment