-- I guess it's better to have him on--

No, it is not better to have him on.

Reason for that is that every time In that sphere someone *arts media just jumps all over it and there is no more air in the room for his kind, of Advertisers. It is all about selling hats with the year printed on the front of the hat and fleecing the poor souls for a small donations...

We just let few of the old friends back into our circles, now it is going to be all "Did You know?...", again........ Snail Mail with scrolling <marquees> forwarded from all over --- Yuck .& .Fuy kinds....

i've been reading about this for days now and would be hard-pressed to name a single outlet at either end of the spectrum which hasn't covered the story.

it is likely being done in response to Twitter's recent decision to reinstate.

I just hope it's not an 'all influence on deck' due to imminent war development. It's a complete about-face, and those happen for a reason.

“The public should be able to hear what their politicians are saying” ~ NBC NEWS

[nbcnews.com...]

This is the right call ~ ACLU

[newsweek.com...]

Juxtaposed against the current state of the world, and knowing enemies will work together to fight bigger enemies... it's unsettling, honestly. I'll say no more, I don't care about the politics, if I'm right it's more about the recruitment numbers which are falling extremely short. [nbcnews.com...]

A bi-partisan message would go a long way to fixing that. What might that look like? Well, Trump on Facebook for starters. People don't fight because they hate their enemy, they fight because they love their country. Too many are not loving where it's at right now.

...it is likely being done in response to Twitter's recent decision to reinstate.

The decision has nothing to do with Twitter. But I don't blame you for speculating because the reporting by mainstream media lacked the relevant details.

It was agreed two years ago between Meta and the independent oversight board to revisit the ban in two years. Essentially, if Trump still posed a danger, such as actively promoting civil unrest, then he would be banned again.

That may seem like a low bar but Trump isn't fully reinstated. He is still in a sort-of penalty-box, what Meta calls guardrails. His reinstatement comes with heightened scrutiny for violations of Meta policy, with gradually increasing penalties for infractions. The penalties are things like cutting off his reach so that he's essentially talking to himself in a dark empty room to eventually an outright ban.

I tried to fit in all the details in my article on the topic. Contrary to what many people were tweeting, it had nothing to do with being greedy for more advertising (Trump is actually bad for advertising, brands run away from him) and Meta didn't "cave" to pressure either. It was just playing by rules imposed by the oversight board that is trying to balance fairness with protecting the public.

[searchenginejournal.com...]

Look bigger than Facebook, what's going on in the world that might be more frightening than Trump being on Facebook talking to people who don't hate his leadership?

An internal Defense Department survey obtained by NBC News found that only 9% of those young Americans eligible to serve in the military had any inclination to do so, the lowest number since 2007.

Yeah, It's that bad. People who just let him have a voice again know it would be needed if global war erupts. Not everything is politics, people need leadership they would follow. There would be a singular message across party lines.... which is what the response to this is.

I do hope I'm wrong, but it fits.

in the US, it's essentially been an economic draft for most of our lifetimes.
i would assume it's a bad sign for the US economy when more than 1 in 10 of "those young Americans eligible to serve in the military" need a job in the military.
it's also not a surprise that the last rise in that number started in 2008.

It was agreed two years ago between Meta and the independent oversight board to revisit the ban in two years.

i had forgotten about this - thanks for the reminder.

I tend to agree with this opinion on MSNBC: [msnbc.com...] , text version of it.

It is all about Ads = Make some money on some noise no matter what noise is all about, microtargeting ----------and--------- Data Collection = Build my email list for farther enrichment, and use that list to hit up supporters for money.

They reinstated his channel on a platform = Noise just about that + Click Bate = $$$;

...but as someone smart once said: When you make a deal with the Devil the check will always bounce.

Just my 2 pence(no pun intended).

Quietly is not the word I would use. You cannot open a paper or a SERP without seeing the announcement. It has been carefully crafted for the most $$$.

It is all about Ads = Make some money on some noise no matter what noise is all about, microtargeting...

That's an opinion that is not based on facts. But it's not what's going on in the real world. ;)

The facts about Trump and advertising is that brands do not want to advertise with anything associated with Trump. It's like what happened with Tiger Woods, advertisers fled after all the revelations about the strippers and so on.

The fact is that the Trump brand is unattractive to big brand advertisers. Links [arstechnica.com] to support that fact that only shady scam advertisers [uproxx.com] are interested in his brand.

Additionally, the demographics surrounding Trump are older males, which are not the demographic that big brands find desirable.

It's not about advertising and money. The facts show that.

The facts about Trump... ~ martinibuster

The fact is that the Trump.... ~ martinibuster

Additionally, the demographics surrounding Trump are older males.... ~ martinibuster

I'd double-check those facts from a less biased source.

The young anti-woke crowd is booming, how could it not when senators sound like this - [9gag.com...] . Watch a rally, look at the crowd, the young outnumber the old.

Even if 'his demographic' was 'older male' only, of course advertisers find older males a desirable demographic. Marketing young hip stuff to the demographic with money, careers, credit, homes etc. is profitable. What are they supposed to do, market old people clothes?

While this thread is mostly political, it is missing the one thing that FB is trying UNDO.

They censored a president. Divided Free and Speech. And a lot of folks know that is exactly what they did and turned away from the brand. The genie is out of the bottle and trying to stuff it back in is going to be very difficult.

The person under discussion/ban-to-be-lifted, is not without resources and has not been silenced as far as the rest of the world is concerned... and in that regard FB HAS lost whatever marketing/ads power once available.

This is mostly media theater, IMO, than "moderating".

This is mostly media theater, IMO, than "moderating".

'Coordinated' media theater apparently, which is what caught my attention. Think about it, the ACLU sided with Facebook to welcome Trump back.... yeah, weird. Regardless, he's not even likely to use FB judging by how he didn't use Twitter after being unbanned.

He's over it, his supporters don't care, and the division remains well beyond Facebook. If it's to change the media image and restore trust, perhaps to bring everyone back towards center, not everyone got the memo. It's mostly his detractors continuing to write about it.

It's not about money, on that martinibuster is absolutely right.

[edited by: Sgt_Kickaxe at 2:30 am (utc) on Jan 31, 2023]

i doubt the ACLU is welcoming anything back other than due process.

he's actually got an exclusivity agreement with another social media platform and probably isn't interested in diluting his audience until that expires later this year.

What are they supposed to do, market old people clothes? --- Sgt_Kickaxe

You be surprised how much dough "small ecom shop" could can rake in on "Get me them Red Leather Hat, oh and spandex for George".

As someone once said: We land in the cow-field, pitch our next to the cows, share beer with the cows and other due process, and some even have names.

^^ See, that is exclusive demographic, right up there!

$$$ based on craftsmanship of greed, aka grift - IMO, that is all to it.

I yield to your expertise on cow-folk, Blend, but I have no idea what you're trying to say.

We may never know what went on in the backroom channels before Facebook allowed Trump back and everyone who's done well trashing his every word agreed it was the right thing to do.

The man's been a mainstream media cash-cow, they never stop writing about him. Must be profitable.... so maybe it is about the money in that sense. Who knows (or cares).

It's silly to hate the 'older men' demographic, or any demographic, that you associate to Trump because demographics don't speak to the individuals within them. Imagine if being an older male automatically made you a Trump supporter... or if being young automatically made you more wise than your elders about these things.

Also, statistics aren't facts. (ask chatGPT, lol)

I sure don't want to associate 'older folk' with him, and can't imagine that someone would. Flag Officer's uniform in StarTrek Enterprise(they were missing a hat btw, Hikaru Sulu for sure) - maybe, but not him.

-- never stop writing about him. Must be profitable...---.

Correct!

cow-folk, as in cash-cow, Correct 2.

This is bigger than Trump, IMO, something is happening. I took a little deeper look into just how much of a shift it was for entities that hounded him mercilessly for years to suddenly stop.

- Places you could find HOURLY anti-Trump stories are muted since he was reinstated. Not silent, but 2-3 articles since then, not 2-3 articles before lunch.
- I looked at the places you find journalism reviews, entities known to evaluate the quality of journalism. The collective gave out journalism Pulitzers for anti-Trump articles, despite non-stop retractions, but now they are actually writing scathing reviews about the NYTimes, the Washington Post and others who trashed him.

Example: The Columbia Journalism Review, a Liberal organization, wrote this yesterday (long read, talks about all the mainstream media sources individually - [cjr.org...]

Note: That is a massive 4 part evaluation of the entire mainstream media apparatus, including first-hand accounts.

It makes me want to know why, and to know what else has changed. I don't care about him, there is something bigger happening IMO. I truly hope it's not because things are expected to get much worse (war, financial etc). Leadership outside the west is mocking and/or accusing the US of engineering this global meltdown right now. China didn't write about Biden specifically, until this week,

Forget the politics, what's changing in places like ad spend and media messaging? In just the past 7 days media has changed the tune they'd been harping on for 7 YEARS. What else changed?

What else changed?

Reality?

Nothing changed, except for me was :...

1. We all went for it: [webmasterworld.com...] - I was happy elsewhere on the plane too, to...
2. In 2021, on Jan 19th, In a backyard of my friends in Jersey, I took a live picture of a "Belka", that was Dark Grey Color, she looked Wise, looked right at me!
3. Wrote a snippet of code to exclude any elements from the screen: A, IMG, e.t.c to hide it(TRUM + Param+Pampam)

- uBlockOrigin. Lovely.

Reality changed? How so?

Heh. Reality doesn't change. As YOU noted, all the media has changed their tune trying to create a "different reality". I simply agreed with the observation. :)