you should do an analysis on newer accounts maybe 1-2 months and newer who literally only post here (astro-turfing) so we can build a list of people to block

ok

What's the issue with Nibiru stuff?

don't they were saying these anything wrong with it, but a quick count shows 11 submitted links on the same topic in a 24 hour span

Adderall lol. At least it's an interesting topic that doesn't deal with current politics. The ancient Sumerian stuff is fascinating.

not disagreeing with you in the slightest, just saying that submitting 11 posts on the same topic in 1 day is spamming it

That has to be a bot right? It's constantly spamming similar links, and the only time it ever comments is as a reply to its own posts. It never engages in any actual discussion about any of the topics.

It does, just not very often. There were two.instances of replying to comments that I found

Would be interesting to have a much longer timeframe. The spam of the last few days could have influenced the results quite a bit.

Depending on your method it could be interesting to see if there is some kind of time related stuff (T_D/anti_D users posting more/less during the day or on the weekend?) but ~1GB data per day is quite a lot and could make a longer (8 weeks analysis maybe) harder.

Why didn't you weight the posters based on number of comments? You're weighting every single user the same, in effect saying that someone who comes on /r/conspiracy and makes 1000 posts is no more significant than someone who only made 1 post over the same time period.

Flawed methodology.

Can you explain how you collected that data? As in, how did you tally comments of "pro-T_D" posters - did you look at each profile individually and count the number of comments made by each during that time period? Why did you select the dates you did (and did you consider that the Seth Rich stories would skew your data?)

Its a very interesting study. Thanks for it.

I used to be a silent reader of this subreddit. Once they started flooding the pages with Russian styled conspiracy theories about Hillary, I left. I am no liberal or conservative. But it was becoming too nauseating. I can tell that the_donald people started targeting this subreddit mainly at the time of election because before the stories and comments didn't have much traces of extreme bigotry and blind admiration for Russia.

I certainly do not feel the users are actual American conservatives and Trump supporters.

LMFAO, back to "T_D users are really just Russians." Seriously, get some new material people.

I have been here for a long time.

Big fan of this right here, nice work

It has been plain as day for anyone paying attention. How can you support the government on a conspiracy sub? Anyone who does shouldn't be here.

Because the government is infiltrated by globalist scum. Not everyone is bad.

No, but if you worship a political figure and think he and his administration can do no wrong then yeah idk what you're doing here

I'm here to counter the shills, and read about conspiracies.

to me, shill is just the new troll.

the only way to counter trolls is not to feed them. if you counter shills, you only boost their visibilty. down vote and move on.

one thing i do wish is that all of 100 original posts on the same exact news tid bit etc that is already posted be down voted. the inundation by 100 posts on exactlybthe same thing is really, to me, the core problem. sometimes it exhausting to just peruse the sub for the 3 1/2 seconds (including new) it takes to sigh in defeat and leave.

It's weird because sometimes they're on it wrt duplicate threads and other times they left the front page get filled. Of course the convos in dupe threads, especially ones to youtube videos, are just circlejerks usually as people don't even seem to watch the clickbait youtube vids.

It's more than just a support of the government too. They're cult like and believe in never questioning the government. It's a fucking government pep rally over there.

A slight change to your opinion: they have cult like belief in 1/2 the government. The other half is, like, totally corrupt and part of the conspiracy man!

This is a shitpost and the logic is extremely flawed.

I am anti-Trump on almost every issue, but according to this criteria, it sounds like I would be labeled a the_donald user.

Even though I'm anti-Trump I don't post in the anti-Trump subs because they're almost all Shareblue shit holes. And because of Shareblue, at times the_donald is the only source for certain kinds of news, so I have found myself posting there.

Tldr: Trump sucks but according to this bullshit criteria I might be labeled a the_donald user

Shhh... facts and critical thinking are not allowed in threads like this, ant-Trump or you're a retarded loser who doesn't see what's really going on.

Why is that Trump supporters so often pretend to be not Trump supporters? Is it because you know you have lost all credibility?

And yeah, yeah, you are not a Trump supporter, that's why you have to state that in every third comment, while you spend your entire time here defending Trump. Nobody is believing that shit.

Trump blows babe.

Tulsi 2020

I mean it is con sub. Would expect you to start listening to reality any time soon...

How can you support the government on a conspiracy sub?

Why must these things be mutually exclusive?

I'd say that the head of the government and de facto leader of the government counts as being "the government". This isn't some fucking pencil pusher in the PR branch of the white house we're talking about.

This issue is waayyy more complicated than that.

It has been plain as day for anyone paying attention.

Donald Trump snared a lot of people that wouldn't have believed in someone like Jeb Bush. His rhetoric and history were completely different from any politician in recent history.

I keep telling people that support some kind of government narrative that they are the WORST conspiracy theorist ever. They usually shut up after that. Its almost like calling them a shill without using the word shill.

Accuse me of that, I'm not going anywhere. Your idea that Trump is "the government" is absolutely fucking retarded and based in fantasy land.

Dems fight him, Reps fight him, the IC fights him, district courts fight him. Yeah, he sure is "The Government."

What a fucking sad joke this new bullshit narrative is.

Youre the worst conspiracy theorist ever. There. :D

Learn English? Are you expecting some kind perfect prose and grammar on a social media website that is geared toward fast responses on key boards where mistakes are easily made?

If someone were to go through your posting history, I assume they would not find any mistakes?

This is fun! Lets keep going!

Yeah, fun! Let's ignore the facts that I brought up to talk about garbage!

Your "Trump is the government" narrative horseshit.

Prove I said "Trump is the government" or shut the fuck up. You keep saying things that are factually wrong and easily disprovable.

You are a liar. There is simply no other way to describe you. You are a liar just like Trump is a liar. Birds of a feather flock together I guess.

I keep telling people that support some kind of government narrative that they are the WORST conspiracy theorist ever

Oh no! You didn't say exactly "Trump is the government!" I'm a fucking liar!!!

Still haven't addressed my facts buddy, just keep dancing around them because you're wrong.

Ive posted more in /r/starterpacks today that I have /r/conspiracy so fuck off you dimwitted idiot.

And thanks for proving to everyone that you lie. Now we can all know not to take anything you say seriously because you are a lying liar that lies just like Trump lies.

Stiiiill dancing around the facts. Are your legs getting tired or do you train for this?

Look at me, I hate politics! I'm going to tell you how meaningless it all is and ask you all to give me your input. Oh and look, I can say all the trendy things to immediately point a finger at you. Tomorrow I'm going to post a bunch about politics so people know just how much I hate politics.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6r1x54/here_is_an_insipid_redundant_pointless_post/

Removed. Rule 4. Final warning.

Very sorry and thank you for the warning.

TIL the president of the United States is not government.

DING DING DING DING, WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

The president is in fact, not the government. Today you're going to learn a lot!

There are three separate branches that make up the United States government; the president only being the chief executive of one of those. Our founding fathers were smart enough to create two other branches for something we call "Checks and Balances."

Our founding fathers realized that one man could not rule a nation, like King George III did (who they were at odds with at the time), so they added a congress to represent "the people." The congress is comprised of two separate houses, the senate and the house of representatives.

Now, many of our founding fathers were lawyers so they knew they also had create a high court, to rule on weather or not laws passed in congress followed the constitution. This high court is what we call the "Supreme" court.

Because this is a nation of, by, and for the people, we elect our representatives and executive, and entrust that between the two they can agree on who should sit on the supreme court.

However, there are appointees and hirings made by the branches that are not chosen by the people, beaurocrats to keep the machine turning if you will. These beaurocrats run the most influential part of the US government and stay hidden in the shadows for decades, to include every single person in the "intelligence community."

The intelligence community comprises what most now accept as the "Deep State." A nefarious group with untold power and wealth who believe it is in their best interest, and the interest of those with whom they deal, to keep "the people" in the dark as to what actually happens behind the scenes in our government. They believe that morals and ethics have no part in their profession, and would sell out their grandmother if it was beneficial to them.

This Deep State is connected to every major corporation in the United States, and has the ability to blackmail just about every single important American in both the private and public sectors. The American people are waking up to this deep state and are sick and tired of them running it into the ground for their own gain.

The Deep State is suspected of assassinating a sitting US president, is known to have incited violent revolution in democratic nations such as Chile and Nicaragua among others around the world, is known to have operations in wich they use their media contacts to sway public opinion, and is generally extremely shady.

This Deep State corrupted our government to such an extent that the United States of America actually elected Donald Trump to be their warrior in Washington.

At first President Trump tried to play nice with the government and country in shambles that he inherited from his predecessorS. But it has been shown that the Deep State is unwilling to play nice with the people's choice so President Trump has been attempting to isolate himself from those who make up the majority of the government who wish to see him, and through extension the people, fail.

So you see, no, Trump is not "the government." Today you learned.

Seek professional help. Seriously.

I appreciate that you took time to write an in-depth answer, detailing your views. This comment shouldn't have been downvoted, it added to the discussion, unlike my previous zero effort comment.

Trump is like so anti-establishmentttt mannnn. But seriously false dichotomies. Anarchists are the only trustworthy people (fullstop.)

Trump seems to be quite the cuck imo.

Lol to who, and compared to Obama? He's at least challenging some of the old power structures which is historical since Kennedy. When have you ever read tweets by a President shitting on CNN?

Says the sanitized account that does nothing but claim to be ruler of this sub. GTFOH and YOU stop lying.

The deep state is "the government". This administration is rather unique in that it appears to be in conflict with it. It's not rocket science. You're clearly trying to muddy the waters.

How can anyone support the government on a conspiracy sub? How can anyone be so absolutist on a sub that is being honest about nuance?

Government is a tool. It is hard for the people to wield it with their lack of time and money and easy for wealthy business owners to wield it with their abundance of time and money.

We should stop blaming government so much and start asking ourselves what specific interests are corrupting the government to work against the people? Who has these interests?

By just attacking government, we play into a trap set up by these wealthy business owners. They have us condemn and alienate the only effective tool we've ever had to keep them in check, government, the motherboard of our country. We disempower ourselves that way, by refusing to engage the system. Then we impotently complain and turn away more reasonable people that would otherwise be aligned with our interests in pushing government toward the will of the people.

How can anyone support the government on a conspiracy sub? How can anyone be so absolutist on a sub that is being honest about nuance?

Government is a tool. It is hard for the people to wield it with their lack of time and money and easy for wealthy business owners to wield it with their abundance of time and money.

We should stop blaming government so much and start asking ourselves what specific interests are corrupting the government to work against the people? Who has these interests?

By just attacking government, we play into a trap set up by these wealthy business owners. They have us condemn and alienate the only effective tool we've ever had to keep them in check, government, the motherboard of our country. We disempower ourselves that way, by refusing to engage the system. Then we impotently complain and turn away more reasonable people that would otherwise be aligned with our interests in pushing government toward the will of the people.

Before some if you downvote vote me, please realize which group Trump aligns with and supports with this policies. Is it the common worker or wealthy business owners?

This post was far too reasonable and articulate.

How can you support the mainstream media in conspiracy?

Even as a T_D subscriber I’ll say some of the horseshit astroturfing that comes out of there is ridiculous and the mob mentality of most seems to rival the left, if not surpass it. EspeciallyAllTheOddUsernames724

Get cucked faggot

Removed. Rule 1.

T_D also has a discord they use to coordinate downvotes of stories in subs like /r/politics so they can then turn around and accuse /r/politics of not wanting to cover it.

Sad.

That goes both ways TBF.

Why do subreddits have Discord channels anyway? Seems like every sub has one these days, and I can't see any real need for it except to talk about stuff that they don't want seen on Reddit.

Oh you know why.

Non political subreddits use them for meme-posting and regular chat, some trading subreddits use them to try to avoid scamming via real time trading, gaming subreddits use them to find groups, because it's easier to jump into a discord channel than shift through a hundred+ comment thread.

T_D has one so they can make plans to violate reddits rules, discus bots, and receive orders on who / what to attack.

Any political subreddit that uses a discord most likely uses it to game the system.

I've seen anti-Trump subs doing the same.

It's super shitty

Discords are fun. Reddit used to be much smaller. A busy discord channel feels a lot like reddit 8 years ago. Also before discord got bigger most mods and admins were all hanging out in IRC channels together.

"YES EVERYONE PLEASE BE AWARE ITS BOTH PEOPLE NOT JUST US PLEASE DONT JUST BLAME US"

-Liberals

"YES EVERYONE PLEASE BE AWARE ITS BOTH PEOPLE NOT JUST US PLEASE DONT JUST BLAME US"

Why is it I only get told this when talking about conspiracies involving Trump? Never on any other topic?

Cambridge Analytica.

I feel like no one knows what Cambridge Analytica does.

Go run it on yourself, it just usually takes social media info and such.

It stated that I was a early 20's liberal female based on mine social media interactions lol

Yeah, they arent astroturfing websites. There probably is someone doing that, almost certainly. But it isnt CA.

There is no doubt in my mind that there are bots and vote manipulation going on from both sides.

It's just nigh impossible for a bunch of paranoid users who are hidden by anonymity to decipher what is happening and how to slow it's impact.

We have no reason to believe each other, and can only use words and sources to expand on our points. Lo and behold, every source involving conspiracy is usually shady and grating to someone's political ears.

It's perfectly murky.

Where are you seeing their political data? Trump paid CA millions and millions of dollars during the campaign for access to their data. I have a hard time believing you're privy to it.

During the election, anyone could go to their website and check to see how their information read and how it would be marketed toward.

It wasn't the same level that corporations or Trump's team would use, but it's decent for a base understanding of how it scraps information for marketing.

During the election, anyone could go to their website and check to see how their information read and how it would be marketed toward.

I don't believe you. Can you point to some sources or stuff to support this?

Yeah man, there's nothing I'd love to do more than dive into the wayback machine, voat, and Reddit for three hours to find the article and or site from 2016 that lead me to it to make you believe me. Sounds. Like. Fun.

It was on their website though, you could enter in your Facebook and it would lost your political nature. It dinged me as a 20 year old liberal because of my music choices (Bowie and the like). It also takes all those dumb quizzes that we do online and uses those

I did a wayback, but I'm unable to go past the front page to find it, so just don't believe me. It'll make it easier on me.

You're talking about those FB personality surveys and questionnaires. That's not even close to the extent of what cambridge analytica does.

Trump, Steve Bannon, Robert Mercer, even Ted Cruz, they paid CA tens of millions of dollars through PACs and Super-PACs for access to their data.

I know, it was something similar for Cambridge. It dug through your likes and interests, and then used info from BuzzFeed quizzes and such.

They also have two divisions, on political and one commercial. The latter was the one that I searched myself on.

So you were 'exaggerating' earlier when you said you access the Cambridge site.?

Believe what you will.

Maybe I hallucinated it, but it would be a strange thing to dream up.

I weirdly remember following a link either through here, or voat that allowed people to enter their information and have it search to see your stats (guessed age, gender, and likes) and how they stacked up to the region.

It then listed possible strategies to market toward the region using the least controversial methods.

bogus

thank you for being honest.

Says the 44day old account with zero posts to T_D... GTFOH

I’ve had nothing relevant to add to any if the conversations that I’ve seen so I haven’t. I’m in there to get news and read genuine posts. Not add white noise.

So why are you posting in this thread, it is nothing but white noise. Nothing is coming out of any of this.

Just because you don’t agree with a post doesn’t make it white noise. Each to their own though mate.

Doesn't include r/politics users.

Your entire analysis is a bunch of BS. You obviously wanted to spit out a conclusion before you even started your "analysis".

Also I tried to use politics as a counterbalance but that subbreddit has way more subscribers and they don't ban any users unless you are racist, so not really a great sample for anti-trumps.

"Also I tried to use politics as a counterbalance but that subbreddit has way more subscribers and they don't ban any users unless you are racist, so not really a great sample for anti-trumps." No point in introducing more noise, the samples here are taken directly from reddits that belong to that side. He is just presenting numbers and you clearly are upset with the outcome, don't look down but your interest are showing.

"Also I tried to use politics as a counterbalance but that subbreddit has way more subscribers and they don't ban any users unless you are racist, so not really a great sample for anti-trumps."

HAHAHAHAHA

Yeah they do.

Source: am banned from r/politics for having a contrary opinion.

You can test the theory (as I kinda did.) Make an alt and post something pro-trump (or just anti-Hillary, as I did,) and see if you get banned. Maybe they don't ban for comments, but they certainly do for submitting content.

What were you banned for specifically?

Submitting a post.

Which post?

Something about Ivanka and Chelsea being good buddies. I don't remember the exact piece.

Post a link to it.

This was the last thing they submitted there lol http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Alan_T._Panda

The last thing you submitted there was about some furry that has nothing to do with politics...

Seems like a pretty good reason to ban someone

Different account, friend, but now that you mention it, I was also banned on my r/nfl account for posting about Robert Kraft asking Trump to get his Super Bowl ring back from Putin. So, yeah, three accounts banned from r/politics in the last year.

I love anecdotal evidence, it's by far the best kind.

It's anecdotal to you. There are longtime, regular users here that witnessed it. There are a couple people that I trust enough to allow them to know my alts.

Oh I wish to be in that inner-circle

This user has a very suspicious and inconsistent post history. Could be because they are paranoid and lie on their conspiracy account, but I'm wary of anyone who is so disingenuous and hypocritical in their stances. For examples, they actually tried to contend that the reason DJT went into teen usa changing rooms was to protect them from other predators...

I said this?

No, the person you are talking to.

Oh yeah, they're a fun, fun account to watch.

That's... the definition of "anecdotal".

Like this entire OP?

Ahh yes data-driven posts, the best of anecdotal evidence.

What post?

Anything that goes against the r-politics agenda that is so blatant and obvious that anyone with a functional brain doesn't need it spelled out for them.

Same here.

R/politics is worse than t_d because at least t_d is a sub with a name dedicated to their "hero", so of course they will ban you.

Politics is broadly named "politics" and absolutely bans anyone who goes against the grain, as well as shadow-deleting their comments.

Anyone who says otherwise is part of the politics circlejerk, a liar, or goes with the grain too much to understand what that subreddit is.

Was it because of your opinion, or the way you presented it?

I comment in politics occasionally but I am hardly "left wing". As OP said, politics mods won't ban you for your political opinions so this makes it difficult to categorize people just based on the fact they commented there.

I comment there often (with a lot of downvotes, lol). I'm a classical liberal, I'd say (so that makes me economically pretty moderate/conservative in the US). So yeah, you can't really call r/politics the opposite of r/TD. It doesn't really work like that.

I'm surprised how badly I got beaten up there for saying that I voted third party and that we aren't the ones to blame for the current situation. Boy did they not like that! I haven't commented there since then but I'll probably go back at some point. The fact that I comment there doesn't give any information about my political leanings though.

They don't like it if you try to talk about anything except for Trump, in a disparaging way of course. Politics encompasses a lot more than the top of the executive branch but you wouldn't know it if you only visited that sub.

While you are absolutely right, I was just reading through the comments on their current sticky post about Whitelisting sources and I was really surprised about the discussion there. There were a lot of users calling out horribly biased sources from both sides. They were even pointing out that it's the same power users spamming horrible sources every day and somehow always getting to the top. I think there might actually be a good deal of reasonable people there, they just always get buried under the flood of anti-Trump circlejerking.

Glad to hear things might be getting better.

They don't ban you if you have leftist views.

Yes they do.

What people like you don't seem to realize is that you have these beliefs because you perfectly go with the grain.

Going against the grain in r-politics will get you banned as quick as t_d and you are also very likely to have your comments shadow deleted.

And again, people like you don't even know about comments being shadow deleted because you aren't aware enough of how reddit works to routinely check your comments in a private window.

They haven't banned me for having conservative views either. I've gotten in a quite a few arguments there and the worst that has happened is I've been downvoted.

Thanks for doing this! Definitely good for us to be able to look at the numbers in this way, and I'm sure it took some time so nice work. One suggestion though- you should include r/TopMindsofReddit even though they're not technically "anti-Trump." That sub is at it's core anti-conspiracy rather than anti-trump and we're often brigaded by their users. I'm interested to see those stats as well

Is there a way to analyse how many of their users are present here on links they directly link from their subreddit? Patterns over time? Any accounts that are present on both subreddits, or maybe alt accounts that are only active on threads directly linked from their sub.
My gut tells me they brigade, but their subreddit creator told me they don't. I want to trust his word, but I can't at the moment. I want to find out if there's any way to objectively either prove or disprove brigading here from that sub in particular.

What we can do here as a sub is use the totesmessenger bot to alert when a thread has been X-posted to TMoR and watch the tempo of the thread change and keep an eye on the comments here and watch the x-posted thread for similar comments under different usernames. It's a pain in the ass, but fairly entertaining.

They have a bot post a reminder that voting is against the rules on every link post, and from visiting the links, most of them seem to have natural vote totals. That being said, you KNOW there must be users that ignore the rules.

Patterns over time?

Looking back, it's possible to plot comments over time, and unique authors over time.

If you wanted to see real-time changes in scores, someone would have to make a bot to record that info.

I did make a basic plot for a thread that conspiracy mods removed awhile ago. They said they removed the thread "due to suspicious voting patterns"

https://www.reddit.com/user/f_k_a_g_n/comments/6nc2yd/rconspiracy_thread_6n8o2y_comment_count_over_time/

Please also do a comparison of /r/politics posts before and after the seth rich NPR story.

That's what I'm saying. You're going to see more than 50% of your /r/politics data on august 1st specifically.

Thank you for that.

You are literally talking to a person(op) who posts in politics and enoughtrumpspam

I'm talking to an individual about data. Doesn't matter where he comes from. data is data.

Except in this case the data is incomplete, badly analyzed, and published to push an agenda.

Which is why I am asking for additional scope. He's a reasonable guy and has agreed to take another look at the data.

But how do you feel about the content of OPs post?

It's incomplete information with badly analyzed data.

The fact that someone posts somewhere, T_D, politics, enoughtrumpspam, etc tells you nothing about what was posted.

It literally tells you nothing other than that they have, in fact, posted on a specific sub.

The fact that someone posts somewhere, T_D, politics, enoughtrumpspam, etc tells you nothing about what was posted.

um

You are literally talking to a person(op) who posts in politics and enoughtrumpspam

If it doesn't matter why are you all over the thread announcing selections of people's post histories?

The problem with this is that most of those users have alts to use when they come here. It's worth a shot to include them, but don't expect too much out of it.

If you post on T_D you have to hane an alt or if you try to post on other parts of reddit you are brigaded by democrats & CTR bots/shills.

Indeed. That's why I use different accounts for different interests. My NFL account has too much geographic info, my parenting account has too much info about my kids, my gardening account has too much info about both- and the doxxing threat here is very real.

Great analysis. It mirrors my experience with r/Conspiracy. There seems to be a clear bias to the_donald and its "narrative". And I've recognized a clear mod bias too. The latest instance beeing setting anti Trump posts to contest mode.

If this were true then why is this post so successful?

Yeah that was bullshit.

First time a non-politician got into the office so it's pretty natural that everyone is rooting for the underdog even if he is a douchebag in a lot of people's eyes.

underdog? Since when were real estate moguls underdogs.

He's not a politician, he's the guy who paid the politicians to do what he wanted. All he does now is pay himself to do what he wants.

Thats a bit of a reach.. he may not be some poor black man but he is a political outside and the whole establishment tried to keep him out of politics once his campaign actually picked up steam instead of crashing and burning how they wanted him to, and thats another thing that makes him even more of an underdog because many people think that the political circle wanted him to run so he could lose.

You do recall that he run as a nominee of one of the two major parties, right?

So? A lot of people think he was allowed to run because they thought he would lose right away. He is the first guy to get the office from outside the traditional political establishment, and he doesn't talk like a teleprompter reading robot and his responses to questions might be cheazy but they dont seem coached. He might still be a member of the global elite but he wasnt in the political inner circle and I think that is obvious, although I do admit it would be the ultimate plant if they really did plant him like they did with Obama.

What I am trying to say is that if he was a joke candidate, the republic party would have dropped him as soon as he got some momentum, way before everyone had heard of him on national TV. They have possibly a thousand people that are interested in the nomination on every election cicle. Its a long way before you reach the 6 or 7 guys that appear on debates and get voted on primaries.

He might be an unorthodox president, but he is definitely a president they can work with for their agenda.

So why is the neocon establishment like McCain always talking shit? Sure they may have been optimistic but there are neocons that are officially and unofficially opposed to him. And I already told you my take on his candidacy.. i thought he was like a fall guy. And I'm not doubting that some nasty goblins at the top like trump or think they can do business with him but I just think it's incredibly obvious he was an outsider even though he is a billionaire.

Vermin Supreme has run under both Democrat and Republican.

So why would it matter if he ran under a major party. It's not like it's against the rules.

No one said it's against the rules. Being nominated, on the other hand, kinda suggest that you are on the inside of things, or at least that you can be worked around with.

I'd be more inclined to agree with you, except they had like 12 nominees and for the most they believed Cruz or Bush would clinch the nomination.

Trump and Kasich were often shit on as joke runs by the media and most Republicans (hell even the conservative radio stations like Rush and Savage shit on them relentlessly until he became a serious contender)

So did Bernie, because he knew a third party candidate had no chance, what is your point?

The fact that Bernie flirted with the nomination and the Democratic party decided to rig the process in order to get a candidate of their liking reinforces the idea that Trump didn't get nominated and elected as a real outsider.

He had the Republican support all the way to the white house. It suggest that he was someone they could work with.

"The underdog" billionaire who lives in the gold-plated penthouse of a skyscraper he owns in the middle of the most expensive city in the world.

You know there is different levels of billionaire? There is Saudi royal family or Rothchilds rich and then there is average single digit billionaire, and no matter what anyone says he still was a political outsider and had to buck against not only the dems but lots of neocons as well.

Sorting comments buy comment mode flaring posts buy unverified allegations but only on anti Trump stories.

The thread was being heavily brigaded. Big ups to the mods for doing that

Its only brigaded if its anti trump.

This sub is compromised.

It was being heavily brigaded by Shareblue.

This sub is compromised.

If there's a bias to the_donald then what's with all the progressivism in this sub? Seems much closer to r/WayOfTheBern 2.0

Which is basically just an anti-Hillary sub that got taken over by T_D. Look at how many Seth Rich posts make the front page there

You think only trump supporters care about Seth rich? Lol

Weren't mods banning users that spoke against daddy God emperor trump?

T_D users, who are branded "conspiracy theorists" by the MSM, post more often in a conspiracy sub than leftist users. WHO KNEW?

Lol. SURPRISE!!!

Another explanation is that Trump has historically been far more comfortable publicly endorsing conspiracy theories than probably any other modern presidential candidate.

Exactly

I am not sure your analysis is meaningful. the_Donald supporters are aware of machinations by the deep state against the Trump presidency -- so naturally they will gravitate to a conspiracy site. The Deep State IS a conspiracy, treason as committed by various Democratic controlled agencies (including DNC) is also a conspiracy. anti-Trump people prefer to ignore these realities.

machinations by the deep state against the Trump presidency

Both Democrats and Republicans, including Trump, work for the deep state. Is that not obvious?

We're talking about the guy who led chants of "lock her up" and as soon as he clinched the presidency, squashed any rumors that he was going to prosecute Clinton.

Ah yes, the Dems/Reps and IC who all rallied together to stop one man, are actually working with him.

wake up trump fans! he is doing nothing different from Obama. you got duped.

Now we know why Hillary lost. Bots

hahahaha

facts hurt

The deflection is eminate!

http://i.imgur.com/cmRkbQT.png

Do you mean imminent?

No. My Russian is bad.

You're eminating lies!

Anyone who says that they could fix things if only they sat on the throne is just as psychopathic as the last guy.

The deeper conspiracy is the fact that the throne remains. If you're interested in real revolution, you don't kill the king and take his crown for yourself, you kill the king, smash the throne, melt the crown in a furnace, and burn the damn castle down as you walk away.

Anyone who says that they could fix things if only they sat on the throne is just as psychopathic as the last guy.

false don't fall for that either just stop trusting wall st guys that went bankrupt 7 times.

And within a few weeks, there will be another king. The institution of government is not the problem; the problem is an oligarchy that controls people with lies.

Not condemning all government, but centralized power structures.

At what point can we start blaming the people for falling for said lies? How can we ever end government corruption if people be held accountable for their own actions?

It's interesting how the rulers think the working class is too stupid to govern themselves. It doesn't help that our impotent outrage is full of destruction and no construction. At least they built something. Why can't we?

Uhhh, except killing TPP, pulling out of the Climate Accord, fighting race based discrimination (racial affirmative action)....

all fake.

Lmfao.

No effort at all.

he is doing nothing different from Obama.

I wouldn't go that far. Trump is obviously nothing like what he claimed to be, but he's not nearly as bad as Obama, the Bushes, or the Clintons.

Obama was a CIA agent, and he knowingly created ISIS. Trump recently cut all of the programs supporting the "moderate rebels" which was all going to ISIS.

The elites do fight among themselves, and some of them are better than others.

trump is Rothschild agent sorry

I'm not sure you even read my post. Did you see where I said "Trump is obviously nothing like what he claimed to be" and referred to him as one of the elites?

His connection to the Rothschilds is through Robert Mercer, who didn't support Trump in the primaries, and only became a major donor in the general. The connection is there, but it's not like they loved him.

And my point was that not all of the elites are equally evil. Not even close. If you assume they don't have disagreements, or can't be turned to good purposes by public opinion (i.e. FDR), then you'll act as if you can't do anything when you absolutely can.

Then why is the economy doing well even though they tried to crash it?

So you're beveling Russian Asset Micheal Flynn's claim that Obama created ISIS on a site controlled by Qatar, despite that the Islamic State of Lament has been around since 1999, under the name Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād.

Since you like videos here is on for you: A quick look on how ISIS came to be.

Did Flynn ever say that? Can I get a link please?

/u/EagleofAmerica is making the claim that:

Obama... and,he knowingly created ISIS.

Linking to a video of Micheal Flynn and Mehdi Hasan as support for that claim. Which is a verifiable false claim. Actually reading over the transcript, it looks like Flynn never actually made that specific claim. So I take that part back. Trump made that claim. and then repeated it: http://www.hughhewitt.com/donald-trump-makes-return-visit/#more-31501

[HH: I’ve got two more questions. Last night, you said the President was the founder of ISIS. I know what you meant. You meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace.

DT: No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.

HH: But he’s not sympathetic to them. He hates them. He’s trying to kill them.

DT: I don’t care. He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, okay?

So why did EoA link to a video of an interview of Flynn, as proof of a claim that he never made? I don't know. Probably because it was long enough that no one would actually watch it.

Who is to blame for the rise of ISIL? Michael T Flynn, the former head of the US Defense Intelligence Agency, on how to deal with ISIL and Iran.

On the second al Jazeera link that you sent. Did you even read your own sources?

Did you even read the user names?

nope i'm stupid lol

More like this:

Yeah cause someone groomed from birth by the CIA to be a politician and public speaker is a lot different than some random jackass billionaire.. ;)

But I get what youre saying, they both seemed very promising and a double cross seems probable. I guess only time will tell, but Trump kinda admits to being a jackass and Obama was promising to be the ultimate people's man yet didnt even touch the DEA and gave the NSA more legal authority including sharing information with the DEA, among other vast atrocities.

wake up. trump is CIA too.

Quick rundown?

wake up everybody!

triggered?

No?

yes

Don't mess with my fragile emotions like that.

it's for your own goodthat your dreamworld is shattered

Oh shit, now I can finally see the beauty in this 9-5 reality.

I've been reborn, thanks.

You can pull data of who upvoted? Smells fishy

Lol so you make it up. Nice.

Does r politics count as an anti-Trump subreddit?

What subs do you consider pro/anti and why haven't you listed them?

I just ask these questions because this "study" was done by you, a user with a very clear bias and reddit history of pushing that viewpoint.

Your unscientific joke of a study has a ton of variables, you personally get to make up data (oops, I mean "interpret" non-existent data), it's unclear what definitions you're using for anything, and it just so happens to give the results you want to push!

Garbage.

Nice of you to focus on that at the exclusion of the rest of the post, fixed it for ya!

Anyway, why on earth should anyone give a shit about this study? It's you making up standards left and right, literally making up data, and you have a clear agenda that you push on reddit constantly.

Well since you didn't actually offer proof of that (your summary of your pretend study notwithstanding), I'm not exactly convinced it's a fact.

This is the long-winded version of "r/conspiracy is T_D 2.0". Here's your sign.

Do you think he's hourly or paid by post?

The curiosity kills me

Removed, violation of rule 10, repeated violations will result in a ban from /r/conspiracy.

Ok, I apologize. Should have realized it was against the rules to call out potential shills.. I didn't mean to concern troll. I won't do it again. (Even though I don't agree w the rule)

Anti-Trump user here who has definitely gotten annoyed by the pro-trump leanings of this sub. Im weirdly amused that you went to such lengths to prove it, haha, but hey, now we know...

Since theres a lot of crossover with Trump, supposed 'consoiracy theorists,' and infowars' ardent support of Trump, it doesnt surprise me that they all converge with people like me to form the choatic mess that is this sub... so yeah, you did good work, internet guy.

Isn't it ironic - that /r/The_Donald practically runs this subreddit, and yet this post is 77% upvoted and reached the front page in a couple of hours.

Isn't it ironic that how even despite the fact that "there is a significant bias towards the_donald," all the top comments in this thread are basically some variation on "OMG I hate all the astroturfing from The_Donald that goes on here xD" while people who question the methodology or interpretation - even from a neutral standpoint - have significant negative downvote balances?

The proof is in the fucking pudding as far as I'm concerned. It's quite obvious who is manipulating /r/conspiracy, and it ain't /r/the_donald.

How would you explain it?

Let's completely ignore the comments and votes in this thread and cry that T_D is astroturfing.

Ding ding ding!

This is a fake "study" done by a person with a clear agenda who is literally mixing and matching "data" with their own made up bullshit and standards.

Many people on this sub have differing political opinions. That's a good thing and necessary for any real discussion.

But there's a huge contingent of people whose entire purpose is to shut down and de-legitimize opposing political opinions.

The people who get furious when the story the DEMAND be the focus isn't, and follow up with 'omg I thought this was a conspiracy sub but you're not upvoting my story so I guess you're all donald shill or russian bots!!!!'

That kind of shit is just so obvious. And it's ubiquitous on this sub.

You make a great point about the fact that ....interested accounts wouldn't be posting in the anti-Trump subs because those subs are already marching in lockstep.

They come here to shit all over discussion because apparently the idea of people discussing things they don't approve of is a serious problem for them.

When people try to frame the discussion of a topic so that any deviation from their political opinion must be due to an illegitimate user, just keep an eye on it.

ignoring the questionable accounts 3-4 months old who only post on

Your account is 1 month old, bro lol. What I've personally noticed is that the people accuse everyone of being Shareblue/CTR shills are generally never older than 6 months, and more often fall into the days to 3 months range. To me, they seem more like shills (paid or not) than the people they accuse.

Fair play. Not going to argue with you there, my account isn't old enough for street cred with a lot of you people.

How about literally everything else I said?

No, I didn't throw out the rest of your comment; just pointed out that you look like the very people you're calling out.

There's definitely flaws in the methodology. It's too short a period of time, and I agree that it may be too simple to lump people into one of 2 categories without a true criteria.

Where I will disagree, though, is that T_D-type posts litter the front page at a 10:1 ration easily, and the upvotes on those posts don't exactly appear "organic" to me. But do I have solid method to say they aren't? No. Won't even claim that. I'm just saying that this sub definitely looks "overrun" at times by duplicate shitposts. And it seems that the users that are annoyed by it (e.g., me), tend to upvote comments run counter to the post's narrative as a means of balancing the bs.

Not only is the time period too short, the period itself is suspect! Why choose the time frame when all the Seth Rich stuff broke? I mean...you would think people from the Donald would NATURALLY post here more when something like that breaks, no?

What I've personally noticed is that the people accuse everyone of being Shareblue/CTR shills are generally never older than 6 months

That is just downright bull shit. If you've personally noticed that, it's because that's what you want to notice.

Well the guy I replied to accused people of being shills from anti-Trump subs bc they have new accounts, got called out bc he was clearly projecting like a mf'er, then deleted his account lol.

But tell me again how it's bullshit, and I'm only seeing what I want to...

Well the guy I replied to accused people of being shills from anti-Trump subs bc they have new accounts

That's not even close to what he was saying. Once again, you clearly only see what you want to see. No point in trying to have a discussion with people like that.

"The proof is in the fucking pudding as far as I'm concerned. It's quite obvious who is manipulating /r/conspiracy, and it's not the_donald. I also find fatal flaws in the OP's methodology - for example, totally ignoring the questionable accounts 3-4 months old who only post on /r/conspiracy. Paid shills aren't going to be posting in /r/Marchagainsttrump or whatever, that would be fucking retarded - they want to blend in. The ENTIRE POINT of a massive shilling operation is to blend in with the userbase."

You read, brah?

No need to have a discussion. I'm all set.

The proof is in the fucking pudding as far as I'm concerned. It's quite obvious who is manipulating /r/conspiracy, and it's not the_donald. I also find fatal flaws in the OP's methodology - for example, totally ignoring the questionable accounts 3-4 months old who only post on /r/conspiracy. Paid shills aren't going to be posting in /r/Marchagainsttrump or whatever, that would be fucking retarded - they want to blend in. The ENTIRE POINT of a massive shilling operation is to blend in with the userbase.

You read, brah?

Settle down. I wasn't trying to have a discussion with you... just replied to you talking to me. Save the tantrum for someone who doesn't see through it.

LMFAO. This, comming from a sterilized account.

projection. it's their favorite thing, I would call it a flaw.

Isn't it ironic that a comment like this has so many downvotes?? You'd think it'd be the top comment considering OP's beautifully executed analysis on how infested this sub is with T_D users.

/S

This has been pretty obvious to anyone who is not super biased.

Seth Rich trending every time DT does something unpopular cinched it for me.

That was just the one of a handful. Seth Rich, Pizzagate, Where Is Assange, Awan bros, Wikileaks releases(sadly true), FBI Anon, its all the same garbage being made and pushed by the same group.

I think you are way off base here.

I dont lol. They all have the same exact hallmarks. Everyone that isn't blinded by partisanship and cult-like worship of the Executive sees it.

I can't stand Trump but I'm called a Trump supporter every day because the accusations against him aren't as strong as headlines want you to think. Today for example - Trump takes 17 days for golf and it turns out that their working on the HVAC system. But Clickbait will circlejerk (not saying you).

You're called a Trump supporter by people like the commenter you're replying to because to them, if you don't agree with their extremes and hate everyone all the time (but especially Trump), then you're a Trump fan,

Likewise, if you support the Russia probe, or post anything negative of trump, you're instantly shareblue. It goes both ways.

Pedogate is more than just what came out during the election. It has been an ingoing conspiracy for quite some time.

We should be able talk about it here, of all places.

Sure, but pizzagate is pure bs.

Maybe certain aspects of it, sure.

But I'm not talking about pizzagate, a phrase that has been turned into an easy way to discredit people.

I'm talking about institutionalized human trafficking and pedophilia within our government and other power structures. To a lot of people, that means pizzagate. To me, that means a fucking evil that has tons of evidence for it.

Pure BS you say?

Whatever. I saw that fucks instagram account before it went private. No sane person would defend that sicko or his buddy Skippy if they actually took the time to look into it.

But I'm sure you and your buddies know that already.

Cheers, You aren't getting anymore out of me.

Pizzagate in so much as it originated from the podesta emails.

I don't agree that for many or even some pizzagate=general human trafficking. Of course human trafficking exists.

Pizzagate the meme originated from those emails.

I'm not talking about the meme, but it seems to be the only thing shills and skeptics and focus on.

every time DT does something unpopular

How can you tell SR gets brought up when that happens? This is an extremely weak metric.

Were you not here yesterday? This was just the latest example bud, when it was revealed that Trump may have to write the date set with story narrative, the top post here we're still about the DNC Killing Rich, despite the hard evidence of his own investigator being manipulated by the Trump administration.

Another words, a full on verified conspiracy by the Trump administration, yet most of the posts were about Seth Rich. Even tho it was the very same SR investigator that may have been manipulated by the WH!

Just like the data in this thread is showing, there may be a clear bias in this sub that may mean manipulating its content.

Yes. Trump did something today too. Where is SR? Trump did something ridiculous last week too, where was SR? Trump gets something exactly like this every day. Publishing something or discussing something that isn't Trump doesn't make it a distraction. Did you know that the Washington Post has a sports section? What are they hiding? What are they distracting from? Don't they know there are bigger fish to fry than the Washington Wizards? Do you see how silly that is? If this was such a t_d supported sub, why do these posts always (always) blow up? If your assertion was true wouldn't this actually be evidence of brigading and vote manipulation?

Shhh... facts and critical thinking are not welcome in threads like this, only anti-Trump.

Do you really not think this sub is extremely right leaning? It's extremely obvious, besides conspiracy theorists tend to lean conservative/libertarian anyway. It's hardly surprising.

I'm a hard leftist. I see people talking about things that should be addressed. It helps to develop a background in philosophy. You see right through the arguments like Neo.

what does that have to do with anything regarding the demographics of the sub? i'm not talking about whether or not this sub has valid discussions, just that's it's heavily skewed towards the right. i never said bias implies that you're inherently incorrect. simply that the bias is there, it seems that thats upset a lot of people in this thread that maybe /r/conspiracy isn't as bipartisan as they'd wish to think it is.

Or maybe the truth doesn't have an ideology of its own and some topics are off the table in more... respected... locales.

Who brought up SR the other day??? Oh that's right, it was NPR and not T_D. Thabks for playing, better luck next time.

What did trump do just now that was so unpopular? The tranny thing? If that is what youre referring to then I think thats dumb because that was pretty trivial and probably meant to detract from something else.

The White House pushed the Seth rich story. It was Big news yesterday.

Generally I would think that we would frown on state controlled media.

Umm sweetie.. How can any real conspiracy theorist not get off on the fact Trump endorses infowars, and shits all over CNN? Annnnnnd how could any real conspiracy theorist not cream their pants when the president starts accusing the neo-liberal stab (new slang for establishment) for the murder of a leaker? None of us can know with 100 percent certainty what is actually going on but it's the most entertaining political situation in history arguably.

It was news because of NPR genio.

It was revealed that the Don told Jr to lie about the meeting with the Russians, and make up a story about adoptions, against the judgement of WH advisors.

Kinda like Clinton using unsecured devices for government communication against the judegement of her security advisors. Only one of those is illegal, can you guess which one?

Seth Rich was spammed during the G20 debacle, Seth Rich was spammed yesterday after the Trump-Fox story, Seth Rich was spammed after DJT Jr's Meetings broke, etc.

Might have a point but just cause Trump is spamming it that doesnt mean its necessarily untrue or implausible.

The Trump-Fox story that NPR pushed? Gotcha.

Well, NPR is the one who brought this one up.

And then the audio was "leaked" in response, and now that's their narrative.

Audio was leaked weeks before.

I thought so too, but it looks like it was uploaded unlisted and Wikileaks sat on the link until they tweeted it. There's no mention of the audio anywhere until their tweet.

But the fact remains that the audio was presented 3 weeks before the NPR story ran. This means someone had foreknowledge of the story, and set up a contingency plan. It was therefore most likely one of the people involved in the suit, and very much more likely that it was wheeler himself who leaked the audio. This isn't trending because:

Seth Rich trending every time DT does something unpopular cinched it for me.

It was presented in the sense that Wikileaks had the audio 3 weeks before the story broke (assuming they weren't simply given the already uploaded links), but it was still leaked at a strategic time after the story broke, which was exactly what I was saying.

I think that's a pretty big logical leap that someone involved in the case leaked the audio. I don't even understand how you're getting to that assumption. And have you listened to all the leaked audio? There's a 20 something minute upload where Wheeler contradicts aspects of his complaint. Why would he leak that? I'd imagine Wikileaks were the ones who sat on the audio and knew the complaint would be filed, and that the story would break-- leaking it when it would get maximum play.

Regardless, it was definitely released as a response to the NPR story, and took over the narrative of the NPR story (which was in itself concerning) on this sub and others.

This all seems to be a "something burger," both Wheeler's complaint and the leaked audio. I'd love for it to be parsed out in the courts or in more articles about this mess.

but it was still leaked at a strategic time after the story broke

Not leaked. Published. There is a very big difference. It was leaked at least 3 weeks ago, probably as soon as someone found out wheeler was filing a law suit.

I'd imagine Wikileaks were the ones who sat on the audio and knew the complaint would be filed, and that the story would break-- leaking it when it would get maximum play.

Wikileaks absolutely does this, but how would they know what wheeler was planning? How would they know 3 weeks ahead of time that they needed recordings from these specific people? They're not spys. They don't tap phones, hack computers, and sneak into people's houses. They only know what they are given.

I think that's a pretty big logical leap that someone involved in the case leaked the audio.

It's not at all a big leap. The audio was very specifically from people named in the suit or involved in the investigation. It was leaked before NPR announced the lawsuit, and in fact before the suit was even filed. Thus, the leaker must have known about the unfiled suit before hand.

Wheeler contradicts aspects of his complaint. Why would he leak that?

If he new the information in the suit would cause the Seth Rich case to be discredited in it's entirety because of 3rd party (Fox+Trump) actions 9 months after the fact. If his intention of filing the suit was to point out that Fox/trump had Coopted the story for political gain. The leaked audio isn't the only footage that contradicts his statements in the suit. There are tweets and interviews where he contradicts himself as well.

There definitely is something to this burger. I expect there to be more traction in the future.

I'm afraid your analysis is incomplete because you didn't take the pre-eminent anti-Trump subreddit into account, by which I mean /r/politics.

Furthermore, I suspect many /r/politics users who vote in /r/conspiracy threads never comment here - but their presence is shown by the fact that the most upvoted comment is often at odds with the tenor of the post.

Your analysis is very flawed because you only have a couple of anti-trump subs when there are dozens and dozens more, not to mention that most large subs like r/politics and many others could be considered anti-trump.

The biggest reason why there are so many the_donald users here are because r/conspiracy and r/the_donald are both very much anti Deep State.

The only time I see a huge amount of actual brigading in this sub come from anti Donald Trump subs like politics.

Case in point: the recent NPR story about Rod Wheelers lawsuit.

The subscribers for each just added together or did you take out duplicates?

There is no way to know if they are duplicate subscribers.

So your 'total subscribers' sum is completely useless. What a surprise.

politics is huge but they are still dwarfed by the_donald users so it actually supports my statement.

Just checked

Politics: 3,444,085 readers 42,905 users here now

The Donald: 468,662 readers 13,517 users here now

The T_D users are resident. the politics users were only here for a couple days because of the seth rich NPR story. Using a 1 week time frame does not work. Look at the day the seth rich story on NPR published vs the day before the seth rich story published.

Not when you spread the timeline like that. Compare just august 1st to just July 30th. If what you say is true, the numbers will tell.

Not defending T_D. They are a problem too.

Great excuse as to why you left out the most astroturffed sub on this site. You went through all of the trouble to compile this data but couldn't be bothered to fit in possibly the biggest factor in this analysis. Job well done.

He did account for politics and explained that many T_D posters also post on politics, so using it as a metric does not really make sense. Did you even read the OP??

I did, and my point still stands. An assessment like this has no value if you can't factor in the noxious impact of /r/politics.

Many T_D users are subscribed/post/vote in r/politics. It would just add additional noise to the data for both sides. Do you even data science, bro?

An assessment like this has no value if you can't factor in the noxious impact of /r/politics.

If you can offer up an assessment of your own that provides evidence of this, then maybe you have a point.

Until then, you're only offering your own personal opinion which you seem to confuse for a point.

Sorry the president is incredibly unpopular. Maybe if he did something positive there would be positive articles. He said we would withdraw from Syria, and almost everyone loved that, but predictably, the thread was full of Trump supporters saying "oh, you liberals are so upset." It was ridiculous. They were giving Trump credit and they still were bitching for no reason.

Furthermore, I suspect many /r/politics users who vote in /r/conspiracy threads never comment here - but their presence is shown by the fact that the most upvoted comment is often at odds with the tenor of the post.

So then it does sound like they comment here. Otherwise where would the comment that's being upvoted come from? What this is telling me is that /r/politics users actually participate on this sub. /r/the_donald users bot the threads to the front page.

He updated it to include politics. Your point still fails.

is being downvoted confirms the impact of /r/politics users inside this sub!

2 things happening simultaneously does not prove correlation. This is a common fallacy.

People can have different opinions than you.

Could you add in /r/politics to your analysis and report back to us?

The point is to create a rallying point for exactly what this thread has become, not to actually prove anything.

This is just another troll coming over here to push bullshit. They told me the Seth Rich conspiracy was foolish lol.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6rbsqu/z/dl4b4pu?context=1

This is fucking stupid. Why not judge people on the veracity of their comments instead of their political leanings? Gtfo

Where is the "judgement" in the OP's analysis?

Comments are a terrible way to analyze this issue. How many more fuck jeff sessions & his war on drugs posts will we get & where were posts like this when Obama was in office? Reddit is based in SF & run by liberals. The influence is prominent on this sub. The entire place minus T_D is controlled by democrats. T_D isnt allowed on /r/all but a fuck jeff sessions post from this sub can. Lol! Pro-Trump posts from this sub wont make it to /r/all but an anti-Trump post can. This website has a liberal tumor.

T_D got in trouble because they were intentionally manipulating posts to hit /r/all, not because of the content itself.

That is bullshit. They had real users upvoting real posts. There was no manipulation & no proof was ever shown to support that claim. T_D was operating within the rules which is why admins kept rewriting the algorithm & changing the rules. You can say /r/the_donald in politics but you cant say /r/politics in T_D. They created rules only that sub has to follow. You have no clue what you are talking about.

It was awesome when they added the ability to filter out subs. I filtered T_D and the anti-Trump subs as well.

How is the "upvote" measured? I thought upvotes and downvotes were anon?

Is "score" easily defined somewhere?

but I assume

Because that's the kind of language you want to hear from someone claiming to conduct a statistical analysis...

Any legitimate (social) scienctific study will include all assumptions.

All human endeavours include assumptions.

You can't derive everything from first principles constantly.

Maybe you could analyze the comment trends in this thread for some actual insight.

Now there's a fantastic idea. Would really love to see those numbers.

Why? You'd get the same garbage figures as in the OP. The brigading is ridiculous in threads like this.

Yea but from the complete opposite "team" that OP is trying to claim does all the brigading.

Just because you post to the_donald does not mean you are a supporter no matter what.

Why didn't you also include /r/politics in the anti-Trump group?

I made a complete analysis using politics only. they are in the EDIT portion.

I think they are way too large and not ban happy enough to be a clean definition of an anti-trump user given that many the_donald posters also post in politics.

Politics is ONLY anti-Trump stuff and has been since before the election.

Maybe the_donald users aren't all pro trump. BUT when the question is: is conspiracy a T_D 2.0, then it wouldn't matter if they are all supporters or not, the question is just if they have an overlap.

This is flawed logic. You admit that all people who have posted to t_d aren't necessarily supporters yet simply by posting there you are claiming they make this place "T_D2.0".

That isn't logically consistent.

And I can tell you having the data in front of me that there is a huge amount of users that post in both the_donald and poltiics.

I pick randomly 5000 users and out of those 1760 have posted both in politics and the_donald.

Now lets look at the average upvotes in politics for these users: 336.76

vs the avg upvote of those that didn't post in the_donald: 587.50

So it's not unheard of and it's not easy to determine who is a supporter of whom just because they posted in /r/politics

Yeah, that's kinda my point about people who post in T_D. Just by having posted there you can't say if they are a supporter, opponent, or somewhere in between. Simply having posted some place does not mean any of the above.

And concerning your second part: Didn't some philosopher once say that if you act like a fool all the time you are indistinguishable from a real fool?

I mean it's undeniable that the_donald is heavily invest in the seth rich thing and every time the_donald is on a seth rich posting brigade it also gets brought up here. That's not a coincidence.

Lol, here we go. Someone on /r/conspiracy making fun of conspiracies. Seth Rich was a story here completely independent of T_D. Hell, I was a Sanders voter, and we want his murder solved as well.

The Seth Rich conspiracy is not foolish, but you've tipped your hand. Good day.

Of course it's not a coincidence, Seth Rich is a big conspiracy. Why wouldn't updates about the case be posted in both subs?

If that's all you are getting to then maybe some of these topics will interest you:

http://time.com/4026473/ridiculous-science-studies/

Posts made by T_D users get higher average upvote. Maybe they have more to say, ever think of that? No, no you didn't.

If someone who posts in multiple subs gets upvotes it must be a nefarious plot!!!

Just because you post to the_donald does not mean you are a supporter no matter what.

How does it not? People routinely defend the censorship in T_D by saying it is a sub for supporters only and anything that isn't support should be and will be banned. Rule VI in the sub is literally "Trump Supporters Only."

Simple. I have more than one account that has been banned there for going against the narrative.

In this analysis I would be considered a "supporter" even though it's untrue.

True, that might skew the numbers slightly. But I still think it's safe to say that the majority of users in a sub that bans non-supporters are Trump supporters.

That's fair, just as long as it's clear that that isn't what you claimed at first.

T_D is the ultimate safe space, though. You are literally not allowed to say anything negative about him. If you post there, you are most definitely a supporter.

And you think /r/politics is anti-Trump just because of all the negative Trump articles, when the reality is, he's barely done anything positive.

T_D is the ultimate safe space, though. You are literally not allowed to say anything negative about him. If you post there, you are most definitely a supporter.

Wrong. I have multiple banned accounts from there. Just because someone has posted there does not tell you the context or content of their post. You could go there and just post "I disagree". You won't be banned for that but you'd be included in this analysis as a "supporter".

This analysis is simply too shallow to tell us much of anything.

And you think /r/politics is anti-Trump just because of all the negative Trump articles, when the reality is, he's barely done anything positive.

Lol, ok. Killed TPP, pulled out of the Paris accord, economy is up, unemployment is down, etc.

This is where your bias is showing. I can admit he's done done dumb things. But anyone who says it is all positive or all negative only shows that they aren't critical thinkers.

TPP, fine. Paris accord? Yeah, the U.S. and Russia are anti-climate change and you think that's a good thing? And he's done nothing for the economy. He's simply riding Obama's coattails.

You can go in the politics sub and say whatever you want as long as you remain civil. I can't go in T_D and say anything remotely negative.

TPP, fine. Paris accord? Yeah, the U.S. and Russia are anti-climate change and you think that's a good thing? And he's done nothing for the economy. He's simply riding Obama's coattails.

Lmfao.... Riiiight, the economy was sputtering in the shitter and now it's all because Obama. LOL.

You can go in the politics sub and say whatever you want as long as you remain civil. I can't go in T_D and say anything remotely negative.

I've been banned from both places. I don't see much difference in banning people and letting the hive mind bots control the narrative like politics does. Both are toxic.

The US has already hit the values we would be held to under the Paris Accord. We just simply won't be giving money to other countries to "incentivize" them to get their own shit together.

It has nothing to do with "not caring about the environment" and everything to do with not paying other people money we shouldn't be paying them.

What has Trump done for the economy? Where are all the new jobs he promised?

It has everything to do with not caring about the environment. Look at how he's trying to gut the EPA.

I don't know if you've noticed but unemployment is at loss we haven't seen in a very long time and the stock market is at record highs.

How did Trump cause that though?

I don't know if you've noticed but unemployment is at lows we haven't seen in a very long time and the stock market is at record highs.

Right, because it's been dropping from 10% since October 2009. When Obama took office, U3 was 7.8% and rose to 10% within the next few months. Since then, it has fallen to 4.8% when he left office, trending downward.

And at least looking at DJI, it went from ~8500 when Obama took office to 19500 when he left.

Thanks, Obama.

If you think the largest national economy in the world can stop on a dime and change direction because of an election then you need to really reevaluate your understanding of economics.

If you ignore the fact that most of what you describe are continuations of trends that started well before said election, then, well... you need to reevaluate your understanding of reality.

You should study up on how that national unemployment figure is created. The number literally means nothing and is really, at best, a percentage of people who are eligible to collect unemployment benefits that are doing so. It does not count the underemployed, people who have exhausted their unemployment benefits, people who are not eligible to collect unemployment benefits or people who have given up trying to find employment.

If the economy is shitty for an extended period of time that number will actually go down.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average (i.e. "the Stock Market") number does not reflect the real economy, all it really does is indicate how good the economy is for the people who can afford to play in the stock market. It reflects corporate profits, not the health of the job market and economy for the working classes.

You have a lot to learn.

/u/leftouscrusader

Heh. It's interesting but not persuasive to me. Specifically, the author's ability to map the meaning of a reddit upvote/downvote to a user's politics is dubious. It's not even possible to demonstrate that the u/d votes reflect a human action.

Exactly what I was thinking. It also pre-supposes that your politics is the sole determining factor in voting habits and has nothing to do with truth. Lastly, shouldn't there be some transparency in the data? (I don't work with this kind of thing, forgive my ignorance of the terminology, but it seems like some that is missing and I can't think of the right word)

He got the data from the reddit api, described the query that he used and the filtering that he did, and showed the code. That should be enough to reproduce his results. My objection to the epistemological flaws in the analysis are fatal to my interest in it :p I did upvote it though, since I thought the sub would find it interesting.

Agreed. Thanks for clarifying.

The funniest part is the voting pattern in this thread completely illustrates that the opposite of OPs "study" is the true story.

The funniest part is the voting pattern in this thread completely illustrates that the opposite of OPs "study" is the true story.

It also shows that the r/politics zombies who brigade this sub are too dense to see that by piling in to upvote the OP, they are paradoxically showing how little impact r/The_Donald users have here compared to...r/politics.

That's kinda what I was getting at. If OP was actually good at spreading his crappy agenda, he'd have thought it through and sent out the memo to to not load the thread the way they typically do. If there is so much "pro-trump bias" here, where are the damn votes to show this phenomenon?

Trump seems to be quite the cuck imo.

But given the difference in link upvote rate between the_donald users and everyone else means that there is a significant bias towards the_donald users posted links.

This doesnt take anything like Truth into account. Verifiably truthful content can skew this entire thing. And we know that /politics likes to ignore and downvote inconvenient truths too.

Truly depends. You don't have to be a t_d user to know the reliability of Wikileaks. You might be incredibly ignorant about it if you are a /politics user (which I am, though on a ban for pointing out that WaPo advocated propaganda).

No, they think that anything that makes Trump look bad must be a conspiracy against him.

And you people believe every single bad thing said about him is true, what's the difference?

Actually, no, I don't, and I don't think "us people" do either.

Great Analysis. Thanks for the prove!

This user posts in /r/EnoughTrumpSpam and /r/politics

So?

Just making their agenda clear. Thanks for following me around.

Oh please you think you're so important I would follow you? Funny because you're the one going through people's post histories.

This user posts in /r/the_donald and /r/politics. Pot meet kettle.

ITT: People who can barely grasp the concepts of data and information science and instead bash OP because they think their safe space isn't a safe space.

Or the data is faulty and deserving of criticism.

Point to areas of the data besides "muh r/politics" that are faulty.

I didn't say there was. Simply that there are answers to your question.

Honestly, that's a pretty large fault. Excluding it makes this post meaningless.

Ever heard of noise in data?

So? It leaves off a huge chunk, if not the majority, of the anti-Trump posts. My guess is OP ran the numbers and saw it was too high. IF that wasn't the case, why not post both?

LMFAO. "Point to a fault, except possibly the biggest one, you can't point that out."

What is data noise for 200 Alex?

What is the largest left leaning astroturfing sub on this site for 2000 Alex.

Define noise in data champ.

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for an answer.

How bout you just hold your breath, I'll tell you when to stop.

Removed. Rule 4. Final warning.

Final warning? That was my first warning. And from a post three days ago. Are you serious?

Let's see...

Corrupted electrical signals? No.

Data that has been corrupted or erroneously entered? I'd say yes, but you'd argue no.

Unstructured data that cannot be interpreted by machines? Yeah, that's probably the one you're looking for.

Huh, funny how he was able to structure data for every sub other than politics...

Now tell me how I'm wrong and I just don't get it and it's not worth your time, but really it's because you have no argument, champ.

He included an edit for politics. Reading is hard, I know.

Let's break this down, because damn you're struggling. Noise in data refers specifically to data that resides outside the median or mean of which you are studying. The reason r/politics wasn't included from the get-go is that multiple users, those who reside in both anti- and pro-trump forums, exist. It is hard to distinguish responses from these types of forums because the overlap is so great.

IF you begin to do manual curraton of this data, it is hard to not have a user bias in this and begin to restrict or remove certain data points. OP eliminated this bias by not including it in his official post but then included it because users like you screamed 'muh r/politics.'

Your argument is bad and you should feel bad, because unlike you, I do this shit for living.

LMFAO! You should feel bad because you do that for a living.

So what your saying is his methodology is flawed. He should have found a way to discern which users post in both and removed them so as to remove the noise in his data. Not hard if your programming, look for doubled usernames and remove, no "manual curration" needed. Okay sure, he added /politics in, still doesn't mean his methodology isn't flawed. His short date range just so happens to coincide with an event that would draw many users from one particular sub. He counted vote totals and not where the voting was going or even who did the voting (yeah I know, he doesn't have access to that data, kinda important information to have).

It is hard to distinguish responses from these types of forums because the overlap is so great.

Seriously? Even if every single person who posted in T_D also posted to /politics, you could probably still remove T_D users (It's 460k vs like 16mil). Which isn't the case at all, I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority who post in T_D do not post in /politics. The "overlap" is most likely in the single digits in percentage points.

The only bias is in the OP and how he decided to compile his data. I've seen other comments point out that he doesn't even show if it's one account posting 1000x or 1000 accounts posting 1x. That's some pretty important information if you're trying to convince people that an entire sub is brigading here. It doesn't take a statiatician to pick this "argument" apart.

You should feel bad because, unlike you, I don't even do this shit for a living

So you want to remove power-users essentially, or users who make up a large number of votes and comments? You're immediately going to bias your data because your removing these people. If you know what the 80/20 rule is, then you realize that 80% of posts of posts are made by 20% of people. So yeah, remove those and now you're inherently bias towards a small portion of your data. Cool.

 

Seriously? Even if every single person who posted in T_D also posted to /politics, you could probably still remove T_D users (It's 460k vs like 16mil).

 

Good to see you're insanely biased and swallow T_D talking lines like no other, it's helpful to see the type of person you're 'debating'

 

The only bias is in the OP and how he decided to compile his data. I've seen other comments point out that he doesn't even show if it's one account posting 1000x or 1000 accounts posting 1x. That's some pretty important information if you're trying to convince people that an entire sub is brigading here. It doesn't take a statiatician to pick this "argument" apart.

 

Again, you're attempting to remove users who comment often. You realize that all your comments and votes would be distilled into one, right? I'm sure you have multiple opinions even in the same topic.

 

He linked the source code, literally in the OP. I'm not sure if you're dumb or trying to subvert to a different topic, but either look is not flattering on you. My take on this is that it has been clearly pointed that T_D post often and hard here and you don't like how that looks. Prove me wrong.

lItErAlLy ThE dOnAlD 2.0 aMiRiTe GuIsE

Would love to see this horse shit of a post be put into contest mode, too.

All of the top comments are people sucking OP's dick for conducting an unscientific survey of cherry picked statistics... but this place is overrun with T_D trolls?

Get the fuck out of here. You're literally making it even more blatantly obvious who's responsible for this place going to shit.

Bring on the downvotes.

You're literally making it even more blatantly obvious who's responsible for this place going to shit.

You're right. OP's analysis clearly shows a heavy T_D presence.

Which is why my vote is in the negatives, and you're at +8... SO many T_D users here right now. It's just infested! /s

This comment section 100% contradicts OP's entire analysis.

You probably got downvoted because you're unnecessarily hostile, swearing, and call the entire post "horse shit" even though it's just a simple analysis and data with a discussion following it. Try being civil for once and maybe you won't get downvoted.

Some people react aggressively to data that undermines their beliefs. That's the only explanation I can come up with.

Hey all, quick headsup, OP is here to push the "Seth Rich conspiracy is foolish" narrative.

Because we keep getting flooded by agenda pushing assholes and I'm sick of it.

He never admitted he was here to troll. Easy guy.

I said he is here to push the narrative that a conspiracy is foolish. He then says "yeah, I sure am".

This is a conapiracy forum.

So he's trolling by questioning a narrative here? How hive-minded of you. and *conspiracy.

He didn't question anything. He didn't mention any facts our anything other than to call it foolish. That's not questioning, that's trying to associate the theory to fools.

Feel free to discuss whatever you like, imo (which isn't worth much), but to denigrate a theory without doing so is simply trolling.

It is a conspiracy forum, and why do you get to decide what conspiracies are acceptable to you?

I didn't say that I get to.

If you come here to make fun of conspiracies you are trolling, not using the sub.

Feel free to talk facts. "I think this theory is bunk because XYZ" but to simply try and associate it with fools is neither helpful nor productive.

Yeah, because you insinuated that the theory comes from T_D, which it does not.

We were swarmed with people just like you earlier in the week, coming over from politics and enoughtrumpspam to tell us it was ridiculous (it's not).

Oh, please, you guys aren't even trying to hide it with all the X-posts directly from T_D without even bothering to change the titles.

I've never crossposted from T_D to here.

Neither have I. But facts mean nothing to these rubes.

Rule 4

Op posts in /r/politics, /r/worldnews /r/againsthatesubreddits, and trolls over at /r/conservative

And you post at /r/the_donald. Why are we pointing this out again?

I sure do.

Just keeping things transparent.

No, you're not, seeing as you had to be called out for posting there.

Not really, I've already admitted a couple of times in this very thread to posting there.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

I'd love to see an analysis of the mods here too, do you think that's possible?

I am proud to say I do not belong to ANY of the subreddits OP used!

Fuck politics and the people that like politics! HA HA HA

Expect he didn't include r/politics. Only Anti-Trump and The_Donald to label this sub T_D2.0.

Which is why you're all over this thread bitching about politics...

I say I hate politics.

You say Im all over this tread bitching about politics.

You seem to confirm what I said.

I hate politics. Im bitching about politics......It appears Im being consistent and you point that out, but I feel like you think youre making a point that I dont hate politics and your proof is that Im all over this tread bitching about politics.

I mean.....thanks?

You hate politics so much you've spent the last hour talking politics...

lol...prove it or shut the fuck up. Youll be shutting the fuck up because that statement is factually wrong.

Great post OP, thanks for your time and effort!

There has always been more of an overlap here with the Donald as mutual users.

The reason of brigade perception here being more focused on anti-trump subs such as /politics is because those user tend to not be Conspiracy theorists in any way shape or form outside of Trump is Russia!

You rarely see those users post anything other than anti-trump content where I have seen a totally different behavior from TD users.

Statistics be what they are, the Donald users are more similar to Conspiracy users in almost every metric. They also tend to deal with other Conspiracy posts not having anything to do with Trump, such as anti-vax posts, without calling everyone retarded or otherwise breaking our rules.

Statistics alone are not sufficient to explain this phenomena.

Your examination will also be lacking access to posts we have removed for breaking our rules and users we have banned for breaking our rules.

Have a great day!

Since when has a sitting president been a conspiracy theorist?

Good point. So do all conspiracy theorists blatantly lie or just the president?

Statistics be what they are, the Donald users are more similar to Conspiracy users in almost every metric. They also tend to deal with other Conspiracy posts not having anything to do with Trump, such as anti-vax posts, without calling everyone retarded or otherwise breaking our rules.

You're joking right? Any questioning of these theories or the Seth Rich narrative gets answered with people being called shills, sucking George Soros' cock, etc. etc.

Take off the rose-tinted glasses.

Because most people believe that Seth Rich is a conspiracy with serious teeth.

Take off your MSM-tinted glasses.

How assumptive of you.

There's a difference between assumptions and astute observations, you'd do well to learn the difference between the two.

Yes, I'm sure two comments allow you to make an astute observation. Feel free to go through my post history.

I'm doing just fine, but thanks for pointing it out.

Two comments along the exact same lines as hundreds of other comments. It's commforting though to know you think you are doing fine.

*comforting, and I do like your high horse approach, it makes you seem like a stand-up guy.

Statistics be what they are, the Donald users are more similar to Conspiracy users in almost every metric.

T_D is a pep rally for the US government that outright bans dissent and people having their own opinion. It is a hivemind that's built on not allowing people to criticize or think Trump or anything Trump says or does.

This sub declares right in the sidebar for all to see that it is a place to question things.

The two are absolutely nothing alike.

Pep-rally for the government? Right, that's why there are daily posts about how shitty both parties are and how the deep state is trying to overthrow a democratically elected president. What a joke your statement is.

Yup. It is a hivemind and pep rally for the government. They even had a rule "NO DISSENTING OPINIONS" for a long time. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

that's why there are daily posts about how shitty both parties are and how the deep state is trying to overthrow a democratically elected president

Just dance riiight over it.

T_D is a pep rally for the US government that outright bans dissent and people having their own opinion. It is a hivemind that's built on not allowing people to criticize Trump or anything Trump says or does.

This sub declares right in the sidebar for all to see that it is a place to question things.

The two are absolutely nothing alike.

You seem to be quite good at that yourself considering you "danced right over" all but about 6 or 7 words of my post.

The reason of brigade perception here being more focused on anti-trump subs such as /politics is because those user tend to not be Conspiracy theorists in any way shape or form outside of Trump is Russia!

This is gatekeeping btw

There has not always been an overlap. The overlap occurred when Wikileaks posted the DNC leak. Before that, this place was relatively apolitical.

I read, "hi there", like winston from overwatch. I have nothing else to contribute

same

Hello there!

Politics DOES ban for opinions. Try making some really logical points against the neo-liberal authoritarian establishment there that receive attention.

I'm not sure "neoliberal" means what you think it means.

I've gotten banned on there for calling someone a Russian trump shill.

Huzzah! Love that closing quote and quite agree! One statistic I want to point out. In one week we had 1127 comments from anti trump sub users. 866 of those were in one day. That's 76%. I imagine the great majority of the remaining 261 comments occured on august 2nd.

/r/politics users, by and large, avoid this sub. Most of the reason for this is because of the massive T_D presence. This is unhealth for the sub because it becomes an echo chamber where only one side is heard, and the other side is censored. Politics is also at fault for this. The vocal left has taken a very aggressive stance in the past 6 months, which is understandable. But that very same aggressive stance has caused T_D users to rally and push back. I think if we get more users who take a thoughtful, non-confrontational approach like this, and T_D stops immediately stonewalling /r/politics users.

To expand on those numbers. the 261 comments are spread out over 6 days. Even if one could assume that those were evenly spread across all 6 days, the average is 43.5 posts per day. That's 20 times more activity than usual.

One thing that should also be considered. Politics can't go to /r/The_Donald. T_D will ban anyone who posts anything counter to the narrative they have established. And I'm not talking about just downvoting it into oblivion. You will never be allowed to post there again. I imagine most people in politics are already banned. Thus, this is the only place they can go and discuss the NPR story without discussing it in an echo chamber.

This is a shitpost and your logic is extremely flawed.

I am anti-Trump on almost every issue, but according to this criteria, it sounds like I would be labeled a the_donald user.

Even though I'm anti-Trump I don't post in the anti-Trump subs because they're almost all Shareblue shit holes. And because of Shareblue, at times the_donald is the only source for certain kinds of news, so I have found myself posting there.

Tldr: Trump sucks but according to this bullshit criteria I might be labeled a the_donald user

You get your news from there but you're anti-Trump? That makes no sense.

No, read what I said again. Sometimes t_d is the only place on Reddit for certain types of news. For example, during the election, as a result of the CTR censorship, t_d was one of the only subs posting about Hillary's FBI investigation and Wikileaks.

Currently, t_d is the only sub where Seth Rich news makes it to the front page. I don't support Trump, but due to Shareblue controlling Reddit, I have found myself posting in t_d.

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

Yes, guilt by association. You're on a roll

I've done some work with data analysis, so I may be able to speak to this. When you're doing analysis against a large data set, you have to devise some sort of criteria for sorting. There has to be a cutoff somewhere. There just not really a practical way to analyze every single person's intent. Take me: I've made a couple of very neutral posts in the_donald, many more posts in anti-Trump subreddits, and have a long history in a variety of subreddits. There's no neat category for me. What matters is that the aggregate numbers across thousands of users give you a general feeling for what's happening.

The problem is you're not getting the answer to the question. And if it's not answering the question then why do it?

The only thing it tells us is how many people have posted in both t_d and r/conspiracy, but there's lots of reasons why non Trump supporters would post in t_d.

What we need is a statistically significant sample and ask users directly if they support Trump

Data of this nature will always be a little messy. Even survey-based methods have problems with bias from self-selection, multiple accounts, wording of questions, or people flat out lying. As long as you acknowledge the shortcomings of your heuristics, you can still get a picture into what is happening.

Note that this also just includes people who post in both, so someone who just reads the articles in t_d would not be included.

You're saying T_D has a heavy presence here but it looks completely opposite of that. All I see is heavily upvoted anti-Trump.

true if it were a anti-hillary post there were 100 comments and 2000 points

I just wish dozens of posts on the exact same topic got merged into one. Sometime I can wander into this subreddit and see it swarming with the exact same thing reposted 20 times.

Maybe I'm dumb, but I don't understand the post

Well done. Good work. Expected/obvious outcome.

Thanks for taking the time to actually do this, I had neither the time nor ability! Saved.

It's likely even more considering a lot of accounts who aren't subbed there don't even try to hide the use of their lingo.

Interesting analysis OP.

Just wanted to add my own: https://www.reddit.com/user/f_k_a_g_n/comments/6o9ddt/rconspiracy_june_2017/

It's just basic stuff like who posts the most, what the top comments are, etc.

Nice of you to focus on that at the exclusion of the rest of the post, fixed it for ya!

Anyway, why on earth should anyone give a shit about this study? It's you making up standards left and right, literally making up data, and you have a clear agenda that you push on reddit constantly.

Fair play. Not going to argue with you there, my account isn't old enough for street cred with a lot of you people.

How about literally everything else I said?

Indeed. That's why I use different accounts for different interests. My NFL account has too much geographic info, my parenting account has too much info about my kids, my gardening account has too much info about both- and the doxxing threat here is very real.

I love anecdotal evidence, it's by far the best kind.

I made a complete analysis using politics only. they are in the EDIT portion.

I think they are way too large and not ban happy enough to be a clean definition of an anti-trump user given that many the_donald posters also post in politics.

Politics is ONLY anti-Trump stuff and has been since before the election.

Maybe the_donald users aren't all pro trump. BUT when the question is: is conspiracy a T_D 2.0, then it wouldn't matter if they are all supporters or not, the question is just if they have an overlap.

This is flawed logic. You admit that all people who have posted to t_d aren't necessarily supporters yet simply by posting there you are claiming they make this place "T_D2.0".

That isn't logically consistent.

What I've personally noticed is that the people accuse everyone of being Shareblue/CTR shills are generally never older than 6 months

That is just downright bull shit. If you've personally noticed that, it's because that's what you want to notice.

Truly depends. You don't have to be a t_d user to know the reliability of Wikileaks. You might be incredibly ignorant about it if you are a /politics user (which I am, though on a ban for pointing out that WaPo advocated propaganda).

And I can tell you having the data in front of me that there is a huge amount of users that post in both the_donald and poltiics.

I pick randomly 5000 users and out of those 1760 have posted both in politics and the_donald.

Now lets look at the average upvotes in politics for these users: 336.76

vs the avg upvote of those that didn't post in the_donald: 587.50

So it's not unheard of and it's not easy to determine who is a supporter of whom just because they posted in /r/politics

Yeah, that's kinda my point about people who post in T_D. Just by having posted there you can't say if they are a supporter, opponent, or somewhere in between. Simply having posted some place does not mean any of the above.

And concerning your second part: Didn't some philosopher once say that if you act like a fool all the time you are indistinguishable from a real fool?

I mean it's undeniable that the_donald is heavily invest in the seth rich thing and every time the_donald is on a seth rich posting brigade it also gets brought up here. That's not a coincidence.

Lol, here we go. Someone on /r/conspiracy making fun of conspiracies. Seth Rich was a story here completely independent of T_D. Hell, I was a Sanders voter, and we want his murder solved as well.

The Seth Rich conspiracy is not foolish, but you've tipped your hand. Good day.

No, they think that anything that makes Trump look bad must be a conspiracy against him.

Because we keep getting flooded by agenda pushing assholes and I'm sick of it.

Oh yeah, they're a fun, fun account to watch.

Of course it's not a coincidence, Seth Rich is a big conspiracy. Why wouldn't updates about the case be posted in both subs?

Yeah, r/politics is run by one of those Democrat-funded groups. The biggest threat, though, is the programs like Earnest Voice, that the US government is running.

Also you got to think of the biggest offenders, radio and local news. Isn't Sinclair buying all the local news and just blasting patently false info into the ears and eyes of people 24/7. You can argue CNN does stupid shit but if you have ever listened to a local conservative radio station its insane what they are telling people.

Thank you for that.

Lol to who, and compared to Obama? He's at least challenging some of the old power structures which is historical since Kennedy. When have you ever read tweets by a President shitting on CNN?

The fact that someone posts somewhere, T_D, politics, enoughtrumpspam, etc tells you nothing about what was posted.

um

You are literally talking to a person(op) who posts in politics and enoughtrumpspam

If it doesn't matter why are you all over the thread announcing selections of people's post histories?

underdog? Since when were real estate moguls underdogs.

He's not a politician, he's the guy who paid the politicians to do what he wanted. All he does now is pay himself to do what he wants.

I'd be more inclined to agree with you, except they had like 12 nominees and for the most they believed Cruz or Bush would clinch the nomination.

Trump and Kasich were often shit on as joke runs by the media and most Republicans (hell even the conservative radio stations like Rush and Savage shit on them relentlessly until he became a serious contender)

LMFAO, back to "T_D users are really just Russians." Seriously, get some new material people.

Posts made by T_D users get higher average upvote. Maybe they have more to say, ever think of that? No, no you didn't.

If someone who posts in multiple subs gets upvotes it must be a nefarious plot!!!

LMFAO. This, comming from a sterilized account.

Except the time frame is only a day vs 5 days for the original

So why are you posting in this thread, it is nothing but white noise. Nothing is coming out of any of this.

Did you even read the user names?

"The underdog" billionaire who lives in the gold-plated penthouse of a skyscraper he owns in the middle of the most expensive city in the world.

Build a new data set then. The topic has me intrigued enough that I probably will over a 3 or 6 month period.

projection. it's their favorite thing, I would call it a flaw.

But the fact remains that the audio was presented 3 weeks before the NPR story ran. This means someone had foreknowledge of the story, and set up a contingency plan. It was therefore most likely one of the people involved in the suit, and very much more likely that it was wheeler himself who leaked the audio. This isn't trending because:

Seth Rich trending every time DT does something unpopular cinched it for me.