View Single Post
Old April 25th, 2017, 10:47 AM
woodman woodman is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Kailua
Posts: 142
Default Re: Not much action here. Why for?

Originally Posted by TuNnL View Post
...I will say no one is immune from having a “feud” which was a contributing factor to the sharp decrease in traffic.

The main factor, like others have alluded to here, is that Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. are where the majority spend their “social media” time now. Heck, if these sites caused the once-mighty "MySpace" site to tumble as far as it has, it’s no wonder chat forums like this have been reduced to “special interest” (i.e. gaming, tech support, etc.) sites without a core base of participants.
When I used to visit regularly, I noticed that a lot of local mainstream media personalities would visit this site. They would post on any number of issues, and from what I could tell, it was pretty clear that they were also reading through topics to get (and more importantly to gauge) local opinion.

Given that admin sanctioned trolls are allowed to roam freely and trash members with whom they disagreed (like a vigilante posse of moderators only without any rules guide them, and apparently without any oversight to reign them in) while complaints to Admin fell on deaf ears, I always suspected that this might actually be a government funded site, the purpose of which would be (through use of media personalities) to gauge and manipulate popular public sentiment and, perhaps to a lesser degree, disseminate propaganda.

I’m not saying it IS.
I’m just saying it's suspicious.

You see, sites like this cost $$ to maintain, and when the site is no longer productive to a private owner whose funds (unlike a State Government) are comparatively limited, then that person would (sooner or later) have to shut down the site.

Now I guess if a person is rich enough, they could probably afford to ignore the loss and piss the money away by continuing to fund the site, but I’ve NEVER met a rich person who wasn’t meticulous about maintaining their finances, a common character trait perhaps indicating (at least one aspect of) how they amassed their wealth in the first place.

But a site that’s been set up by a State Institution would probably be allocated operational funding on a regular basis and could be kept running indefinitely.

The funding for the site, once established, need NOT be monitored since it is already a known factor. It only needs to be maintained. Moreover, many state institutions operate on a “baseline budgeting” format that creates an incentive to NOT STOP programs, even if they are unproductive.

Under baseline budgeting, if an state institution shuts down a program and does not find (re-designate) use of the $$ that funded the program, it will not only forfeit the funding in their current budget, it will also lose that funding in the next budget cycle.

If you think it sounds a bit far-fetched, you might be surprised to discover that it is not uncommon for governments to actually use the media as a tool to manipulate public opinion.

So, if H/T is actually a state-sponsored tool (…and I want to be clear that I’m not saying it is), then it’s not unlikely that propagandists would have moved on to other (more highly trafficked) media platforms like facebook and twitter; each of which is already being manipulated at a higher level.

…So, could it really be that much of a reach to suspect that similar tactics might be in use at the state or local level?

Meanwhile, operational funding would continue, and the site would, of course, continue functioning as it has in the past.

Again, I'm not saying it is.
I’m just throwing it out there.
Reply With Quote