Replies

This is really big IMO. Watch Devin Nunes’ interview with Maria Bartiromo. His comments about mid-way through the interview give a suggestion of just how big this Twitter law suit might be. It’s more than Twitter being exposed here. It’s the whole system of over-priced advertising on Twitter that is a consequence of their inflated numbers. I’ve always been suspicious that Twitter could have gotten away with overcharging on advertising all these years. Corporate Ad buyers are very savvy. The idea that they would just accept Twitters circulation claims uncritically without trying to independently verify is just not credible. This raises a much larger question which Devin alludes to.

Nunes points out that Twitter routinely loses money. And he also points out that large Corporations have basically been subsidizing this left leaning, anti-conservative platform via overpriced advertising rates. Does this expose the larger conspiracy at play? - namely the mechanism by which large media companies are able to continually push narratives that, from a business point of view, make no sense. CNN, MSNBC, etc. have continuously watched their viewership plummet for years as they continue to provide content that a majority of Americans don’t want. Could the advertising grift be the mechanism that explains, not just Twitter but the tendency of media corporations, to continue pushing a leftwing direction for their companies with total indifference to the foolishness of such behavior - from a strictly business perspective.

So, could it be that the large advertising companies play a key role and are complicit in this larger scheme of conservative censorship? They overcharge for advertising in order to keep the Twitters, CNNs, and MSNBCs of the world afloat. If you’re in the advertising business, keeping advertising rates artificially inflated is good business. And if your clients are political campaigns and Blue Chip corporations, it’s just considered a price of doing business, especially if those ad purchasers themselves are highly subsidized in one form or another.

https://rumble.com/v1d2yst-nunes-truth-social-expands-to-uk-to-reclaim-internet-for-free-speech.html

It’s the whole system of over-priced advertising on Twitter that is a consequence of their inflated numbers.

I've wondered the same thing about Drudge. I have not been to that sight for a couple of years - used to be multiple times a day. He used to publish his hit statistics monthly and he was usually number one worldwide. However, if you left his screen untouched, it would periodically refresh every few seconds - maybe every 30 seconds. I've wondered if he counted each of those refreshes as a hit. I usually leave my laptop or desktop up and running multiple days in a row - I'm willing to bet others do as well. That would greatly inflate his numbers.