RSS70% of Barack Obama’s TWITTER Account is Made Up of “Fake Followers”
File this one under, why am I not surprised …
As reported at USA Today, 70% of President Barack Obama’s 18.8 million Twitter followers so not exists and are referred to as “fake followers”. Who does not find this a wee bit ironic coming from the most transparent president ever? It would seem that Twitter followers can be purchased. Maybe that’s where some of the Obama 2012 election war chest has been going?
President Obama’s Twitter account has 18.8 million followers — but more than half of them really don’t exist, according to reports.
A new Web tool has determined that 70% of Obama’s crowd includes “fake followers,” The New York Times reports in a story about how Twitter followers can be purchased.
“The practice has become so widespread that StatusPeople, a social media management company in London, released a Web tool last month called the Fake Follower Check that it says can ascertain how many fake followers you and your friends have,” the Times reports.
But of course no one knows how such a thing has happened. What, Obama pretending to be bigger and better than he really is? That would never happen.
Posted August 25, 2012 by Scared Monkeys 2012 Elections, Barack Obama, Obamanation, Presidential Election, Transparency, Twitter | 7 comments |
If you liked this post, you may also like these:
Comments
7 Responses to “70% of Barack Obama’s TWITTER Account is Made Up of “Fake Followers””
Leave a Reply
How’s that so different from using We the People’s
taxes to buy ‘Slavish’ voters?
That’s odd; when I try the actual web tool for official campaign Twitter handles of “MittRomney” and “BarackObama”, I get 23% and 29% respectively as being Fake.
Hardly anywhere near 70%.
BTW, USA Today also reported “Both campaigns have denied buying Twitter followers.”
Also, the original NYT article says: “Having fake followers, it is important to note, does not necessarily mean that they were purchased. Unlike Facebook friends, Twitter does not require users to approve followers. In other words, anyone can follow you on Twitter, whether it’s your mother or a spammer.”
There was also this juicy tidbit: ““Romney Twitter account gets upsurge in fake followers, but from where?” read a headline on the NBC News Technolog blog.”
Could the same question be asked for the Obama fake followers? Indeed, one wonders who might have the cash and desire to fake Twitter followers of any candidate; and for what purpose????
So, what do we have here? A fake president
that has a Twitter account with a bunch of
fake followers….hmmmm. Move on everyone,
nothing to see here!
___________________________
SM: Why do you think he and Dems are so against voter ID? They need to fake voters to win as well.
R
Ok, so now we have the awesome task of combing
throughout the MSM to find one of the rare actual
journalists capable of some investigative journalism
regarding buyers of fakes. Good luck with that.
The ‘fake’ debate is yet another of the ‘Herrings’
being offered for discussion in place of the real
discussion surrounding the complete and total
failure of the Obama Regime to establish a real
platform to run a campaign on. The reelection
game is starting to stink like dead fish.
#5 – RE: “the real discussion surrounding the complete and total failure of the Obama Regime to establish a real platform to run a campaign on.”
I would love to have this happen. Of course, it seems that to do this, one would first have to refer to the actual platform and policies of Obama, and then offer analysis of how what he has accomplished and said has failed to “establish a real platform to run a campaign on.”
I doubt simplistic statements that merely claim he was a failure would have little support from those who think for themselves, and believe that lack of evidence tells them nothing. It might just sway voters that are spoon-fed their opinions; and since the facts are obvious anyways, they don’t need to be stated so much.
I should say I did agree with your opening thought: “The ‘fake’ debate is yet another of the ‘Herrings’ being offered for discussion in place of the real discussion.” Such as a real discussion on just what Medicare changes are proposed, and just what really is involved with the so-called $716B Medicare budget “savings”.
Some real meat would be nice for a change!
#3 – Voter ID Fraud?? – I thought this was interesting: votingrights.news21.com/article/election-fraud/