Nice, right?

Subscription business models are based on the idea of selling a product or service to receive monthly or yearly recurring subscription revenue. They focus on customer retention over customer acquisition. In essence, subscription business models focus on the way revenue is made so that a single customer pays multiple payments for prolonged access to a good or service instead of a large upfront one-time price. Now, the economy is trending toward more subscriptions instead of ownership for cars, software, entertainment, and shopping. This increases the lifetime value (LTV) of the customer.
— Investopedia

When you have to call “customer service” and have to endure a Filipino accent when being told what they can’t (or won’t) do, do you feel like a valued customer after they have your money?

Corporations make you pay for monthly subscriptions despite the fact that some of the services provided are those you really don’t want and would never pay for on their own.

You buy a cell phone so you can communicate instantly with others, but you also get a device that spies on you, “free” functionality apps that also sell your data, divulges your location to people you don’t know, and based on your activity online, sends you dozens of annoying ads per month for products you have no intention of buying.

Granted, there are some “free” products that people can obtain like Facebook, Twitter, and their Big Tech subsidiaries. They just sell your personal data to advertisers.

Mark Zuckerberg repeatedly claims Facebook does not sell data. The statement has become a shield in the tumultuous era for the company. But is it true?

“As a data scientist, I am shocked that anyone continues to believe this claim,” wrote Michael Kosinski, assistant professor at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business, in a New York Times opinion piece. “Every time you click on a Facebook ad, Facebook sells data on you to that advertiser.”
— AZCentral, 2/15/19

Multiply that within the estimated 1.9 billion daily users, that’s a good chunk of income from what in essence are just social media websites and after they get user data, they can abuse their customers as they wish. That’s a business model probably not taught at the Wharton School… yet.

Music streaming subscriptions give you access to genres you appreciate, thus there may be two or three channels of music you’d religiously listen to. But as you (and millions of others) are paying for the service on a monthly basis, you’re also paying for genres you may genuinely dislike and artists you really abhor whose music you would never purchase.

Streaming services, like the music companies of old, screw the artists, but that’s another story altogether.

Cable companies charge monthly for hundreds of television channels while there may be less than a handful any given person may watch on a consistent basis. But since millions of viewers are paying (in some cases) close to a hundred bucks a month for bundle packages, consumers are paying for channels that would go belly up if they had to compete in an ‘à la carte’ environment.

Corporations like Amazon, thanks to their “Prime” subscriptions, are in the entertainment business, are actually making product. Some movie companies are in the streaming business. Simply by adding a “plus” on their brand gives you access to new productions of varying quality, old movies and shows you probably viewed years ago and will probably never voluntarily view again. Consistently good product is another thing, but at least Hollywood is getting paid….

But this is the current business model for corporations who want a steady stream of income despite how well their product performs and/or if all the “services” provided are what people really want or will use.

Apple Inc. is working on a subscription service for the iPhone and other hardware products, a move that could make device ownership similar to paying a monthly app fee, according to people with knowledge of the matter. The service would be Apple’s biggest push yet into automatically recurring sales, allowing users to subscribe to hardware for the first time — rather than just digital services.
— Bloomberg, 3/24/22

So now it’s not enough for families to pay outrageous monthly fees to pay for the phone and service but now Apple wants to charge people for the device’s guts every 30 days.

People used to buy physical newspapers because the wanted to be informed of local and national news. But now that the talent pool has degraded the product to the point where people just find the news they want online for free, some companies are putting out introductory hooks that can be as low as a dollar a week.

 
Seriously, if someone is trying to get you to buy something for a dollar a week, just how good is that product? In some cases, all you’re paying for is the privilege of seeing and hearing people blab. On the course of one’s daily activities, paying people (some of whom you may not choose to hear) to talk doesn’t exactly sound like a wise use of the monthly budget.

For the most part, when you pay a subscription you are subsidizing mediocrity. Some companies are making you choose between paying for crap or losing functionality of an expensive device you either bought outright or are making more monthly payments on.

While there are some aspects of subscription services you need or enjoy, you’re also paying for services and/or talent you may truly despise. That’s how they all stay relevant, fed and you get to pay for it. This is the current business model so suck it up.

That is until the Internet goes down.

As much as it’s nice to have a number of people who “like” your presence on Facebook, let’s be real. Out of the dozens or hundreds or more of people who are your “friends”, how many do you really know personally? How many did you know and hang out with years ago? Just a wild guess, I’d say that number is less than five percent. Ironically, the more popular you are on Facebook, that percentage goes down.

We have no control over who our social media “friends” really are. Their profiles, unless you really want to take the time to truly vet every single person who sends you a request, can be real or a fiction. As you’ve not had personal interaction with them, you don’t know if that’s someone you’d really want to be around or not, yet by accepting a friendship with them, you’re now associated with their words and activities, good or bad.

And there’s the superficial.

For example, way too many conservative men will be enamoured and will defend those women who call themselves “conservative” solely on the only thing presented: physical appearance first. We’ve seen many examples of female newcomers to the conservative movement with questionable, if not hostile, backgrounds being embraced mostly by conservative males who dismiss any vetting of the desired only because of the subjective “hotness” of that female. When their true motivations are exposed, they dissolve into online obscurity only after they’ve personally profited and the credibility of conservatives again become a laughstock to our political opponents.

Bang For the Buck

Many organizations have budgets allocated exclusively for Facebook promotion that will hopefully bring eyes to their websites. Facebook, depending on the amount of people who see a post, will ask if you’d like to give them money to “boost” said post.

There are many tech experts who’ve written exhaustive articles on just how to get people to actually go to a link on a Facebook or Twitter post. Almost all are in agreement that the vast majority of consumers read only what’s on the Facebook and Twitter post and very seldom click on a link (approximately 3%). Despite hundreds of hours taken to promote posts on this site, the most recent numbers verify their conclusions.

As of 9/10/18 around 11:30am in this very piece shared on Facebook, out of 193 people who saw it…

… only fifteen clicked on this link; a .077 percentage clearly in the waste-of-time category. The same probably goes for the dozens of memes, posts and Tweets with links to our page. Unlike others, we’re not stupid enough to pay Facebook to “boost”.

Then again, Facebook and Twitter gets all the activity, mines your topics, sends that information to their client advertisers and we get bombarded with the content they paid for.

Getting Personal

There was a time before Facebook when a man would have the enjoyment of planning a special day for the woman in his life. He could plot, plan and at the end of the day, have a nice evening out with her.

But how many men today have that cloud hanging over them: if they don’t stay up until 11:59 the night before a special day and be the FIRST to post a message on Facebook… not good.

Of course, that’s not important to most women but it’s now an issue that can have dire consequences; even if you did buy flowers or take her out to a nice restaurant, if you didn’t post your acknowledgement on Facebook FIRST, there’s something wrong.

All this because of the social media pressures of sending a message to (again) dozens or more people you’ve never personally met.

Held Hostage

The beauty of owning your own website is that you can post whatever you want, whenever you want from wherever. You are not subject to arbitrary “community guidelines” thus are subject to the objections of our political opponents which can result in shadow-banning or worse.

Think about the hundreds of hours invested in social media pushback that can be erased after being flagged by an anonymous butthurt, acted upon by a like-minded employee “monitor” at Twitter or Facebook, which can result in punitive measures including having your account deleted. Sadly, not everyone can afford or wants the headache of updating their own website and the social media gatekeepers know this as well, so you have to tread very carefully to exercise your First Amendment right on a private company’s platform where speech IS regulated at the personal whim of whomever is tasked with surveillance and enforcement.

And we all know how conservatives are fairly approached….

Artificial Importance

How many very successful businesses have had to alter their models and issue very public responses because of an outcry on social media? We see and heard news reports of “millions” of Tweets and hashtags created to exert pressure on a company because of something “trending”.

We had a restaurant in Washington, D.C., in an attempt to protect female patrons using their restrooms, take a major hit because of a transexual who claimed to have “hundreds of thousands” of “followers” objected and received media coverage. Did this person really have the backing of so many people who utilized the simple convenience of clicking on a “like” button on a post claiming victim status? Out of those “hundreds of thousands” of followers, how many real friends does this person have? A couple dozen or more?

We’ve seen CEOs from very successful companies have to step down because of personal political activities that inflamed certain groups; activities that had zero effect on the product used. All because of a pushback by many on social media that involved nothing but a click on a mouse.

We’ve seen issues blown up to international prominence in social media; issues based on an incorrect premise (see #Kony2012). Seeing how too many people don’t take the time to read beyond, it’s way to easy for an ignorant mob to be whipped up into a frenzy over something that never happened.

We continue to see others propped up as megastars, going back to Kim Kardashian; not because she did anything of real value, but merely because she exists and can successfully promote herself and family members with pictures on social media. We see others who’ve done nothing of real value (outside of talk), given a platform in the broadcast media because of a social media following of thousands who’ve never met them personally. In too many cases, it’s again their profile of selective imagery that has was too many swooning, like male congressional candidates and “pundits” who’ve achieved little politically but women on Facebook come right out and comment on his “hotness”.

Do You Really NEED Facebook and Twitter?

Don’t get me wrong. Facebook and Twitter is a convenient way to keep in touch with personal friends and family members as to your activities; something that was routinely done by email and/or a phone call. Would all communication cease if you couldn’t upload some photos and include the whereabouts? Obviously not, but also Facebook and Google now knows where you were and you now get notifications from restaurants and other places to frequent.

While many would argue that social media is a valuable promotional tool that leads to wonderful results, the results that lead to wild success are few and far between. But what do we really get out of it.

Aside from meeting my wonderful wife on Facebook, we really haven’t gotten a significant bang for the many hours spent promoting content on this website. Despite the many “offers” of interest and “exposure”, the last real job I had came as a result of physical content created; not a result of the amount of social media presence “likes” and “followers”.

And it came via email.

Laura once told me time is the most important thing we have in life is time because we never get it back.

Facebook and Twitter knows how many hours we’ve all given to them and if you were to see that number, would you really think it was worth it?

Dirty Little Secret

Have you noticed you never see any reference to social media in certain movie genres?

Obviously in a post-apocalyptic world with few resources, the Internet is non-existent meaning a lot of millennials wouldn’t last long. After all, how could they make a fire without a YouTube video cheatsheet?

Or maybe in science fiction fantasy, humans grew out of the need for instant gratification through that intoxicating quest for… likes.

Nations are run by those who initially portray themselves as the more level-headed amongst us, yet wars are initiated by the very “educated” elites who never have to pick up a weapon themselves and their words lead to consequences that have profound ramifications for those they call the “collateral”. But for the most part, prior to the public accessibility to the Internet in the very early 2000’s, people wouldn’t say to others what they wouldn’t say to their face.

Then came MySpace, Facebook and Twitter.

People could create an account, create a fictitious name, an avatar that was whatever physical representation that person wanted, and they can now add to the public debate in any fashion they wish; for the positive or negative. The effects vary between a classmate hounded by hundreds to businesses that have to alter their business models because of a real or false misstep, ramped up by a social media campaign of thousands of people; many who hide behind anonymity and some who may not even exist.

Some people fool the public into making us believe they’re more relevant than they really are.

Famous people on social media—actors, models, athletes, influencers—like to brag about the size of their follower count. But a New York Times investigation published Saturday found that a number of those celebrities buy at least a portion of their social media followers. At the center of the investigation was Devumi, a company that allegedly sells what the Times calls “amplification bots,” which follow the accounts of paying customers and are programmed to like and retweet their missives. The company also claims it can help its customers get more views on YouTube videos, more listens on SoundCloud and more endorsements on LinkedIn.
— Newsweek, 1/29/18

Today, we’ll have an incident and a participant can almost instantly become the center of the news cycle based purely on the amount of times his or her social media “message” is repeated. We’d like to believe the sharing is organic, but we also know numbers can be rigged to the benefit of a cause, even to crowd-funding financial benefit.

Unfortunately, the toothpaste can’t be put back into the tube and at the onset of the use of social media, anyone who signed up for an account had to display their actual name and portrait (preferably no more than a couple years old). As many of us would never approach someone bigger, get in their face and let loose with personal, unrestrained expletives, the anonymity of social media has provided cover for cowards those who have little respect for the feelings of others, bolstered by the possible false impression that those sentiments are shared by thousands, if not more.

Men normally don’t say things to another man’s face they can’t back up physically. However, women enjoy the luxury of that time-honored privilege of not having to face the physical ramifications of their outbursts. Social media has enabled members of the public to attack others at will from hundreds of miles away and force a subject to alter positions. Sometimes a subject willingly succumbs, may lose a job, a livelihood or business, have to find a new place to live, all because someone who was too chicken shit to use their own name was able to arouse the public and have it repeated by a so-called media that lazily refers to social media as a source of daily content.

While our news would be more uniform if those who disseminated it (on all levels) had to do so under oath under penalty of perjury, imagine a social media platform where those who participated had to show their real names and faces, thus were personally accountable for their posts.

It would be a very different world, indeed.

Some sites offer a premise and then embed numerous Tweets from the questionable-important to back them up. Also noticeable is the millennial tendency of applying violent imagery to self-congratulate themselves for offering up a counter argument.

Wrecked: Ben Shapiro Destroys Stelter for Denying Media’s Liberal Bias
PA-POW! Ben Shapiro SHREDS Chelsea Handler in just 7 little words for bad Pence joke
Trevor Noah Destroys Sean Hannity For His Delusional Las Vegas Response
Seth Meyers Shreds ‘Lowlife’ Donald Trump For ‘Lying To The Elderly’
‘Morality of abortion does not change’: Ben Shapiro destroys case for abortion after rape
Is Jenna Jameson crushing on Ben Shapiro after he ‘destroyed’ The Young Turks’ head lib?
Blac Chyna’s Lawyer Shreds Rob Kardashian for ‘Hate Filled Lies’
Oh SNAP! Brit Hume SHREDS Samantha Power over her pathetic Hillary-loss sads in just 3 WORDS
WATCH: Ben Shapiro goes to Congress & DESTROYS campus snowflakes
Ben Shapiro Nails Exactly Why CNN’s Anti-Gun Town Hall Will Backfire in a Huge Way
Watch: Ben Shapiro uses facts to skewer Linda Sarsour supporter who defends call for jihad against Trump
Shapiro shreds idea CA not spending enough
Watch: Steve Forbes destroys the GOP tax plan — and explains how Republicans ‘betrayed’ Trump
Ben Shapiro nails truth about dangerous ‘alt-right’ movement in fiery tweet storm
‘I’m not going to modify basic biology’: Ben Shapiro destroys transgender, pro-abortion arguments

Whether they’re destroying, killing, shredding an opposing point of view, does applying violent verbs to their headlines imply their counters are unassailable and if you dare question them, you’ll be destroyed?

This kind of runs contrary to their demands that all points of view be respected. They consistently demand all points of view be observed, whine about being excluded from oppressive progressive venues, yet they “stun”, “nail”, “destroy”, “shred” and “kill”, armed with “backfires” and “bombshells” for opinion that differs from their own as a way of further diminishing their opponents personally. Not to exclude their constant need to make their intellectually superior retorts portrayed as “epic”.

Talk about the need to boost fragile egos.

I think a lot of this younger generation were brought up to believe that it’s very important that their voices be heard, and so I think it’s a bit harder to fit into an institution where it’s less than democratic in some ways. One generation came of age where they entered this esteemed institution and tried to find a way to fit into it, and this other generation has an expectation that the institution will change to accommodate them. That’s the essence of the tension.
— “Institutional” New York Times “person”

Is THIS the future of journalism, led by the generation that snorts Tide pods and inhales condoms? Disagree with them at your own peril? While leading assaults against teenage online bullies like David Hogg, our side counters with those whose prime motivation is self-promotion using the worst of the English language to force us to notice them, when they want us to notice them, for as long as they want us to notice them.

This is just one of the reasons we don’t open their “news” alerts and when we do, it’s for comic relief or a sense of pity for what was once a respected craft.

Obviously a person in custody for such criminality would incur the wrath of the social media anonymous-brave, so it would be proper and understandable if comments were disabled and the “friends” of that person were made invisible, but the public would still be able to go back and piece together possible motivation without the faux-intellectual speculations of the media; at times in gross error to the detriment of the innocent.

Aurora Shooting: ABC’s Brian Ross Incorrectly Suggests Tea Party Link
Blaming The Wrong Lanza: How Media Got It Wrong In Newtown
Florida Sheriff: No Known White Supremacist Connection in School Shooting

If the Facebook and Twitter accounts weren’t so quickly removed, the media couldn’t have so easily spread an incorrect profile because the truth would be there for all to view. Obviously, lawyers would be screaming about the privacy of the accused and who knows, maybe there would be enough within that person’s profile to clarify a true motive.

Is the public’s right to know more important than the perils of media speculation, seeing how they’ve been known to sit on important details that offend their politically correct tendencies?

Despite Allegations, No Evidence of Trump–Russia Collusion Found
— Epoch Times, 5/25/17

All this time, the Democrats and their media pushed the narrative that Russia colluded with Donald Trump in defeating Hillary Clinton in the last presidential election.

The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
— Obi-Wan Kenobi

But it turns out by their own admission, Facebook ran ads that, if anything, also triggered sore-loser liberals into disputing the legitimacy of the election of Donald J. Trump and we all know what’s happened since.

Top lawyers from Facebook and Twitter said Tuesday that Russian-linked posts and advertisements placed on the social networks after Election Day sought to sow doubt about President Donald Trump’s victory.
— Politico, 10/31/17

Well, that we know how well that’s worked on those who are quite competent in hating those that disagree with them.

We’re also receiving confirmation on what many of us already know. Silicon Valley liberals at Google, Facebook and Twitter blatantly manipulate social media interaction based on their personal biases.

A Twitter customer support worker who was on his or her last day on the job deactivated President Donald Trump’s account for a few minutes Thursday evening, the social media company reported. Shortly before 7 p.m. Thursday, social media reports surfaced that the president’s personal account, @RealDonaldTrump, was unavailable, providing the error message that the user “does not exist.” The account was restored by 7:03 p.m.

Twitter later said the deactivation “was done by a Twitter customer support employee who did this on the employee’s last day.” The account was unreachable for 11 minutes.

“We are conducting a full internal review,” the company said.
— Associated Press, 11/2/17

How many people has this kind of silencing happened to who don’t have visibility of the President of the United States, thus were more vulnerable to social media employee abuse?

Some of Twitter’s trend manipulation was clearly for partisan benefit to the political campaign their preferred.

In the two months preceding the election, around 57,000 users posted approximately 426,000 unique Tweets containing variations of the #PodestaEmails hashtag. Approximately one quarter (25%) of those Tweets received internal tags from our automation detection systems that hid them from searches. As described in greater detail below, our systems detected and hid just under half (48%) of the Tweets relating to variants of another notable hashtag, #DNCLeak, which concerned the disclosure of leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee.
— Testimony of Sean J. Edgett, Acting General Counsel, Twitter, Inc., 10/31/17

Would Twitter have been so aggressively hidden had those hashtags contained an anti-Trump message?

According to the social media execs, their employees are receiving training in an ongoing basis which is of no reassurance to us.

Over the last few months, we have been punished by YouTube (Google) for politically-incorrect content their “Community” deemed offensive, and it’s not for content we upload and is flagged, but they’ve gone back and found videos that may have been uploaded months ago and are now using as justification for shutting down our present ability to upload.

That’s just a couple of examples, not to mention “shadow banning” from Twitter of some of our messaging.

Stealth banning (also called shadow banning, ghost banning or comment ghosting) is the act of blocking a user or their content from an online community such that the user does not realize that they have been banned. By making a problem user’s contributions invisible or less prominent to other members of the service, the hope is that in the absence of reactions to their comments, the problematic user will become bored or frustrated and leave the site.
— Wikipedia

Again, we appreciate that Google, Facebook and Twitter are private companies and can conduct themselves however they wish as users volunteer to use their products and agree to their “terms”. But given their size and reach, there is a responsibility for them to be fair and impartial in their treatment of their customers.

If #DNCLeaks is deemed offensive enough for them to “hide” Tweets containing that hashtag, one would think that a #FuckDonaldTrump hashtag would so be hidden, not to mention the free reign that pornography has on social media platforms.

Good luck with that. Here’s content that apparently meet their “community standards”.

Don’t hold your breath for any changes in Silicon Valley once the spotlight cools off.

I was turned on to Emerson, Lake & Palmer in the mid-70s. As a former drummer-turned-percussionist, I was in awe of drummer Carl Palmer, but the group as a whole was nothing but pure genius. (BTW – Despite six platinum-selling albums, including 1973’s Brain Salad Surgery, ELP STILL is not in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.)

In the late 70’s I was a stagehand at Tanglewood, summer home of the Boston Symphony Orchestra, and because of my attending a rival high school, got the opportunity to meet and strike up a friendship with legendary conductor Leonard Bernstein who also told me the correct pronunciation of his name: “Have you ever heard of a Steen-way piano?” He told me how, back in the day, he played piano with Billie Holiday for $10 a night and it was then I discovered that many conductors are also virtuoso pianists.

Subsequently, I asked Mr. Bernstein who his favorite keyboardist was and he said without hesitation, “Keith Emerson. He’s a genius.” While Edgar Winter was credited in making the synthesizer a recognized rock ‘n’ roll instrument, Keith Emerson took it several levels higher and set the standard.

Shortly after the ELP “Brain Salad Surgery” release, my best friend and I saw them perform at the old Boston Garden and I was even more impressed by the musicianship that almost fully translated from the album to live performance. Seriously, how many keyboardists play several parts AND the bass on foot pedals simultaneously live? Think about it….

It was quite sad to find that in the later years of his life, Keith Emerson was being dogged by the anonymous cowards on social media, who were criticizing his performances in ignorance.

His right hand and arm had given him problems for years. He had an operation a few years ago to take out a bad muscle but the pain and nerve issues in his right hand were getting worse. He had concerts coming up in Japan and even though they hired a back-up keyboard player to support him, Keith was worried. He read all the criticism online and was a sensitive soul. Last year he played concerts and people posted mean comments such as, ‘I wish he would stop playing.’
— Mari Kawaguchi, Emerson’s girlfriend

ALL musicians are ultimate victims of age. Singers transpose their hits down a step or two because they can’t hit the notes they could when they were in their 20’s and 30’s. If you listen to the speed and accuracy of Keith Emerson back in the 70’s and 80’s, one could easily understand how age could affect his performances in his 60’s and beyond, but that was no reason to bully (using the verbiage of today’s social media “victims”) him to the point of suicide.

He was tormented with worry that he wouldn’t be good enough. He was planning to retire after Japan. He didn’t want to let down his fans. He was a perfectionist and the thought he wouldn’t play perfectly made him depressed, nervous and anxious.

In the age of autotune and sampling, Keith Emerson was a great musician who on his worst day could blow away some of today’s “artists” and for cowardly, no-talent punks to troll him to the point where he felt the need to abandon all is one of the great tragedies.

2012 Flashback:
Each year, Pew conducts a survey of public knowledge, which it then dissects according to various demographic factors such as age, gender and party affiliation. In this year’s edition, Pew quizzed 1,010 adults (including 771 registered voters) between July 26 and 29 on a series of twelve questions relating to the 2012 campaign.

Republicans outscored Democrats on fully eleven of the twelve tests of knowledge.

And that was nothing really new.

In a 2010 the New York Times headline read, “Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated.” According to the Times survey, Tea Party supporters were more likely to possess a college degree than their counterparts (23% to 15%), and also more likely to have completed post-graduate studies (14% to 10%). They were also more likely to have completed “some college” by a 33% to 28% margin, and substantially less likely to have not completed high school than non-supporters (3% versus 12%) or possess only a high school degree (26% versus 35%).

Those results surely caused widespread indigestion in cafes across New York’s Upper West Side.

As well as every young punk who shouts that online insult comment, started off by calling the Republican a “looser”.

It’s 2015, we’re closing in on another presidential election and the routine questioning of the intelligence of conservatives has begun….

Trolling comments on presidential candidates’ Facebook pages in search of grammatical errors is a task that will get Strunk and White devotees’ eyes rolling. At least the search for typos, misplaced or missing apostrophes, unnecessary capital letters and redundant exclamation points bears fruit in seconds.

But amid this flawed, headache-inducing verbiage, there is a pattern. So says Grammarly, a private, San Francisco-based company behind what’s billed as “the world’s leading automated proofreader.” The company analyzed comments on 19 presidential candidates’ Facebook pages and found that: 1) supporters of Republican candidates make more mistakes than supporters of Democrats; 2) supporters of Republican candidates use fewer unique words than supporters of Democrats; and 3) Donald Trump supporters made the most mistakes of them all.

We’re always a little skeptical when someone claims to make themselves a referee without knowing just who they are and what their biases (as everyone has them) are. And as far as supporters of Republican candidates using fewer words, the rampant, hysterical use of name-calling and profanity by the left could be what makes them so wordy.

But as usual, we find out Grammarly’s not all they claim they are, which coupled with their location, is a pretty good sign we’re talking about some self-righteous, angry liberals.

Grammarly doesn’t work. As the above results show, Grammarly did not catch several of our intentional grammar and spelling errors, it had nothing to say about any of our intentionally misused words, and it makes recommendations based on 19th-century grammar superstitions. This last point is especially interesting considering that Grammarly is rather laissez-faire with new words such as winningest. Elsewhere, Grammarly is inconsistent in applying its rules. And there is no way to tell Grammarly that we are American writers, so we could spell everything in the British manner and Grammarly would not question it. There’s also no way to indicate to Grammarly the level of formality of the text being checked.

Wow, yet another progressive website that doesn’t work they way it promotes itself.

Nice try, Washington Post. This hit piece on Trump supporters won’t do much because comprehension is clearly not a documented trait of their readers.

Yes, many of us get irritated with the grammatically-challenged, but to use this as an overall, blanket condemnation of an electorate is daring stuff. Then again, when it comes to the left, arguments are easy to smack down with facts and reason, and since they went there again, let’s have at it!