Obama Administration Releases Searchable Archive of Social Media Posts (theverge.com) 110
An anonymous reader writes: President Obama's entire social media presence as POTUS is now available in a single online archive. The administration today launched The Obama White House Social Media Archive, a searchable collection of everything the president and his administration posted on Instagram, Twitter, Flickr, Facebook, Google+, and Pinterest during his two terms in office. According to ArchiveSocial, the platform on which the archive is hosted, this includes more than 100 social media profiles associated with the White House and more than 250,000 total posts. As of right now, the archive's search function isn't the smoothest. A general search like "healthcare" will yield nearly 600 tangential results, including tweets from White House staffers. The Advanced Search will allow you to narrow things down a bit, with filters for date range and social media platform.
I got an idea (Score:5, Interesting)
How about a searchable archive of lobbyists who show up at the WH. Heck, let's extend it to Congress, too.
Re: (Score:1)
Does historic data getting colder in newer datasets count or is your mind already made up?
Re: (Score:2)
Historic data is not "getting colder". Don't believe everything you read in the Breitbart comments section.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Scien... [csmonitor.com]
http://arstechnica.com/science... [arstechnica.com]
Re: I got an idea (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"Alternative media"? Is that what it's called now?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-g... [breitbart.com]
Re: I got an idea (Score:1)
There's nothing wrong with that article. Breitbart is a target because social justice activists are afraid of what they're saying, and all they know how to do is scream racism and harassment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also gaming the peer review system. And hiding data.
Re: I got an idea (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By "hiding data" you mean how scientists were reluctant to give their data to complete strangers that already showed their bias.
Yes. Science is supposed to be an adversarial process. Whining that others may try to disprove your conclusions is decidedly unscientific.
Also please describe what you mean by gaming the system.
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is
Re: (Score:2)
Whining that others may try to disprove your conclusions is decidedly unscientific.
Complaining that people will use the data for crackpot theories that will take months to refute may not be scientific, but we scientists are only human, and we prefer to do useful things rather than argue with idiots. Especially if these idiots categorically and proudly refuse to understand scientific arguments. I'm working in a field that attracts few crackpots, but I don't envy the people that again, again, again, and again have to refute the nutty theories about climate change, thermodynamical laws, evol
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Science is supposed to be an adversarial process. Whining that others may try to disprove your conclusions is decidedly unscientific.
And the scientists had no problem with showing the data when they present it (like they do in all papers). The problem they had was giving raw unfinished data to people who were felt entitled to it and were biased against it. It was the equivalent of you asking for all the lab results from your doctor because you don't believe him or her on their continuing diagnosis. It's not that you'll give the results to some other doctor; no you'll give it to a foundation based on spiritual healing that needs it to "pr
Re: (Score:2)
The problem they had was giving raw unfinished data to people who were felt entitled to it
The CRU folks have trouble even keeping raw data at all - also so very scientific. Can't afford hard drive space apparently.
I'm also quite capable of reading and understanding what people are saying when they think nobody else will know (especially) without going to an apologist website.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I got an idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, that won't happen because it would be far too damning to liberals, and might result in criminal charges for the massive fraud against the American people.
Of course, if the collective effort of scientists around the world doesn't convince you, then nothing the administration could release would.
I'm curious though why you think the administration has a vested interest in systemically lying about the climate change science? I mean... what is the profit motive here? I get why tobacco companies funded and undermined cigarette studies; I get why car companies would dodge emission controls; I get why governments don't want to deal with native affairs; or crumbling infrastructure... so what is the motive for the government to go 'big' on climate change? There's plenty of money on the table from 'big oil' to drill-baby-drill, and they don't care who drinks from the trough in support of their business interests... so why is there this big conspiracy to fake climate change?? It's delusional.
I mean, sure, science has gotten things wrong in the past, but its not a conspiracy... its just the scientific process of continual refinement, testing and re-testing claims etc. The brontosaurus was real... then it wasn't... no maybe it is again, but maybe with feathers... that's just the process. And yes, lots of 'bad science' is done, but it eventually washes out as more data is made available and more testing and validation of results is performed, as our knowledge and our techniques improve. So yeah mistakes are made, but betting -against- the latest consensens is not really a winning move. Yet you seem to think that on this ONE issue, not only is science wrong, but its a big conspiracy to fabricate it... by 'liberals' for... reasons? ... AND that you, a layperson, know better, despite virtually all the science being in general agreement.
Re: I got an idea (Score:5, Insightful)
... what is the profit motive here?
Many denialists believe that climatologists are faking climate change as part of a conspiracy to increase their research funding. Of course, that makes no sense. Their funding would be maximized if they published data that sowed uncertainty, and required "further study" rather than overwhelming evidence for warming. It also ignores the difficulty of maintaining a secret conspiracy against the interests of humanity, involving thousands of otherwise honest people.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: I got an idea (Score:1)
Not that all the science is wrong. Gore made $172M (Score:4, Interesting)
Not that all the science is wrong (though of course some of it is), but your leaves me a bit puzzled why you'd even ask.
> I mean... what is the profit motive here?
I mean, really? That's like asking "where's the profit motive in the military industry?" The politicians having handed out tens of billions of dollars to their friends based on plans to do something "green" (and some hefty donations). Do you have any idea how many billions of your money and mine Gore Inc gave to green companies who never released a product?
Heck even think of Gore himself. He rode AWG, mostly, into the White House. As he left the White House, he was worth $700K; over the next three years he and David Blood made $218 million profit from their carbon credit trading company. In three years, he personally made $172 from carbon trading. You don't see a profit motive there? Really?
"Green" is the liberal slush fund just as "defense" was the conservative slush fund.
Don't misunderstand me, national defense and environmental protection are both important. They also happen to be the multi-billion dollar industries that each of the parties chose to launder very large kickbacks in exchange for campaign contributions. If you haven't noticed that ... wow.
$172 million, not $172, of course (Score:3)
I wrote:
> In three years, he personally made $172 from carbon trading.
Of course I meant:
In three years, he personally made $172 MILLION from carbon trading.
Does that mean the whole concept of global warming is all bullshit? No. Does it mean that Gore had a huge profit motive to hype it as much as possible (and got famous doing so)? Obviously.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Do you have any idea how many billions of your money and mine Gore Inc gave to green companies who never released a product?
How does any of that money benefit the climatologists that are "faking" AGW?
Not fake, but 25 times as much grant money (Score:2, Informative)
While Gore was handing out tax-funded grant money, and afterwards when his profit-making carbon exchange company was underwriting the work of scientists, do you think those grants went to scientists who pointed out Gore was mischaracterizing (exaggerating) the data? When a person who profits from AGW scare-mongering pays the scientist's paychecks, he's going to hire^H^H^H^H award grants to those scientists who support his viewpoint.
Again, I'm not saying they're all full of shit, any more than the generals
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, really? That's like asking "where's the profit motive in the military industry?" The politicians having handed out tens of billions of dollars to their friends based on plans to do something "green" (and some hefty donations). Do you have any idea how many billions of your money and mine Gore Inc gave to green companies who never released a product?
There are a multitude of ways for politicians to shuffle money to their friends, a climate change conspiracy is hardly necessary.
And even if true it does nothing to explain why the scientists are the ones actually pushing governments to do something.
Heck even think of Gore himself. He rode AWG, mostly, into the White House. As he left the White House, he was worth $700K; over the next three years he and David Blood made $218 million profit from their carbon credit trading company. In three years, he personally made $172 from carbon trading. You don't see a profit motive there? Really?
Which three years? Because I found an article on Al Gore getting a new worth of $200 million from a variety of sources [financialpost.com], but only part of that came from his investment firm (presumably the thing you think did carbon credit trading?).
Besides, even if Al Gore's int
So don't question Iraq's WMDs? (Score:3)
> There are a multitude of ways for politicians to shuffle money to their friends,
There are many ways. Especially for smaller amounts of money. When presidents, vice presidents, and senior senators want to shuffle billions of dollars to their friends, they of course use a federal program that awards billions of dollars to private companies. There are a few to choose from. If you rose to power based on green rhetoric, you tend to have friends involved in such things, and that fits the need just fin
Re:Not that all the science is wrong. Gore made $1 (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, really? That's like asking "where's the profit motive in the military industry?"
Not that I can see. The military industrial complex is of course HIGHLY motivated to sell us more weapons to the point of paying whatever it costs to install congress critters friendly to that agenda; and there really is no highly organized 'counter' complex opposed to this situation.
The politicians having handed out tens of billions of dollars to their friends based on plans to do something "green" (and some hefty donations). Do you have any idea how many billions of your money and mine Gore Inc gave to green companies who never released a product?
Itty bitty teeny tiny potatoes compared to big oil/coal/fossil, automotive, and every other industry that produces anything substantially non-green -- and they are in direct opposition to anything 'green'; and would be (and are) happy to fight tooth and nail to dismantle the EPA and every enviro-regulation or treaty on the books.
Heck even think of Gore himself.
Right. But for every gore there's 7 Rex Tillersons, 6 Exxon Mobils, FII-IIVE fracking com-pan-ies, 4 hydro dams, 3 french fried hens, 2 turtle soup makers, and a partridge in a pear tree fighting to keep it business as usual.
"Green" is the liberal slush fund just as "defense" was the conservative slush fund.
Its simply NOT comparable to the military industrial complex; because the vested opposition to the 'green' is vast, organized, and extremely well monied. The opposition to the military-industrial-complex is a few hippies... its laughable to suggest that 'green' has the same un-contested level of clout.
They also happen to be the multi-billion dollar industries that each of the parties chose to launder very large kickbacks in exchange for campaign contributions. If you haven't noticed that ... wow.
If you think the multi-billion dollar green industry is a drop in the bucket compared to the multi-TRILLION dollar industry that is decidely "un-green" ... wow. I mean... so-called "liberals" can be bought just like anyone else, and there's plenty of anti-green money lying around.
It just doesn't make credible sense for the AGW crowd to be such a powerful deep rooted conspiracy with such a large and powerful opposition to what it stands for. It's ... delusional.
7 sentences. Hundreds of million$ isn't a coincide (Score:2)
Bob: Hi Al, it's Bob. I wanted to give you a call and let you know I'm donating $80,000 to your PAC.
Al: Thanks, Bob, what are you up to lately.
Bob: I'm starting a company to research new solar-cell designs using federal grant money. It's called Solarslush. Would you like to be on the board next year when you're done with your VP gig?
Al: Sounds great, Bob.
It doesn't take a vast conspiracy. It takes a one-minute phone call.
If you think it's a coincidence that the "green" companies paid Gore HUNDREDS OF MILLIO
Re: (Score:3)
Again, its about the balance.
For every time solar-Bob called greenboy-Al looking for some tit-for-tat for his solar slush fund there was old-coal-face-joe calling Senator open-for-business telling him there was 5 million dollars for his PAC if this 'green nonsense' would go away and he could get a fast track approval to grandfather running his smokestacks under 1950 standards because it would cost 20 million bucks to update them... or whatever.
The idea that the 'green lobby' could have such overwhelming in
Coal face Joe won in 2016 (Score:2)
> A liberal-green-conspiracy just lacks credibility.
Really you haven't noticed a liberal-green alliance? Think of *any* "environmental" group and look up which politicians they contributed to. Hint - it's not Donald Trump. Gore is on the board of half the major green groups.
"Old coal-faced Joe" didn't like "we're going to put a lot of coal companies and coal miners out of business". The politicians he supports won the 2016 election, not the 2004 election.
Re: (Score:2)
Really you haven't noticed a liberal-green alliance?
Of course I have. But it's tempered by other competing interests.
1/3rd of all coal industry spending on senate candidates went to democrats. 20% of coal industry spending on congress went to democrats. Given the makeup of the houses they only need a minority of democrats in their pocket to further their agenda.
And that's my point. They have MORE than enough influence to keep the liberal-green alliance from running amok.
The parties don't move in lockstep.
Re: (Score:3)
You demonstrate incredible ignorance.
1) Politicians are not as stupid as you think. They can find green products that actually make money. Yes some fail - so does some of any market segment. In general the green initiatives are just as profitable as any other business. If they were all scams, smart people would invade the market and out-compete the idiots,
2) While it is true that millions go to green companies, billions go to non-green companies. This is obvious to anyone that looks at the economy (
Re: (Score:3)
The opposite is the case. Large rant follows.
The whole pseudo-debate about the validity of climate science research is instigated, paid for, and kept alive by lobby groups of the petrochemical industry. A whole bunch of fake scientists and lobbyists have made a career in various conservative think-tanks and fake 'institutes' in the US whose sole purpose is to spread doubt about scientific results that have been established world-wide and by independent research organizations, institutions and countries. Th
"How much to spend" is politics. Slush fund (Score:2)
I'm guessing that in your country the politicians use some *other* program as their slush fund, to give taxpayer money to their friends.
> about the means to counter global warming and about how dangerous it may be for the respective country and its economy (how much to err on the side of caution, how much money to spend, etc.)
Disagreement about how much resources (money) should be spent on one thing versus another is the very basis of politics. That's not a scientific question. It should be, however,
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, that won't happen because it would be far too damning to liberals, and might result in criminal charges for the massive fraud against the American people.
Of course, if the collective effort of scientists around the world doesn't convince you, then nothing the administration could release would.
When that "collective effort" means a response to mere "OK, prove it" skepticism is to label the skeptic a heretic, errr, denier, YOU'RE GOD DAMN RIGHT THAT COLLECTIVE EFFORT WILL NEVER CONVINCE ME OF ANYTHING.
If saying "Show me the data" results in name-calling, the name callers do NOT have "science" on their side.
Except that's not what the collective effort of scientists has entailed.
Scientists have presented their evidence time and time again. The Denialists are like the Birthers: they keep asking for evidence even after it has been provided.
Eventually, scientists get fed up with trying to convince people who refuse to be convinced, no matter how much evidence you put in front of them.
And I feel pretty safe in saying that those who scream "show me the data" would not be able to understand the data anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Especially since the data is largely public, and can be found with a google search.
Re: (Score:2)
so what is the motive for the government to go 'big' on climate change?
One possibility here is that once people accept that climate and the environment in general needs to be continuously managed, this would mean that left wing interventionist governments need to be the de facto standard.
Re: (Score:2)
The truth lies somewhere between the extremes, as usual - anthropocentric global warming is real, and the "scientific consensus" is not unbiased.
A decade ago, I was a global warming skeptic. I felt that it hadn't been fully established that it was happening, and that even if it was, it wasn't proven to be anthropocentric. Five years ago, I held it was most certainly happening, but anthropocentric root causes were still up in the air. Today? I believe it's happening and> that human activity causes it. Th
Re: (Score:1)
90%? Where did you come up with that figure?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You cared enough to comment.
Just to screw with Trump (Score:3)
I am sure this was done to intentionally create an expectation for Trump to do the same.
Smart move.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why, just why? What purpose does serve. An historical record of fabricated for PR=B$ messages (with no hint to who actually wrote them or who came up with them or who decided they were appropriate.
But I suppose it is the US, so why not keep up with the bullshit. In congress complaining about RT telling the truth about what is going on in the US vs US main stream media blatantly lying to promote corporate profit generating propaganda and no shame in this public display of third world corrupt politics douch
Re: (Score:2)
The 'public record' thing that bothers me is that the whole point of Hillary having a private email server was to conceal her email traffic from the 'public record.'
Also, I am wondering if Obama is going to put this whole archive on an iPad and present it to Queen Elizabeth II.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if accidental, a precedent on presidents not "deleting tweets" is a good thing.
If the President "tweets", isn't it a public record that has to be maintained?
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure this was done to intentionally create an expectation for Trump to do the same.
Smart move.
If that's the reason, that's awfully petulant.
Petulant? Between Obama and Trump, you tell me who fits that description.
Re: (Score:2)
Petulant? Between Obama and Trump, you tell me who fits that description.
I know this one! It's the one that's having a temper tantrum and picking a fight with Russia because their party lost the election.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure Trump will do just that -- an archive of all the tweets he makes after he takes office.
None of the crazy bigoted stuff he said or campaign promises he made to get elected that he isn't going to follow through on.
Re: (Score:2)
What he *does* not what he *says* (Score:1)
Yeh, like his tax returns he promised to release and never did. Or sell off his foreign businesses and put his US ones in a blind trust... which he never did. Or the election income filing which contained ZERO information on *his* income and 100% FALSE information on his companies income?
But since these are searchable *social* media posts, someone else can index them. I'm not sure what its worth for someone who contradicts himself all the time. Sanders pulled up this Trump tweet from the campaign:
"I was the
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry, did you just admit that you personally hacked the DNC?
Or are you a member of a federal agency that investigated the alleged hacking and are illegally discussing your work without approval?
Oh, wait a second, I see know that you are simply a shmuck that doesn't have any evidence or reason to disbelieve the police, and simply state that something the government said must be false without any evidence, merely because you don't like that it contradicts your own desires.
The hacking obviously happened,
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, wait a second, I see know that you are simply a shmuck that doesn't have any evidence or reason to disbelieve the police, and simply state that something the government said must be false without any evidence, merely because you don't like that it contradicts your own desires.
The government is claiming that Russia was behind the hacks with no evidence themselves, if you haven't noticed.
Re: (Score:2)
False. The government has evidence. Some they have released (the code was written in Russian, using Russian idioms that non-native speakers are not likely to use), and some they have not released for national security reasons.
The released evidence may not be convincing, but at the very minimum, they do have some evidence. The deniers have no evidence and more importantly, HAVE MADE NO ATTEMPT TO GET ANY EVIDENCE.
Re: (Score:2)
Some they have released (the code was written in Russian, using Russian idioms that non-native speakers are not likely to use)
This is, at best, evidence that Russians were involved in the hacks, not that Russia was behind the hacks.
Given that the current administration is transparently using the situation to undermine the incoming president and deflect attention from the failings in their own party, they have zero credibility until they provide some real evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
The guy who released the evidence saying he didn't get it from the russians or anybody associated with the Russian government vs. the presence of hacking tools available for download/purchase on the net that were likely originally written by Ruskys.
Which side actually has evidence again?
Dear "My Government" (Score:2)
Stop it. Stop posting to trash websites. Just stop.
Anyone else need help? 5 mins for $5 and I don't make change.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't wait too long... (Score:1)
See it NOW , in a month the new junta will purge it.
Re: (Score:2)
This was all already out there.
But I bet they let stuff slip, unintentionally. I'm tempted to write some spider code, just to find the posts they have chosen to 'miss' and/or edit. Those will be interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Not by the FBI, before the FBI got there, but after the subpoena.
Which would have sent anybody else to jail, to say nothing of the fact they would deliver the subpoena with a battering ram for anybody else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually they made a deal to delete everything afterwards. So the stuff that was not deleted before the FBI got there was deleted after.
FBI Agreed To Destroy Laptops of Clinton Aides With Immunity Deal [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Transparency (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Most people can see right through [Obama].
And what did they see?
Assange (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No Tinder? (Score:3)
Yeah - just want we wanted: the headlines from a hundred thousand press releases. How about some of the staff's Tinder profiles and the like instead?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Still in denial. Work on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Still in denial. Work on it.
Trump is fair game for the next four years. Work on that.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost certainly eight years.
The D, being in denial, will take the wrong lesson from this election and next nominate a crazed lefty. Assuring Trump a second term.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)