BFC partnership with X

[martin_p]

Who else used "I was only following orders"?

Just about every soldier that has ever lived.

[Goodclaret]

Bad move from the club.

They’ve likely lost a fan in the POTUS now.

Nah, he's a Chelsea fan/player so wouldn't be bothered with us Clarets

[claretcarrot93]

There's reliable studies that those cuts have already resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. It's been a little more than just reducing the size of the public sector.

Reliable doing a lot of heavy lifting. Studies by people who have had funding cut.

[Stalbansclaret]

I used to really enjoy using Twitter / X for #twitterclarets, but I came off it last year for the reasons mentioned above. I found my timeline was being filled with divisive content that had nothing to do with who or what I searched for. I was getting drawn into black holes of vitriol and hatred, if only to laugh at some of the ridiculous things posted by people (or more likely bots), but it just became a very unpleasant way to spend time. I strongly urge people to take a break from it these days. To lift their heads up and actually see what is happening in front of their eyes, not on their artificial screens! I'm not sure Burnley FC partnering with X is a particularly positive thing, but it certainly offers publicity opportunities if used correctly.

This precisely echoes my own experience of X which I deleted from my phone and feel much better for having done so. Horrendous hate-filled content completely at odds with how I want to feel about life. On this basis , and my opinion that Musk is a truly weird and badly-intentioned individual, I don’t like this news today.

[martin_p]

Reliable doing a lot of heavy lifting. Studies by people who have had funding cut.

Especially as current estimates show deaths in the US will probably only go up by 29,000 this year.

[aggi]

Reliable doing a lot of heavy lifting. Studies by people who have had funding cut.

Well there's the Lancet for one, generally viewed as one of the most reliable journals out there and not reliant on the US government for funding.

Especially as current estimates show deaths in the US will probably only go up by 29,000 this year.

I didn't make any reference to deaths in the US.

[JohnMcGreal]

This precisely echoes my own experience of X which I deleted from my phone and feel much better for having done so. Horrendous hate-filled content completely at odds with how I want to feel about life. On this basis , and my opinion that Musk is a truly weird and badly-intentioned individual, I don’t like this news today.

Whenever I see Musk the first thing that pops into my head is the voice of Alan Partridge saying 'I've got access to the kids but they don't wanna see me'

If only he was as benign and powerless as Partridge. Instead he's tragic but also an absolute danger.

[claretcarrot93]

"Well there's the Lancet for one, generally viewed as one of the most reliable journals out there and not reliant on the US government for funding"



Frederick L. Altice wrote the lancet piece and he works for Yale who get US government funding

[wadeswondergoal]

It won’t be long before this thread is pulled…..

[aggi]

"Well there's the Lancet for one, generally viewed as one of the most reliable journals out there and not reliant on the US government for funding"



Frederick L. Altice wrote the lancet piece and he works for Yale who get US government funding

Ah, maybe they just forgot to credit him.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanc ... 9/fulltext

And I assume you can also point out the issues with the methodology rather than vague comments about funding.

[xxmunkyennuixx]

But DOGE was about reducing the American civil service, it happens to public sectors all over the world with political parties of all flavours. Now the way he went about certainly displays the fact he’s an ego maniac and a complete dick, but politically (whether you agree with it or not) reducing the size of the public sector is hardly extreme.

It didn't save any money - these sorts of schemes rarely do. All political parties? Generally this kind of policy is a right wing wet dream - libertarian, neo-Con, Thatcherite, Reganomics, Reform, Maga. Take your pick. It is extreme, these policies pull at the fundamentals of what it is to organise and maintain a community for the good of all.

As for dickhead, Elon, his actions have weakened the organisations involved so that they couldn't hold other elements of the system of governance to account. The phrase used above was fascist adjacent. That is about right, he weakened an arm of the government so that other actors could act with less scrutiny on them.

The **** above talking funding and it needed reducing knows nothing of the public finances and how services are actually run. You want a reduction in spending, start with the triple lock or pension reform.

[MrTopTier]

Apart from wider media exposure is there any monetary value to it?

[ollieclarets8]

It won’t be long before this thread is pulled…..

Only a matter of time. Tiktok, tiktok, tiktok...

[Elbarad]

There's reliable studies that those cuts have already resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. It's been a little more than just reducing the size of the public sector.

So a minimum of 200k deaths directly tied to DOGE in the 6 months since the inauguration? I’d be interested in seeing these studies.

[pureclaret]

not happy with this as the guy is toxic and that will reflect on the club as the season unfolds

[Somethingfishy]

That maybe true but if you just stick to football and your own interests, there is no better place . Some of the info and data you can get from X is unparalleled.

It can be a really good platform if you just stay away from the "for you" tab.

This is great exposure

That is the best advice and advice Ive stuck to since the days shortly after Brexit when it became a remainers paradise. It was very much a left wing echochamber and was moderated as such. Part of the problem some people have is not that it's right wing but that it's not left wing anymore. The party is over.
Has it veered from one to the other? Hmmm not sure. I've not seen as much (if any) extreme right wing vitriol on there and there was some remarkable left wing stuff allowed before but perhaps that is because I've kept control of what i can see.

However it is still and probably more so full of bots and absolute nonsense of all persuasions. So sticking to only accounts I follow keeps me sane. Mostly football and absolutely nothing political whatsoever.

[RicardoMontalban]

This thread is a pretty good example of why partnering with X is a pretty risky venture.

Whether people like to admit it or not, for a healthy number of people X is a pretty toxic brand, just look at the tanking ad revenue the platform has. It’s not just a handful of ‘snowflakes’.

The back and forth on this thread is replicated on other platforms discussing the partnership. It is divisive. Hitching the Burnley wagon to X has attracted plenty of negativity and easy pot shots along the ‘town full or racists/website full of Nazis’ line. Pretty sure that’s not the intention.

The question is, is that response a short lived thing with little lasting impact? Is it worth it?

And if your thought is, who cares what they think? What’s the actual point of this but to positively grow own brand.

[SirBob]

So a minimum of 200k deaths directly tied to DOGE in the 6 months since the inauguration? I’d be interested in seeing these studies.

You do realise Doge pulled funding for AIDs prevention in Africa? The knock on effects will kill potentially millions of people as a direct consequence of Musks actions.

As well as leading to the spread of the disease further and wider all over the world. But hey he saved a couple of quid in the meantime so it’s ok I guess

[ClaretPete001]

I think the problem with X is the opposite of what is claimed - when you properly curate your feed you will find that it is dominated by Gov't, Gov't appointed types and big organisation types. The loony Left fringe is loud but has little influence. I see very little Right wing content if I'm honest but I'm sure it exists.

In terms of the club, I think it's great that we are regarded as generating viral contact etc and have a developing innovative brand.

My only caveat - I'm cup half empty so there will always be one - is that it doesn't become an ideological distraction from the real challenges the club faces, which is at the moment is a bloated squad of Championship level players and a lack of a Pl striker and dual pivot midfield player.

Those are the issues I want to see resolved by the end of the summer.

[RVclaret]

A new midfield player needs to be in by the end of next week let alone end of summer!!

[BurnleyFC]

Nah, he's a Chelsea fan/player so wouldn't be bothered with us Clarets

Just heard it’s only a one year deal and we’ve signed up with Donald’s Truth Social platform for content next year.

[Ric_C]

Lot of harrumphing on this thread. The club getting much more media exposure can only be a good thing.

[Beagle]

But you are happy to use the app to screenshot a picture of Romano confirming we are signing Walker and posting it on here. Or have you stopped using it after posting that screenshot a week and half ago?

Aha! You’ve got me!

Yes, I occasionally still use Twitter (or, as stupid people call it, X) to check football news. I also occasionally click on links to vapid right wing tabloids to check football news. Are you saying that’s me endorsing those media and their owners’ views? Endorsing our club signing an official partnership with them? Or are just being facetious? Or thick?

[123EasyasBFC]

Aha! You’ve got me!

Yes, I occasionally still use Twitter (or, as stupid people call it, X) to check football news. I also occasionally click on links to vapid right wing tabloids to check football news. Are you saying that’s me endorsing those media and their owners’ views? Endorsing our club signing an official partnership with them? Or are just being facetious? Or thick?

Well it’s super hypocritical to say the partnership is a bad thing, tailoring it around the person that owns X, whilst being someone who still uses it for personal use. You can’t think it’s that bad if you still use it. Posters have said since Musk took control they have since removed themselves from it. I could then understand the point of someone saying it’s bad. You are endorsing it by using it are you not?

[GetIntoEm]

You call people Nazis for fun? Ok..

Nope, I have a problem with people who think their opinion is the only one that matters and other people are not allowed theirs

Sorry quoted wrong person Martin_p

[Spike]

How much do you think Musk will pay us for this?

[CombatClaret]

Who else used "I was only following orders"?

Shouldn't that be

"I was only following @orders"

[BurnleyFC]

How much do you think Musk will pay us for this?

I genuinely wouldn’t be surprised if he knew nothing about it.

[CoolClaret]

You do realise Doge pulled funding for AIDs prevention in Africa? The knock on effects will kill potentially millions of people as a direct consequence of Musks actions.

As well as leading to the spread of the disease further and wider all over the world. But hey he saved a couple of quid in the meantime so it’s ok I guess

Which will inevitably end up with complications showing up in America (and other places around the world)

Nickel and dimeing important Government schemes (that took years to establish) to line their own pockets, ruining lives in the process and some people (usually ones without a pot to **** in) seem to think it's a good thing - bizarre!

[Beagle]

Well it’s super hypocritical to say the partnership is a bad thing, tailoring it around the person that owns X, whilst being someone who still uses it for personal use. You can’t think it’s that bad if you still use it. Posters have said since Musk took control they have since removed themselves from it. I could then understand the point of someone saying it’s bad. You are endorsing it by using it are you not?

‘Well it’s super hypocritical to say the partnership is a bad thing, tailoring it around the person that owns X, whilst being someone who still uses it for personal use.’

No, it isn’t.

‘You are endorsing it by using it are you not?’

No, I’m not.

[Hapag Lloyd]

‘You are endorsing it by using it are you not?’

No, I’m not.

Of course you are.

[123EasyasBFC]

‘Well it’s super hypocritical to say the partnership is a bad thing, tailoring it around the person that owns X, whilst being someone who still uses it for personal use.’

No, it isn’t.

‘You are endorsing it by using it are you not?’

No, I’m not.

You are 100% endorsing X and also funding its owner by using it.

[Clovius Boofus]

Just heard it’s only a one year deal and we’ve signed up with Donald’s Truth Social platform for content next year.

That would be an improvement.

[GetIntoEm]

You do realise Doge pulled funding for AIDs prevention in Africa? The knock on effects will kill potentially millions of people as a direct consequence of Musks actions.

As well as leading to the spread of the disease further and wider all over the world. But hey he saved a couple of quid in the meantime so it’s ok I guess

Africa isn't the 3rd world mess you remember it as, there's enough money there for them to sort their own problems. They don't need handouts. Whether they want to, or prefer to rely on the west to sort it out for them is another matter

When theres 18 month waits in this country for children's mental health services, I know where I'd prefer money to be spent

[Clovius Boofus]

Western money spent in Africa is about buying influence - health, infrastructure projects etc, and no doubt lining the pockets of many-a leader. This is why China has thrown $170 billion at the continent.

FWIW, I still use X.

[Clovius Boofus]

When theres 18 month waits in this country for children's mental health services, I know where I'd prefer money to be spent

Charity begins at home.

[GetIntoEm]

Charity begins at home.

Absolutely

[NewClaret]

Absolutely

Could not agree more.

We need a DOGE in the UK. Latest is Lammy sending £70m to Singapore - 4th richest country in the world by GDP per capita - to support their “clean energy transition” while, as you say, mental health services are in disarray and our town centres crumble.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/20824 ... ountry/amp

(This is not a political thread by the way - successive governments have been doing it for decades - rather the principles of how taxpayers money is being misspent)

[quoonbeatz]

Could not agree more.

We need a DOGE in the UK. Latest is Lammy sending £70m to Singapore - 4th richest country in the world by GDP per capita - to support their “clean energy transition” while, as you say, mental health services are in disarray and our town centres crumble.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/20824 ... ountry/amp

(This is not a political thread by the way - successive governments have been doing it for decades - rather the principles of how taxpayers money is being misspent)

You only needed to read the article to know that Singapore isn’t getting any of the money, standard clickbait headline from the express.

[CoolClaret]

Could not agree more.

We need a DOGE in the UK. Latest is Lammy sending £70m to Singapore - 4th richest country in the world by GDP per capita - to support their “clean energy transition” while, as you say, mental health services are in disarray and our town centres crumble.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/20824 ... ountry/amp

(This is not a political thread by the way - successive governments have been doing it for decades - rather the principles of how taxpayers money is being misspent)

We absolutely DO NOT need a DOGE in the UK.

Wonder why the above are in disarray? Could it be 15+ years of austerity?

Almost guaranteed that the Express have twisted the facts there, there'll be some reciprocal deal/benefit that they haven't bothered disclosing to whip people into a frenzy.

[taio]

Could not agree more.

We need a DOGE in the UK. Latest is Lammy sending £70m to Singapore - 4th richest country in the world by GDP per capita - to support their “clean energy transition” while, as you say, mental health services are in disarray and our town centres crumble.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/20824 ... ountry/amp

(This is not a political thread by the way - successive governments have been doing it for decades - rather the principles of how taxpayers money is being misspent)

I wouldn't trust the Express to report a balanced view and full picture. Beyond articles like this, I guess there will be a business case to justify the return of investment, including benefits to the UK.

[Rowls]

Whenever I see Musk the first thing that pops into my head is the voice of Alan Partridge saying 'I've got access to the kids but they don't wanna see me'

If only he was as benign and powerless as Partridge. Instead he's tragic but also an absolute danger.

It's not often I agree with you JohnMcGreal but as time passes it becoming more and more clear with Musk. They key word is, as you correctly say, 'danger'.

And yet there are people out there who extol his achievements and act as his puppets. They simply don't get it. They're far too far down the rabbit hole to see what's actually going on. It's not just what he says that is the problem, it's his actions too. Just look at what the man actually does:

* Cuts government investment into vital charitable works and aid
* Develops electric cars
* Invents re-usable rockets
* Backs "free speech" with social media platform
* Founds worldwide payment processing system
* Creates orbital Starlink internet enabling groups like the Ukranian army to communicate and stay operational in the face of a soveriegn-backed anti-Nazi operation designed to free the people of Ukraine from their elected oppressors
* Pioneers AI technology and robotics
* Invests is nascent tech like the Boring Company and Neura-link

When will people wake up and see how dangerous all this is?

[Rowls]

I wouldn't trust the Express to report a balanced view and full picture. Beyond articles like this, I guess there will be a business case to justify the return of investment, including benefits to the UK.

Quite right. Always an argument and a counter argument.

The current government is running a real-time experiment for one side of the argument in favour of "returns on investment". In fact, so was the previous government - public investment (ie. spending of taxes) and taxation itself were already at record high levels. Rachel Reeves and Sir Kier Starmer have increased both spending and taxation from the record highs to even higher levels.

So as you say, it's not a case of "the Express says this so therefore that is right". We citizens in a democracy we have to weigh up the arguments and results ourselves. The article from the Express is a tiny part of the wider debate and it only represents one side of the argument.

[NewClaret]

I wouldn't trust the Express to report a balanced view and full picture. Beyond articles like this, I guess there will be a business case to justify the return of investment, including benefits to the UK.

You would hope taio, but I’m very, very sceptical.

[NewClaret]

We absolutely DO NOT need a DOGE in the UK.

Wonder why the above are in disarray? Could it be 15+ years of austerity?

Almost guaranteed that the Express have twisted the facts there, there'll be some reciprocal deal/benefit that they haven't bothered disclosing to whip people into a frenzy.

I struggle with the austerity argument Cool, given government spending has more than doubled over the same 15 year period. I think that fact public spending is out of control with no perceived benefit and arguably worsening public services is the whole justification for a UK DOGE.

I read somewhere our NHS cost more than the entire GDP of Portugal/Greece, for example!

Nor do I buy the “reciprocal benefits” argument. The “soft power” theories used for this type of expenditure make it all the more despicable in my opinion; either the funds are being sent to other countries to be spent on desperately-needed charitable causes, in which case nothing should be expected in return, or we’re spending on the wrong things to gain some form of murky influence on under-developed countries. All while our own towns decay in poverty.

But I am straying off topic here, so I will agree to disagree.

[Claretnick]

I struggle with the austerity argument Cool, given government spending has more than doubled over the same 15 year period.

I asked that question and I think you would be surprised by the google AI answer NewClaret.....

Let's hope our partnership with X brings some benefits to the club....time will tell

[Big Vinny K]

I struggle with the austerity argument Cool, given government spending has more than doubled over the same 15 year period. I think that fact public spending is out of control with no perceived benefit and arguably worsening public services is the whole justification for a UK DOGE.

I read somewhere our NHS cost more than the entire GDP of Portugal/Greece, for example!

Nor do I buy the “reciprocal benefits” argument. The “soft power” theories used for this type of expenditure make it all the more despicable in my opinion; either the funds are being sent to other countries to be spent on desperately-needed charitable causes, in which case nothing should be expected in return, or we’re spending on the wrong things to gain some form of murky influence on under-developed countries. All while our own towns decay in poverty.

But I am straying off topic here, so I will agree to disagree.

You are missing the point massively about austerity if you are looking at government spending as one whole figure.

Osborne and Cameron had a clear and deliberate policy of austerity - they were proud of it. Those key support and front line areas they cut massively were there for all to see. The reason people talk about 14 years of austerity were because in those same key areas subsequent conservative governments never redressed the austerity cuts.

The fact that other government spend increase so significantly is down to a whole raft of other reasons - COVID being one of them.

[NewClaret]

You are missing the point massively about austerity if you are looking at government spending as one whole figure.

Osborne and Cameron had a clear and deliberate policy of austerity - they were proud of it. Those key support and front line areas they cut massively were there for all to see. The reason people talk about 14 years of austerity were because in those same key areas subsequent conservative governments never redressed the austerity cuts.

The fact that other government spend increase so significantly is down to a whole raft of other reasons - COVID being one of them.

Don’t dispute any of this, doesn’t change my view that we spend huge sums on public services today - more than GDP’s of other European nations in some instances - yet seem to get extremely poor value for money. My family nearly all work in the public sector and rage to me daily about the waste and miss prioritisation of spending.

Anyway, well off topic so agreeing to disagree.

[CoolClaret]

Don’t dispute any of this, doesn’t change my view that we spend huge sums on public services today - more than GDP’s of other European nations in some instances - yet seem to get extremely poor value for money. My family nearly all work in the public sector and rage to me daily about the waste and miss prioritisation of spending.

Anyway, well off topic so agreeing to disagree.

Services were running just fine once a day in Britain, exceptional infact around the mid 00s? So what happened?

And you think the answer is simple - a DOGE equivalent? Come on.

Running a country is nothing like running a business. You get returns in ways that aren't easily quantifiable.
Plus, those 'savings' that look good in the short term? They come back to haunt us. Thames Water's a perfect example - privatisation 'efficiencies' turned into sewage in our rivers and billions in debt, a worse service that we're paying more and more for,

Of course there's waste in massive government infrastructure projects - that's inevitable. But it's nowhere near the systematic failure that Musk and co make it out to be.
DOGE has been disastrous - just a front to transfer public money from longterm, coordinated initiatives the public good into private hands.

Your responses ITT indicate that you're buying into the alternate reality promoted by certain media outlets.

[NewClaret]

Services were running just fine once a day in Britain, exceptional infact around the mid 00s? So what happened?

And you think the answer is simple - a DOGE equivalent? Come on.

Running a country is nothing like running a business. You get returns in ways that aren't easily quantifiable.
Plus, those 'savings' that look good in the short term? They come back to haunt us. Thames Water's a perfect example - privatisation 'efficiencies' turned into sewage in our rivers and billions in debt, a worse service that we're paying more and more for,

Of course there's waste in massive government infrastructure projects - that's inevitable. But it's nowhere near the systematic failure that Musk and co make it out to be.
DOGE has been disastrous - just a front to transfer public money from longterm, coordinated initiatives the public good into private hands.

Your responses ITT indicate that you're buying into the alternate reality promoted by certain media outlets.

I think we could deliberate the failures of public services over the last 15 years, and the pressures that caused them all night mate, and we’d probably both have very differing views…

But assuming you convinced me austerity was the cause, it would only further underline my original point that sending money to Asia to spend on their “clean energy transition” is a disgrace when we are, to your argument, under funding public services at home (or, maybe more aligned to my frustrations, have sky high business rates that cause small businesses to close, or heritage buildings we can’t get grants to restore).

This is an apolitical point because they are all as bad as each other for it.

Can’t imagine we’re going to agree on that though so we should spare the UTC masses further debate. Have a good Sunday mate.