Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Obama Administration Releases Searchable Archive of Social Media Posts (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the all-in-one dept.

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.

5 of 110 comments (clear)

  1. I got an idea by halivar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How about a searchable archive of lobbyists who show up at the WH. Heck, let's extend it to Congress, too.

    1. Re: I got an idea by vux984 · · Score: 4, 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.

    2. Re: I got an idea by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, 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.

  2. Not that all the science is wrong. Gore made $172M by raymorris · · Score: 3, 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.

  3. Re:Not that all the science is wrong. Gore made $1 by vux984 · · Score: 4, 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.