It’s true, but without having read the article, I’d bet it both maligns the real app and makes fun of the “Trump fans” who fall for the fake app.
Edit:
Found the article and skimmed it, and boy do I ever know these people!
An apparent rip-off of Donald Trump’s social media network Truth Social has racked up downloads in the six figures on Google’s Play Store, causing confusion by MAGA types who failed to realize the distinction.
The article then proceeds to make fun of reviewers praising or complaining about the fake app as though it were real.
Notice the phrasing. If this were any other subject in which users were duped into downloading a fake app, the writer wouldn’t have used negative words connoting blame and ascribing it to the user. Any blame would have centered entirely around the app publisher.
The writer also would not have used a knowingly divisive (and from the left’s perspective, derisive) label like “MAGA types” in close proximity to the connotations of blame.
Here we have: “MAGA types” (divisive label) who failed (blame) to realize the distinction.
TRUTH is an inclusive (in the actual sense, not the libtard sense) free speech platform spearheaded by Trump, that’s seeking to eventually overthrow its competitors.
The very notion that it is only for “MAGA types” is slander to them.
If this were, say, a marketplace app for disenfranchised minorities, I promise you this statement would be written more like:
“An apparently fraudulent version of {x} app, racking up {y} downloads in its attempt to intentionally confuse minorities looking to support their community”
That revised tone shifts the onus from the user to the app publisher, uses neutral or protective terminology to label the users, and conveys a tone of the writer trying to right an injustice rather than laughing at the situation from afar.
If you’re saying this is not one of those Buzzfeed “ha ha look at the uneducated anti vaccers” articles, then sure, but that’s not how most media portrayals work. Some are subtler than this, some are more brazen, but I promise you that you are unlikely to find even the subtle language ever skew in favor of the Trumpers.
It’s true, but without having read the article, I’d bet it both maligns the real app and makes fun of the “Trump fans” who fall for the fake app.
Edit: Found the article and skimmed it, and boy do I ever know these people!
The article then proceeds to make fun of reviewers praising or complaining about the fake app as though it were real.
They also mention QAnon, whatever that is. 🤷♂️
https://gizmodo.com/fake-android-app-truth-social-in-app-purchases-trump-1848578038
I don’t see them making fun of anyone in here. Reporting that people are using a fake app isn’t making fun of them
"causing confusion by MAGA types who failed to realize the distinction."
This is mediaspeak for Trumpers are retarded.
???
They failed to realize the distinction between a legitimate app and an illegitimate one. That's what happened. How else should they have phrased it?
"causing confusion by MAGA types who have a lot of other really great qualities they just made a mistake this one time"?
Notice the phrasing. If this were any other subject in which users were duped into downloading a fake app, the writer wouldn’t have used negative words connoting blame and ascribing it to the user. Any blame would have centered entirely around the app publisher.
The writer also would not have used a knowingly divisive (and from the left’s perspective, derisive) label like “MAGA types” in close proximity to the connotations of blame.
Here we have: “MAGA types” (divisive label) who failed (blame) to realize the distinction.
TRUTH is an inclusive (in the actual sense, not the libtard sense) free speech platform spearheaded by Trump, that’s seeking to eventually overthrow its competitors.
The very notion that it is only for “MAGA types” is slander to them.
If this were, say, a marketplace app for disenfranchised minorities, I promise you this statement would be written more like:
“An apparently fraudulent version of {x} app, racking up {y} downloads in its attempt to intentionally confuse minorities looking to support their community”
That revised tone shifts the onus from the user to the app publisher, uses neutral or protective terminology to label the users, and conveys a tone of the writer trying to right an injustice rather than laughing at the situation from afar.
If you’re saying this is not one of those Buzzfeed “ha ha look at the uneducated anti vaccers” articles, then sure, but that’s not how most media portrayals work. Some are subtler than this, some are more brazen, but I promise you that you are unlikely to find even the subtle language ever skew in favor of the Trumpers.