The presidential candidate urges more focus on policy issues, less on “stupid” Facebook posts.
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders says he's grown buy targeted instagram followers weary of campaign coverage that focuses more on the horse race and outrage than on the policy issues shaping the election. “In terms of campaign coverage, where to buy real instagram followers there is more coverage about the political gossip of the campaign, about raising money, about polling, about somebody saying something dumb, or some kid works for a campaign and sends out something stupid on Facebook, right?” the Vermont senator said in an appearance Sunday on CNN's Reliable Sources, a program about media. “We can expect that to be a major story. But what your job is, what the media's job is, is to say, 'Look, these are the major issues facing the country.' We're a democracy. People have different points of view. Let's argue it.” Controversies about social media posts by aides to figures including Jeb Bush and Scott Walker, likely Republican presidential candidates, have captured the political media's attention repeatedly in this early stage of the race.
The results confirm that ResearchGate is certainly well-known ?
This does not surprise Billie Swalla, an evolutionary biologist and director how to buy followers on instagram of the University of Washington’s Friday Harbor Laboratories. Swalla says that she and most of her colleagues are on ResearchGate, where she finds buy followers on instagram app the latest relevant papers much more easily than by following marine-biology journals. “They do send you a lot of spam,” she says, “but in the past few months, I’ve found that every important paper I thought I should read has come through ResearchGate.” Swalla admits to comparing herself to others using the site’s ‘RG Score’ — its metric of social engagement. “I think it taps into some basic human instinct,” she adds.Some irritated scientists say that the site taps into human instincts only too well — by regularly sending out automated e-mails that profess to come from colleagues active on the site, thus luring others to join on false pretences. (Indeed, 35% of regular ResearchGate users in Nature’s survey said that they joined the site because they received an e-mail.) Lars Arvestad, a computer scientist at Stockholm University, is fed up with the tactic. “I think it is a disgraceful kind of marketing and I am choosing not to use their service because of that,” he says. Some of the apparent profiles on the site are not owned by real people, but are created automatically — and incompletely — by scraping details of people’s affiliations, publication records.
The most-selected activity on both ResearchGate and Academia.edu was buy real instagram followers and likes simply maintaining a profile in case someone wanted to get in touch — suggesting that many researchers regard their profiles as a way to boost their professional presence online (see ‘A battle for profiles’). After that, the most popular options involved posting content related to work, discovering related peers, tracking metrics and finding recommended research papers. “These are tools that people are using to raise their profiles and become more discoverable, not community tools of social interaction,” argues Deni Auclair, a lead analyst for Outsell, a media, information and technology consulting firm in Burlingame, California. By comparison, Twitter, although used regularly by only 13% of scientists in Nature’s survey, is much more interactive: half of the Twitterati said that they use it to follow discussions on research-related issues, and 40% said that it is a medium for “commenting on research that is relevant to my field”