3 ms·

I think that's mostly accurate, but I think it's the social media companies who are pushing the left. There are, or until recently were, plenty of moderate and

I think that's mostly accurate, but I think it's the social media companies who are pushing the left. There are, or until recently were, plenty of moderate and right-wing people on social media, but the companies have so many ways of tilting the scale in favor of their preferred political views, they've intentionally created echo chambers where only far-left political opinions are acceptable. And that leaves people feeling disenfranchised because a few companies now own the means of communication, and there are no good alternatives for people who are silenced by these companies.

zozbot234 6y ago
I think what we're seeing is that political activism on social media skews to the left. Left-wing politics has always been more activism-minded and right-wing activism has always tended to the extreme, so this is not exactly news. What's news is that social media platforms like Twitter (and even Facebook, due to "real names" and a focus on close social relationships) are more favorable to mindless activism than to careful deliberation, which benefits more from traditional blogs and BBS-like forums.
- leereeves 6y ago
  That doesn't explain events like Apple, Google, Visa, and Mastercard all banning Gab. Reportedly, Visa and Mastercard even refuse to do business with Gab's founder's family. Things like that aren't being driven by grassroots activism. These are decisions made by billionaires.
  - zozbot234 6y ago
    Gab literally went out of their way to market their service and platform towards the most disreputable. I'm not saying that what happened to them was acceptable, but there's a reason why it's hard to make people care about this stuff. And if nobody cares, it doesn't take much of a "movement" for activists to get their way.
    - leereeves 6y ago
      That's far from the only example of conservatives banned by Visa and Mastercard, and there are plenty of people who care, they've just been disenfranchised. That you think nobody cares indicates the extent to which they already control the flow of information.
    - _0ffh 6y ago
      >Gab literally went out of their way to market their service and platform towards the most disreputable That may have been incidental. It makes financial sense to market to those whom you expect to be most inclined to employ your services. In this case those who feel that they cannot freely express themselves on the competing products. That group is necessarily centered on those who's honest expressions receive the most attention from deplatforming activists.

zozbot234 6y ago

I think what we're seeing is that political activism on social media skews to the left. Left-wing politics has always been more activism-minded and right-wing activism has always tended to the extreme, so this is not exactly news. What's news is that social media platforms like Twitter (and even Facebook, due to "real names" and a focus on close social relationships) are more favorable to mindless activism than to careful deliberation, which benefits more from traditional blogs and BBS-like forums.

leereeves 6y ago
That doesn't explain events like Apple, Google, Visa, and Mastercard all banning Gab. Reportedly, Visa and Mastercard even refuse to do business with Gab's founder's family. Things like that aren't being driven by grassroots activism. These are decisions made by billionaires.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  Gab literally went out of their way to market their service and platform towards the most disreputable. I'm not saying that what happened to them was acceptable, but there's a reason why it's hard to make people care about this stuff. And if nobody cares, it doesn't take much of a "movement" for activists to get their way.
  - leereeves 6y ago
    That's far from the only example of conservatives banned by Visa and Mastercard, and there are plenty of people who care, they've just been disenfranchised. That you think nobody cares indicates the extent to which they already control the flow of information.
  - _0ffh 6y ago
    >Gab literally went out of their way to market their service and platform towards the most disreputable That may have been incidental. It makes financial sense to market to those whom you expect to be most inclined to employ your services. In this case those who feel that they cannot freely express themselves on the competing products. That group is necessarily centered on those who's honest expressions receive the most attention from deplatforming activists.