8 ms·

This is the real question :) Of course it will be by some far left leaning person. Zuckerberg said they have content moderation and consult with many many group

This is the real question :) Of course it will be by some far left leaning person. Zuckerberg said they have content moderation and consult with many many groups and the interviewer asked for ONE example of a conservative group they consult with, he had no answer.

GavinMcG 6y ago
Not intended to derail this, but could someone point to/recommend conservative groups who a) have denounced white supremacy, and b) are reasonably data- or analytically-driven?
- sawjet 6y ago
  Do you automatically presume any conservative group is white supremacists by default?
  - mindslight 6y ago
    Given the way Trump has captured the following of the conservative community, despite being a radical populist and having few policy accomplishments besides inflaming racial tensions, yes. It's reasonable starting assumption about any group that continues to express support for Trump. I'm not a fan of identity politics, I generally try to ignore race, and I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. But at this point it's awfully hard to not conclude that Trump is a race baiting bigot. My final straw was the FUD about Kamala Harris's birth certificate. Apparently "birth certificate" really is just a simplistic dog whistle for pointing out that someone is Black. I'm a libertarian and think that both parties screw the People similarly, but after four years of this destructive ignorant bullshit enough is enough. It's time to take our country back.
    - mistermann 6y ago
      A politician (or any human being for that matter) consists of a bunch of dimensions. American society also has many dimensions , some being representative of the structure and institutions of the society, and then also all the people within the country who are affected by governance, and each individual person is also multidimensional (inside of which is lots of complexity, that drives political decisions within the overall system). The makeup of a politicians dimensions affects the manner in which they ~govern, with respect to the societal dimensions, and in turn acting upon those dimensions. Within this system we have "democracy", then within there we have "politics", which consists of this weird multidimensional, ~"interactive dance" that consists of "facts", "logic", rhetoric (perspective/narrative building (and advertising/distribution), framing, hyperbole, motivated reasoning, post-hoc rationalization, propaganda, destroying people with facts, "the news", "debates", memes(!), trolling, shitposting, etc), axioms, principles, "visions", and various other silliness. But all for a good cause, with the best of intentions in mind (to the degree that each individual is capable of that). When it comes to election time, citizens are given one vote, a binary choice of two candidates. To make this choice, each individual voter crushes down all the complex dimensionality of their personal model of the world (which they mistake for shared reality) and out comes their decision who to vote for. The purpose of all the absurdity and chicanery in the interactive dance above, is to influence the manner in which each individual crushes their dimensions. More specifically, the purpose of the dance is to influence the makeup/configuration/contents of each person's model - or, alter their perception of reality. I would say that what the arguments we individuals engage in on social media "is", is simply a part of this dance. In this case, I reckon that you are responding to your model of the world, and interacting with others within the system, hoping to influence their model (an illustration of the viral nature of ideas). More specifically, you are (in all good faith, I presume), ~"deploying a persuasive meme/perspective", something roughly along the lines of: "Donald Trump's model contains a dimension labelled 'Literally Racist', and it's value is '100%'. Furthermore, *because(!)* anyone who 'is' 'racist' 'should' 'be shunned by society, absolutely, full stop', *then therefore(!)* you must(!) vote for Joe Biden." If the individuals "political team" (the leader, and all teammates) has done a good enough job in influencing the model of the individual deploying the meme, the person will perceive their action as being righteous, composed of critical thinking, exercising logic, doing the right thing, being an adult in the room, etc. But what it really is, is just this weird dance. And there's no need to feel bad about it, because it seems to be a fairly innate, evolved behavior of human beings, so we all do it (if to varying degrees, and in different styles). I'm doing it right now (in response to you doing it). The whole big thing is just this weird dance, and what ultimately comes out the other end, is a new or reelected President (in part driving the ongoing future evolution of the overall model), and the whole thing starts anew.
      - mindslight 6y ago
        > When it comes to election time, citizens are given one vote, a binary choice of two candidates. To make this choice, each individual voter crushes down all the dimensionality of their personal model of the world (which they mistake for shared reality) and out comes their decision who to vote for. The purpose of all the absurdity and chicanery in the interactive dance above, is to influence the manner in which each individual crushes their dimensions I'm 100% in agreement on this. I've previously made the argument that one bit of input is small, thus the overall function of voting is actually to make winning voters think they wanted all their candidate's policies. I formed during the Obama years, after arguing against blue tribe friends arguing for corporo-statist health care. To be clear, this is the first time I will be voting for a major party candidate for President. > "Donald Trump's model contains a dimension labelled 'Literally Racist', and it's value is '100%'. Furthermore, because(!)* anyone who 'is' 'racist' 'should' 'be shunned by society, absolutely, full stop', then therefore(!) you must(!) vote for Joe Biden."* This does not represent my perspective at all. First, I've been slow to come around to labeling Trump a simple racist. As I said, my last straw was Harris's "birth certificate". Back in May, I was still arguing with a friend who was claiming Trump's malevolence on Covid came from his desire to see brown people die. Focusing on race begets racism. I've been trying to find non-racial explanations the whole time. Second no, I don't think racists should be outright shunned by society. People that do must not love their grandmothers. Racism is like farting. Everyone is going to develop some of it, but we should try to keep it to ourselves and spare each other the unpleasantness. It's problematic when people bring it up and make it part of their identity, either as oppressor or oppressed. And lastly no, my decision to support Biden does not come from modus ponens on policies. Rather, I've been trying to find any reason why it would make sense to support Trump, to give his supporters the benefit of the doubt. For context, I was the one explaining to blue friends back in 2016 that Trump would likely win, because he was speaking to a lot of concerns that they casually wrote off. While he's still talking about red tribe concerns, he has done little to actually address them. If he had improved the economic situation in the middle of the country, I'd get it. If he were devoutly religious, I'd get it. If he had reformed some aspect of the healthcare system towards a functioning market, I'd get it. If his trade policies could actually preserve American jobs, I'd get it. If he had actually built that wall, I'd get it. I wouldn't necessarily agree, but I would understand. What has he actually done instead? He's continued to reject expert advice regarding Covid, leading to 210,000 American deaths. Rather than trying to calm the situation after George Floyd (even if it just resulted in some token reforms), he drove the division. He's setup tariffs that could only have worked twenty years ago, and has chosen to compete with China by adopting China's app censorship totalitarianism. He has withdrawn from foreign diplomacy to let China and Russia conquer unhindered. The only charitable narrative I can come up with is that his supporters are still buying into his narrative as an opposition candidate, despite his past four years of office and his lack of results on goals they claim to care about. As they continue to be directly harmed by his actual actions, that becomes less plausible.
  - dr-detroit 6y ago
    If they voted for (((Agent Orange))) yes
  - GavinMcG 6y ago
    No, but I can't bring to mind any that have denounced white supremacy. Which is why I'm asking.
    - blackflame7000 6y ago
      Does this work for you? https://streamable.com/sr9o2s https://streamable.com/sr9o2s Edit: People on this forum need to stop being so cultish. Downvoting this doesn’t change the reality that it directly kills your narrative.
      - mindslight 6y ago
        Nope. Trump is an incoherent bullshit generator. He says conflicting things such that his intended audience will take away what they want to hear, but can defend himself having said the exact opposite. The only way to judge him is to look at his results.
      - GavinMcG 6y ago
        No, though it's a better reply to my comment elsewhere in the thread where I said Trump doesn't actually condemn white supremacy. The handful of examples in the video that are post-Charlottesville are a nice start, but they've clearly ended up being lip service. He says "I condemn white supremacy" and then goes back to race-baiting at his rally just days ago. [0] Also, it doesn't kill the narrative. It's entirely consistent with the narrative that Trump lies when it's convenient. [0] https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1311481175689568256?s=20 https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1311481175689568256?s=20
        bbrree66 6y ago
        See this is what I'm talking about. Can you not see your confirmation bias? 1. Ask for proof 2. Get proof 3. Call it "lip service" This means that no matter what Trump says, you will say its disingenuous. Do you see how that can be problematic?
        GavinMcG 6y ago
- throw9872349872 6y ago
  Trump literally denounced white supremacy multiple times throughout the past 4 years. Perhaps you can point me to liberal groups who have a) denounced pedophilia and b) are reasonably science-driven?
- throwaway738h 6y ago
  Here's the president, leader of the conservative party, in his own words denouncing white supremacy, as covered a year ago by CBS https://youtu.be/DUdRS98R6B8 https://youtu.be/DUdRS98R6B8
- hcurtiss 6y ago
  The Wall Street Journal editorial page?
- lopmotr 6y ago
  Not sure about data-driven but there's a clue in your name. The Proud Boys have denounced white supremacy.
- mason240 6y ago
  Ben Schapiro has literally written books about how terrible the alt-right is, yet he that is what he is frequently called.
xadhominemx 6y ago
What are you talking about? The Daily Caller is one of Facebook’s official fact checker partners: https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-carlson/facebooks-fact-checking-operation-partnering-division-tucker-carlsons-toxic-daily https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-carlson/facebooks-fact-c... And the top performing content on Facebook is dominated by right wing media figures: https://mobile.twitter.com/FacebooksTop10 https://mobile.twitter.com/FacebooksTop10
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > The Daily Caller is one of Facebook’s official fact checker partners That doesn't tell you how much they weight it compared to the others. > And the top performing content on Facebook is dominated by right wing media figures This is misleading for the same reason as Fox News being the most popular cable news network. There is only one right-leaning cable news network, whereas CNN and MSNBC split the left-leaning viewership even though together they're larger than Fox. The same thing happens with links. Fox covers a story with their take, it gets N shares, CNN and MSNBC each cover the same story with their take and each get M/2 shares, and then Fox is at the top of the chart even if M > N.
  - xadhominemx 6y ago
    The conservative content that is popular on Facebook is not news, it’s people like Dan Bongino, Ben Shapiro, Mark Levine... and it’s not like there is a shortage of right wing media personalities. You have to remember, a huge proportion of engagement on the Facebook Blue app are boomers and folks outside of large cities.
  - tzs 6y ago
    The Facebook top 10 is dominated by a large set of right wing media figures, with it varying quite a bit which subset appears during any given period. Your splitting theory does not work.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      The number of right wing media figures is smaller than the number of left wing media figures, which means they each get a larger proportion of their base. It's the same thing.

GavinMcG 6y ago

Not intended to derail this, but could someone point to/recommend conservative groups who a) have denounced white supremacy, and b) are reasonably data- or analytically-driven?

sawjet 6y ago
Do you automatically presume any conservative group is white supremacists by default?
- mindslight 6y ago
  Given the way Trump has captured the following of the conservative community, despite being a radical populist and having few policy accomplishments besides inflaming racial tensions, yes. It's reasonable starting assumption about any group that continues to express support for Trump. I'm not a fan of identity politics, I generally try to ignore race, and I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. But at this point it's awfully hard to not conclude that Trump is a race baiting bigot. My final straw was the FUD about Kamala Harris's birth certificate. Apparently "birth certificate" really is just a simplistic dog whistle for pointing out that someone is Black. I'm a libertarian and think that both parties screw the People similarly, but after four years of this destructive ignorant bullshit enough is enough. It's time to take our country back.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    A politician (or any human being for that matter) consists of a bunch of dimensions. American society also has many dimensions , some being representative of the structure and institutions of the society, and then also all the people within the country who are affected by governance, and each individual person is also multidimensional (inside of which is lots of complexity, that drives political decisions within the overall system). The makeup of a politicians dimensions affects the manner in which they ~govern, with respect to the societal dimensions, and in turn acting upon those dimensions. Within this system we have "democracy", then within there we have "politics", which consists of this weird multidimensional, ~"interactive dance" that consists of "facts", "logic", rhetoric (perspective/narrative building (and advertising/distribution), framing, hyperbole, motivated reasoning, post-hoc rationalization, propaganda, destroying people with facts, "the news", "debates", memes(!), trolling, shitposting, etc), axioms, principles, "visions", and various other silliness. But all for a good cause, with the best of intentions in mind (to the degree that each individual is capable of that). When it comes to election time, citizens are given one vote, a binary choice of two candidates. To make this choice, each individual voter crushes down all the complex dimensionality of their personal model of the world (which they mistake for shared reality) and out comes their decision who to vote for. The purpose of all the absurdity and chicanery in the interactive dance above, is to influence the manner in which each individual crushes their dimensions. More specifically, the purpose of the dance is to influence the makeup/configuration/contents of each person's model - or, alter their perception of reality. I would say that what the arguments we individuals engage in on social media "is", is simply a part of this dance. In this case, I reckon that you are responding to your model of the world, and interacting with others within the system, hoping to influence their model (an illustration of the viral nature of ideas). More specifically, you are (in all good faith, I presume), ~"deploying a persuasive meme/perspective", something roughly along the lines of: "Donald Trump's model contains a dimension labelled 'Literally Racist', and it's value is '100%'. Furthermore, *because(!)* anyone who 'is' 'racist' 'should' 'be shunned by society, absolutely, full stop', *then therefore(!)* you must(!) vote for Joe Biden." If the individuals "political team" (the leader, and all teammates) has done a good enough job in influencing the model of the individual deploying the meme, the person will perceive their action as being righteous, composed of critical thinking, exercising logic, doing the right thing, being an adult in the room, etc. But what it really is, is just this weird dance. And there's no need to feel bad about it, because it seems to be a fairly innate, evolved behavior of human beings, so we all do it (if to varying degrees, and in different styles). I'm doing it right now (in response to you doing it). The whole big thing is just this weird dance, and what ultimately comes out the other end, is a new or reelected President (in part driving the ongoing future evolution of the overall model), and the whole thing starts anew.
    - mindslight 6y ago
      > When it comes to election time, citizens are given one vote, a binary choice of two candidates. To make this choice, each individual voter crushes down all the dimensionality of their personal model of the world (which they mistake for shared reality) and out comes their decision who to vote for. The purpose of all the absurdity and chicanery in the interactive dance above, is to influence the manner in which each individual crushes their dimensions I'm 100% in agreement on this. I've previously made the argument that one bit of input is small, thus the overall function of voting is actually to make winning voters think they wanted all their candidate's policies. I formed during the Obama years, after arguing against blue tribe friends arguing for corporo-statist health care. To be clear, this is the first time I will be voting for a major party candidate for President. > "Donald Trump's model contains a dimension labelled 'Literally Racist', and it's value is '100%'. Furthermore, because(!)* anyone who 'is' 'racist' 'should' 'be shunned by society, absolutely, full stop', then therefore(!) you must(!) vote for Joe Biden."* This does not represent my perspective at all. First, I've been slow to come around to labeling Trump a simple racist. As I said, my last straw was Harris's "birth certificate". Back in May, I was still arguing with a friend who was claiming Trump's malevolence on Covid came from his desire to see brown people die. Focusing on race begets racism. I've been trying to find non-racial explanations the whole time. Second no, I don't think racists should be outright shunned by society. People that do must not love their grandmothers. Racism is like farting. Everyone is going to develop some of it, but we should try to keep it to ourselves and spare each other the unpleasantness. It's problematic when people bring it up and make it part of their identity, either as oppressor or oppressed. And lastly no, my decision to support Biden does not come from modus ponens on policies. Rather, I've been trying to find any reason why it would make sense to support Trump, to give his supporters the benefit of the doubt. For context, I was the one explaining to blue friends back in 2016 that Trump would likely win, because he was speaking to a lot of concerns that they casually wrote off. While he's still talking about red tribe concerns, he has done little to actually address them. If he had improved the economic situation in the middle of the country, I'd get it. If he were devoutly religious, I'd get it. If he had reformed some aspect of the healthcare system towards a functioning market, I'd get it. If his trade policies could actually preserve American jobs, I'd get it. If he had actually built that wall, I'd get it. I wouldn't necessarily agree, but I would understand. What has he actually done instead? He's continued to reject expert advice regarding Covid, leading to 210,000 American deaths. Rather than trying to calm the situation after George Floyd (even if it just resulted in some token reforms), he drove the division. He's setup tariffs that could only have worked twenty years ago, and has chosen to compete with China by adopting China's app censorship totalitarianism. He has withdrawn from foreign diplomacy to let China and Russia conquer unhindered. The only charitable narrative I can come up with is that his supporters are still buying into his narrative as an opposition candidate, despite his past four years of office and his lack of results on goals they claim to care about. As they continue to be directly harmed by his actual actions, that becomes less plausible.
- dr-detroit 6y ago
  If they voted for (((Agent Orange))) yes
- GavinMcG 6y ago
  No, but I can't bring to mind any that have denounced white supremacy. Which is why I'm asking.
  - blackflame7000 6y ago
    Does this work for you? https://streamable.com/sr9o2s https://streamable.com/sr9o2s Edit: People on this forum need to stop being so cultish. Downvoting this doesn’t change the reality that it directly kills your narrative.
    - mindslight 6y ago
      Nope. Trump is an incoherent bullshit generator. He says conflicting things such that his intended audience will take away what they want to hear, but can defend himself having said the exact opposite. The only way to judge him is to look at his results.
    - GavinMcG 6y ago
      No, though it's a better reply to my comment elsewhere in the thread where I said Trump doesn't actually condemn white supremacy. The handful of examples in the video that are post-Charlottesville are a nice start, but they've clearly ended up being lip service. He says "I condemn white supremacy" and then goes back to race-baiting at his rally just days ago. [0] Also, it doesn't kill the narrative. It's entirely consistent with the narrative that Trump lies when it's convenient. [0] https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1311481175689568256?s=20 https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1311481175689568256?s=20
      - bbrree66 6y ago
        See this is what I'm talking about. Can you not see your confirmation bias? 1. Ask for proof 2. Get proof 3. Call it "lip service" This means that no matter what Trump says, you will say its disingenuous. Do you see how that can be problematic?
        GavinMcG 6y ago
throw9872349872 6y ago
Trump literally denounced white supremacy multiple times throughout the past 4 years. Perhaps you can point me to liberal groups who have a) denounced pedophilia and b) are reasonably science-driven?
throwaway738h 6y ago
Here's the president, leader of the conservative party, in his own words denouncing white supremacy, as covered a year ago by CBS https://youtu.be/DUdRS98R6B8 https://youtu.be/DUdRS98R6B8
hcurtiss 6y ago
The Wall Street Journal editorial page?
lopmotr 6y ago
Not sure about data-driven but there's a clue in your name. The Proud Boys have denounced white supremacy.
mason240 6y ago
Ben Schapiro has literally written books about how terrible the alt-right is, yet he that is what he is frequently called.

xadhominemx 6y ago

What are you talking about? The Daily Caller is one of Facebook’s official fact checker partners: https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-carlson/facebooks-fact-checking-operation-partnering-division-tucker-carlsons-toxic-daily https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-carlson/facebooks-fact-c... And the top performing content on Facebook is dominated by right wing media figures: https://mobile.twitter.com/FacebooksTop10 https://mobile.twitter.com/FacebooksTop10

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> The Daily Caller is one of Facebook’s official fact checker partners That doesn't tell you how much they weight it compared to the others. > And the top performing content on Facebook is dominated by right wing media figures This is misleading for the same reason as Fox News being the most popular cable news network. There is only one right-leaning cable news network, whereas CNN and MSNBC split the left-leaning viewership even though together they're larger than Fox. The same thing happens with links. Fox covers a story with their take, it gets N shares, CNN and MSNBC each cover the same story with their take and each get M/2 shares, and then Fox is at the top of the chart even if M > N.
- xadhominemx 6y ago
  The conservative content that is popular on Facebook is not news, it’s people like Dan Bongino, Ben Shapiro, Mark Levine... and it’s not like there is a shortage of right wing media personalities. You have to remember, a huge proportion of engagement on the Facebook Blue app are boomers and folks outside of large cities.
- tzs 6y ago
  The Facebook top 10 is dominated by a large set of right wing media figures, with it varying quite a bit which subset appears during any given period. Your splitting theory does not work.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    The number of right wing media figures is smaller than the number of left wing media figures, which means they each get a larger proportion of their base. It's the same thing.