3 ms·

Less people will be inclined to fall for extremism if it wasn't pushed in their face for the sake of generating engagement.

scarface74 5y ago
When I’m referring ti “conservatives” only reading right wing media that agrees with the craziness, I’m not referring to “Romney/Bush conservatives”, I’m almost one myself. I am referring to populist/religious right conservatives. Before someone posts a “whataboutism”, I don’t know what happens on the extreme nonsensical left. I mostly read tech news, WSJ and “The Hill”. This isn’t meant to beat up on conservatives. But let’s see what’s happen in 2020. Fox News was the go to place for conservatives. Then they fairly called election results and their news articles called the accusations of the election being stolen “unfounded” and then people started leaving Fox News for News Max. RedState purged all of their never Trump journalists who clearly had their conservative bona fides because they were losing readers. Anytime that RedState does still occasionally admit the election wasn’t stolen, people threaten to cancel their subscriptions. Trump of course is the poster boy for the extremists. But when he started touting the benefits of the Covid vaccine and boosters, he is boo’d and cancelled by the extreme right and they say he is kissing up to the establishment. The Wall Street Journal has always been center right. But because it didn’t tote the “populist agenda” or the “election was stolen”, the conservatives are abandoning it too.
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  I wasn't approaching this from a political side at all. Frankly I don't have the domain knowledge to understand what you're trying to say. The issue I'm referring to is that any advertising-supported platform has an incentive to generate "engagement" and divisive, outrageous content will generate a lot more of it, regardless of whether it's misleading or even completely false. Politics-wise, the landscape would be much better if all constituents were given a fair, unbiased view of the media "market" not tailored to each individual to generate the maximum level of outrage just to further enrich some assholes. People can still decide which sources to read & trust but at least it's a conscious choice and they are free to look elsewhere, even if only to see what "the other side" reads.

scarface74 5y ago

When I’m referring ti “conservatives” only reading right wing media that agrees with the craziness, I’m not referring to “Romney/Bush conservatives”, I’m almost one myself. I am referring to populist/religious right conservatives. Before someone posts a “whataboutism”, I don’t know what happens on the extreme nonsensical left. I mostly read tech news, WSJ and “The Hill”. This isn’t meant to beat up on conservatives. But let’s see what’s happen in 2020. Fox News was the go to place for conservatives. Then they fairly called election results and their news articles called the accusations of the election being stolen “unfounded” and then people started leaving Fox News for News Max. RedState purged all of their never Trump journalists who clearly had their conservative bona fides because they were losing readers. Anytime that RedState does still occasionally admit the election wasn’t stolen, people threaten to cancel their subscriptions. Trump of course is the poster boy for the extremists. But when he started touting the benefits of the Covid vaccine and boosters, he is boo’d and cancelled by the extreme right and they say he is kissing up to the establishment. The Wall Street Journal has always been center right. But because it didn’t tote the “populist agenda” or the “election was stolen”, the conservatives are abandoning it too.

Nextgrid 5y ago
I wasn't approaching this from a political side at all. Frankly I don't have the domain knowledge to understand what you're trying to say. The issue I'm referring to is that any advertising-supported platform has an incentive to generate "engagement" and divisive, outrageous content will generate a lot more of it, regardless of whether it's misleading or even completely false. Politics-wise, the landscape would be much better if all constituents were given a fair, unbiased view of the media "market" not tailored to each individual to generate the maximum level of outrage just to further enrich some assholes. People can still decide which sources to read & trust but at least it's a conscious choice and they are free to look elsewhere, even if only to see what "the other side" reads.