11 ms·

Why is that amusing? It makes sense that the "more free" platforms tend to attract people from the right because highly moderated platforms tend to censor righ

Why is that amusing? It makes sense that the "more free" platforms tend to attract people from the right because highly moderated platforms tend to censor right wing discussion more than left wing discussion. More extreme people are kicked off each platform successively until they end up places like 4chan. The opposite would be true if the mainstream advocated right wing politics, forcing left wing people onto the fringes. Similar to what happened pre-internet with the 60s counterculture, left wing ideas were found in the underground, whilst mainstream media pushed right wing ideas.

philjohn 4y ago
Got some examples of right wing discussions that have been moderated?
- casefields 4y ago
  Lab leak. Got you banned all over the place to discuss until it turned out to be legit. Oops.
  - philjohn 4y ago
    Discussing, or claiming that it was definitely a lab leak? Because the former should be fine, and encouraged, the latter, until it's proved either way, is disinformation.
dd36 4y ago
I know my left wing friends would claim the media still is right wing and truly left wing ideas are disallowed. It may be that the left wing was censored and vilified for so long that it ceased existing in the US.
- brutusborn 4y ago
  What kind of ideas? I guess if you go far enough left then everything is to your right.
  - dd36 4y ago
    Communism, socialism, ending capitalism, etc. Just look at European politics.
    - luckylion 4y ago
      Where on e.g. Twitter or Reddit would that be disallowed? Isn't r/antiwork/ hitting the front page regularly?
      - dd36 4y ago
        You named the only two relatively free, large, unmoderated public forums with transparent-able feeds. Well Reddit’s feed is transparent: Lower bound of Wilson score. On Twitter, I only filter for latest, but you cannot do that on Facebook.
        luckylion 4y ago
        Feeds suck, sure, but there's really no censorship for anything about communism etc short of calling for violence against wealthy people. Facebook is less "free" in that regard since they won't allow "all men are trash", which Twitter would only go after if you qualify it with a race that is considered 'protected', and Reddit would probably ignore completely (but "local" mods might not, which makes Reddit take a special role there).
      - dementiapatent 4y ago
        I would like to point out that employers are/were permitted to discriminate against these people under federal law: The Equal Rights Act of 1964: https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964 https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-196... > As used in this subchapter, the phrase "unlawful employment practice" shall not be deemed to include any action or measure taken by an employer, labor organization, joint labor management committee, or employment agency with respect to an individual who is a member of the Communist Party of the United States or of any other organization required to register as a Communist-action or Communist-front organization by final order of the Subversive Activities Control Board pursuant to the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 [50 U.S.C. 781 et seq.].
- tsol 4y ago
  The news media maybe. But watching tv, surfing the web, etc the majority generally sides with the liberal status quo of our times. It's rare to see genuine positive religious sentiment in media compared to real life, and it's very obvious to me
  - dd36 4y ago
    But isn’t that an indication that truly free peoples are less religious as opposed to a conspiracy? My whole life there have been religious cable news shows. If they were extremely popular, they’d air on prime time or their content would be shared more on social media. It’s not being blocked.
    - tsol 4y ago
      I'm an Indian muslim, and I know many asian and middle eastern muslims. I also know a smattering of Sikhs, Hindus, jews, etc. I can't say that the religious attitudes of any of these groups seemed to be represented on tv. No one is saying it's a conspiracy. But it's not a conspiracy either that when you start interacting with many minority groups you notice in general they are fairly religious. And it's their experience that get's ignored in the American national 'christian right vs secular left' rivalry.
    - adamrezich 4y ago
      believing that what you see on TV reflects reality 1:1 is exactly why it's so dangerous—it's a wholly artificial, professionally-curated window into reality, nothing more, nothing less. I'm a bit shocked to see people still buying into the idea that it's an accurate reflection of reality, as you are, still, in the current year. what makes you think that the content that appears on television is any sort of democratic free marketplace of ideas? why would that be the case, given its obviously corporate structure? like sure, you have "FOX News" presenting one Approved Viewpoint, and everyone else representing The Other Approved Viewpoint... but where are all the Unapproved Viewpoints on television? obviously, they're not there, for wholly obvious reasons.
      - dd36 4y ago
- greenhearth 4y ago
  The biggest companies in the U.S. are not really right wing, but neo-liberal. There are some right wing ones too and they are completely bonkers.
_chu1 4y ago
In my opinion if Antifa can be let on a platform so can neonazis
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
saila 4y ago
I've seen people on both the "left" and "right" claim that Twitter more heavily moderates "their side." Is there any way to know if either "side" is correct? I doubt Twitter classifies moderated content into political buckets as this would create massive liability, but has any neutral third party studied what kind of content is removed and classified it into "left" vs "right"? I'd like to see the system that could accurately perform such classification at scale, if such a thing is even possible, since no one seems to know exactly what "left" and "right" mean. For example, "liberal" and "left" are often conflated even though hardcore leftists tend to have a healthy disdain for liberals (in the modern, colloquial sense).
- tstrimple 4y ago
  Actual studies all indicate conservative voices are amplified on social media including Twitter. https://www.siliconrepublic.com/machines/twitter-algorithm-amplification-right-left-wing-study https://www.siliconrepublic.com/machines/twitter-algorithm-a...
npteljes 4y ago
>whilst mainstream media pushed right wing ideas. I think mainstream now pushes both, which, a bit, depends on what you'd call "mainstream". If "mainstream" is "media watched by millions that thematizes the public discourse", then Fox News and Netflix are both mainstream, and their range of ideas being pushed span wide. I don't see that the mainstream prefers either side, on a worldwide stage. "More extreme people are kicked off each platform successively until they end up places like 4chan." I think extreme expressions are moderated chiefly because it turns a place toxic, and because the owner wouldn't like to be legally liable for things like hate speech or doxxing.

philjohn 4y ago

Got some examples of right wing discussions that have been moderated?

casefields 4y ago
Lab leak. Got you banned all over the place to discuss until it turned out to be legit. Oops.
- philjohn 4y ago
  Discussing, or claiming that it was definitely a lab leak? Because the former should be fine, and encouraged, the latter, until it's proved either way, is disinformation.

dd36 4y ago

I know my left wing friends would claim the media still is right wing and truly left wing ideas are disallowed. It may be that the left wing was censored and vilified for so long that it ceased existing in the US.

brutusborn 4y ago
What kind of ideas? I guess if you go far enough left then everything is to your right.
- dd36 4y ago
  Communism, socialism, ending capitalism, etc. Just look at European politics.
  - luckylion 4y ago
    Where on e.g. Twitter or Reddit would that be disallowed? Isn't r/antiwork/ hitting the front page regularly?
    - dd36 4y ago
      You named the only two relatively free, large, unmoderated public forums with transparent-able feeds. Well Reddit’s feed is transparent: Lower bound of Wilson score. On Twitter, I only filter for latest, but you cannot do that on Facebook.
      - luckylion 4y ago
        Feeds suck, sure, but there's really no censorship for anything about communism etc short of calling for violence against wealthy people. Facebook is less "free" in that regard since they won't allow "all men are trash", which Twitter would only go after if you qualify it with a race that is considered 'protected', and Reddit would probably ignore completely (but "local" mods might not, which makes Reddit take a special role there).
    - dementiapatent 4y ago
      I would like to point out that employers are/were permitted to discriminate against these people under federal law: The Equal Rights Act of 1964: https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964 https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-196... > As used in this subchapter, the phrase "unlawful employment practice" shall not be deemed to include any action or measure taken by an employer, labor organization, joint labor management committee, or employment agency with respect to an individual who is a member of the Communist Party of the United States or of any other organization required to register as a Communist-action or Communist-front organization by final order of the Subversive Activities Control Board pursuant to the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 [50 U.S.C. 781 et seq.].
tsol 4y ago
The news media maybe. But watching tv, surfing the web, etc the majority generally sides with the liberal status quo of our times. It's rare to see genuine positive religious sentiment in media compared to real life, and it's very obvious to me
- dd36 4y ago
  But isn’t that an indication that truly free peoples are less religious as opposed to a conspiracy? My whole life there have been religious cable news shows. If they were extremely popular, they’d air on prime time or their content would be shared more on social media. It’s not being blocked.
  - tsol 4y ago
    I'm an Indian muslim, and I know many asian and middle eastern muslims. I also know a smattering of Sikhs, Hindus, jews, etc. I can't say that the religious attitudes of any of these groups seemed to be represented on tv. No one is saying it's a conspiracy. But it's not a conspiracy either that when you start interacting with many minority groups you notice in general they are fairly religious. And it's their experience that get's ignored in the American national 'christian right vs secular left' rivalry.
  - adamrezich 4y ago
    believing that what you see on TV reflects reality 1:1 is exactly why it's so dangerous—it's a wholly artificial, professionally-curated window into reality, nothing more, nothing less. I'm a bit shocked to see people still buying into the idea that it's an accurate reflection of reality, as you are, still, in the current year. what makes you think that the content that appears on television is any sort of democratic free marketplace of ideas? why would that be the case, given its obviously corporate structure? like sure, you have "FOX News" presenting one Approved Viewpoint, and everyone else representing The Other Approved Viewpoint... but where are all the Unapproved Viewpoints on television? obviously, they're not there, for wholly obvious reasons.
    - dd36 4y ago
greenhearth 4y ago
The biggest companies in the U.S. are not really right wing, but neo-liberal. There are some right wing ones too and they are completely bonkers.

_chu1 4y ago

In my opinion if Antifa can be let on a platform so can neonazis

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

saila 4y ago

I've seen people on both the "left" and "right" claim that Twitter more heavily moderates "their side." Is there any way to know if either "side" is correct? I doubt Twitter classifies moderated content into political buckets as this would create massive liability, but has any neutral third party studied what kind of content is removed and classified it into "left" vs "right"? I'd like to see the system that could accurately perform such classification at scale, if such a thing is even possible, since no one seems to know exactly what "left" and "right" mean. For example, "liberal" and "left" are often conflated even though hardcore leftists tend to have a healthy disdain for liberals (in the modern, colloquial sense).

tstrimple 4y ago
Actual studies all indicate conservative voices are amplified on social media including Twitter. https://www.siliconrepublic.com/machines/twitter-algorithm-amplification-right-left-wing-study https://www.siliconrepublic.com/machines/twitter-algorithm-a...

npteljes 4y ago

>whilst mainstream media pushed right wing ideas. I think mainstream now pushes both, which, a bit, depends on what you'd call "mainstream". If "mainstream" is "media watched by millions that thematizes the public discourse", then Fox News and Netflix are both mainstream, and their range of ideas being pushed span wide. I don't see that the mainstream prefers either side, on a worldwide stage. "More extreme people are kicked off each platform successively until they end up places like 4chan." I think extreme expressions are moderated chiefly because it turns a place toxic, and because the owner wouldn't like to be legally liable for things like hate speech or doxxing.