6 ms·
It also explains why there's been an alarming trend over the last 10 years of people just getting more vehement about everything.
by throwway120385 2y ago
It also explains why there's been an alarming trend over the last 10 years of people just getting more vehement about everything.
- dymk 2y ago10? We’ve been getting steadily more polarized since at least the 80s.
- ffsm8 2y agoPossibly true, but I'm sure you'd agree that it can't really be called steadily since around 2010-2014
- kevin_thibedeau 2y agoThere is a straight line through 70s Falwell, 90s Limbaugh, tea party, to MAGA. All fueled by a self-reinforcing rage machine.
- liontwist 2y agoI don’t think you understand these groups and their motivations very well. Fear and concern for the future are much more significant than “rage”.
- harywilke 2y agoReminds me of this quote: "The system itself could not have intended this in the beginning, but in order to sustain itself it was compelled to go all the way." -They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45[0] [0] https://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.htm https://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.htm
- jiggawatts 2y agoReminds me of the Ukraine war. The original intent was clearly a very short intense “operation” and then a quick annexation. Nobody planned to grind hundreds of thousands of bodies through a war machine, but “here we are” and now everyone is “forced” to go through the motions.
- RajT88 2y agoLeft leaning folks are swept up in rage machines too. Leaf through the BoingBoing BBS sometime to get a sense for it.
- llamaimperative 2y ago[flagged]
- RajT88 2y agoI wasn't suggesting an equivalence, just that the phenomena of the rage machine exists on both sides. As an exercise, try coming up with some metric to measure it. Could be inflammatory posts, or the comment count on inflammatory posts. Compare BB BBS with some rough equivalent right-leaning place. You'll find it's worse in the right-leaning forum, no doubt. But the phenomena exists on both sides of the political spectrum. Many trends among one side of the political spectrum are mirrored to a lesser extent on the other side as well, and that's interesting don't you think?
- llamaimperative 2y agoI don’t find it that interesting because it’s obviously a consequence of our information environment. We have constructed algorithmic outrage machines and deferred thought and curation to them. It’s far more interesting to me how one side of the political spectrum was so totally swallowed by this system, to the extent that literally every single news story is received with outlandish conspiracy theorizing from rather mainstream right wing media. The null hypothesis is that actually both sides should be equally distorted, but it is very obviously the case they are not. That is what deserves inquiry.
- geodel 2y ago> but it is very obviously the case they are not. It not obvious and also doesn't seem true at all. Still one may continue to investigate with this assumption but then result will neither be truth or much useful.
- sockp0pp3t 2y ago[dead]
- nemo44x 2y agoSo basically since when cable TV came into mainstream existence.
- jazzyjackson 2y agoTurning attention away from each other and toward images of each other
- dylan604 2y agoI think you're confusing the issue. Cable TV wasn't coming into mainstream that was the problem. The issue was the 1996 Telecommunications Act that was the starting gun.
- spokaneplumb 2y ago- Huge shift in (near-total abandonment of) antitrust enforcement starting in the late 70s, driven by Chicago school assholes. Centralized economic power. - Fairness Doctrine killed in the 80s, resulting rise of partisan AM radio and, somewhat later, Fox News. - Media ownership concentration rules neutered in early ‘00s (iirc). More centralization, again in the hands of big capital. - None of those rules ever applied to the Web, so when its power as a propaganda and agitation tool skyrocketed with increased use by normal folks (rise of Facebook; usable smartphones with the iPhone) that immediately headed bad directions. Now we have LLMs, which are at their most-useful by far when you don’t care about accuracy or reputation—so, scams and propaganda getting a big boost in productivity.
- guelo 2y agoi remember when Obama took office Rush Limbaugh was worried that he would try to restore the fairness doctrine but it turned out Obama did nothing. Democrats never acted like they were in a battle while Republicans were executing on a media domination plan over decades to dismantle the propaganda safeguards put in place by post war politicians.
- NickC25 2y agoThat's because despite the right wing propaganda that will tell you Obama is a staunch far-left communist, Barack Obama is a committed centrist, and a representative of the Corporate Party. He did nothing because he had no interest in doing anything to limit corporate influence or power. They put him in power, after all.
- Applejinx 2y agoI think human nature dictates that this opens up a literal market for the opposite. People aren't served by exhausting hysteria, it's just a cheap date, a way to grab low hanging fruit. The more that's focussed on, the more an opportunity arises to cover abandoned needs and wants. The question becomes, is YouTube's algorithm good enough to itself pick up on this new market and serve it? I see no reason it couldn't. It's possible human algorithm-minders might sabotage this instinct by going 'no, this is the big win' and coaxing it towards MrBeast stuff, but surely the algorithm will eventually win out?
- parsimo2010 2y ago> is YouTube's algorithm good enough to itself pick up on this new market Something I find interesting is that there are good channels producing very high quality (non-extreme or non-intense) content for many interests on YouTube and they coexist with the hyperbolic large channels. I suppose that they make less money, but they do so without a large production crew. I think the algorithm is supporting both types of content (content for myriad mindless viewers, and content for the fewer discerning viewers) and accommodates both scales.
- cess11 2y agoBy "human nature", what exactly are you referring to? The statistically most common amount of extremities?
- n3storm 2y agoand I think "literally" abuse is a sympton of that
- iainmerrick 2y agoBut come on, that's been going on for literally centuries.
- alt227 2y agoThey changed the definition of 'literally' to fit the modern meaning. You can no longer call it abuse now as the misuse fits the new definition. See definition 2 here: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/literally https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/literal...
- dghlsakjg 2y agoLiterally false: https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/misuse-of-literally https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/misuse-of-literally Use of literally in, well, the non-literal sense dates back hundreds of years.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- alt227 2y agoI literally had no idea.
- feoren 2y agoThat definition genuinely gives me cancer. I seriously, 100% am going to die now because dictionary editors don't seem to grasp that this is simply a "tone" of ironically over-emphasized speaking similar to sarcasm, and not a new definition of one word. I'm 250% honestly in chemotherapy now because they don't get that. Veritably, indubitably, unarguably cooked now. Thanks, dictionary editors.
- 2y ago
- dialup_sounds 2y agoWe started attaching public comment boxes to everything and now everyone thinks their opinion on everything is important.