4 ms·

The free flow of information isn't driving extremism, it's echo chambers. People have a tendency of surrounding themselves with only those who already agree wit

The free flow of information isn't driving extremism, it's echo chambers. People have a tendency of surrounding themselves with only those who already agree with them on some topic, so that a heavily partisan position suddenly becomes 'moderate.' This is how you have people simultaneously claiming, for instance, that the US is becoming more liberal than ever, and that it's becoming more conservative than ever. You can also see this with the perception gap [1]. Those who are most involved in politics tend to be the paradoxically least knowledgeable about what 'the other side' thinks and believes. Typical contemporary examples would be republicans thinking democrats want to defund the police, or democrats thinking republicans are against immigration. When you have contrary ideas bouncing against each other, poor ideas are easily demonstrated to be such - and you get a more realistic view of what people 'on the other side' actually think and believe. It naturally tempers against radicalism. But when you start to control information, you get the opposite. This is made even worse by the sort of people that find themselves on a life trajectory to go work, let alone volunteer, for the 'Ministry of Truth'. They tend to be the exact sorts that want to create information bubbles and echo chambers. ---- In general I think the truth tends to trickle up, even if it might get a bit dirty on the way there. I'd appeal to places like the USSR on that. They not only directly controlled absolutely all published information, but strictly controlled migration in and out of the country, informers everywhere making people terrified of speaking their mind, and just generally had a rock solid grip on information. The result? People still knew they were all full of shit. There's a great series of jokes from the era here. [2] On of my favorites, "Why do we need two central newspapers, Truth (Pravda) and News (Izvestiya) if both are organs of the same Party? Because in Truth there is no news, and in News there is no truth." [1] - https://perceptiongap.us/ https://perceptiongap.us/ [2] - https://johndclare.net/Russ12_Jokes.htm https://johndclare.net/Russ12_Jokes.htm

Ray20 1y ago
> The result? People still knew they were all full of shit. It's just that the purpose of all this totalitarian control wasn't so that people wouldn't know. It was so that people couldn't do anything about it even if they knew. The result was achieved, the measures you listed as examples worked effectively.
- somenameforme 1y ago
  Was it? The USSR didn't even make it to its 70th birthday. The leaders of the next generation are brought up in the current. Gorbachev essentially destroyed the USSR, but that's probably in large part because his formative years where under Stalin. His first major foray into politics was as as a rather enthusiastic advocate of the de-Stalinization that happened after Stalin's death. So the leader of a system was somebody who lived under, suffered under, and likely loathed, even if secretly, that system. This is one of the many examples of the consequences of actions stretching out much further than many realize. A famous quote from Stalin is that, "I know that after my death a pile of rubbish will be heaped on my grave, but the wind of History will sooner or later sweep it away without mercy." His Machiavellian vision likely had him seeing himself as the savior of the USSR, when in reality his actions are almost certainly a key reason that it no longer exists today.
  - Ray20 1y ago
    > The USSR didn't even make it to its 70th birthday. Not because the will or the struggle of the people. Gorbachev began to abolish the aforementioned totalitarian measures, creating the opportunity for a party coup. If totalitarian control had not been weakened, nothing would have prevented the Soviet Union from existing to this day. > Gorbachev essentially destroyed the USSR No, he didn't do that. He loosened the totalitarian control, and that was it. Then other opportunistic leaders of the Communist Party took advantage of the situation and seized power, dividing up the resources of the huge country among themselves. And because the old regime was full of shit and everyone knew it, no one stood up for it. > his actions are almost certainly a key reason that it no longer exists today. Rather, his actions were the reason why the Soviet regime lasted so long. I mean, the unviability of the socialist project was a proven fact in 1918, long before the USSR was even called that. And everything that happened after that was simply an attempt to cling to power by totalitarian and terrorist methods, first by Lenin, then by Stalin.
wat10000 1y ago
“ democrats thinking republicans are against immigration.” Um, I don’t know if you’ve just returned from a long journey in the wilderness or something, but Republicans are definitely against immigration.
- somenameforme 1y ago
  When asked "On the whole, do you think immigration is a good thing or a bad thing for this country today?", 64% of Republicans state it is a good thing. [1] And note that that question has dubious phrasing since it simply says immigration. Change that to legal immigration and the number will probably be more in the 90% range. Notably this (64%) is higher than even the Democrat level up until about 2012, after the Occupy Wallstreet movement. [1] - https://news.gallup.com/poll/692522/surge-concern-immigration-abated.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/692522/surge-concern-immigratio...
  - wat10000 1y ago
    There’s a concept in economics called “revealed preferences.” The idea is that you might not say what you really want, or even know it, but your behavior reveals it. For example, somebody might say that they hate tiny airline seats and they’d gladly pay substantially extra for more legroom. But then they’ll be presented with a choice of an airline ticket with more legroom, or the exact same ticket but with less legroom for $3 less, and they’ll choose the latter. Their revealed preference is that they don’t actually value legroom very much, despite what they say. Likewise, if someone says that they support immigration, but you vote for and continue to support someone who opposes immigration to the point of carrying out heinous human rights abuses against legal immigrants, well, actions speak louder than words. I’m pretty sure this is the “virtue signaling” that people are always going on about. Supporting immigration is seen as a good thing, so people say they do. But when it comes down to actual concrete policy, they don’t. This used to be covered by the fig leaf of “we support legal immigration” but that’s gone now.
    - somenameforme 1y ago
      With due respect, think about what you're doing. You're now simply discarding any poll that doesn't conform to your own personal biases, and replacing those data with some rather extreme partisan talking points. This is the point about stepping out of bubbles. The people you see as 'the other side' do not think in any way, shape, or fashion like you believe that they might. For instance if you went up to an average Republican and said 'So what do you think about the human rights abuses being carried out against legal immigrants?' The overwhelming majority would have literally no clue what you're talking about. If you explained this incident or that, their response is going to be 'Well that's dumb. I hope they're doing something so this doesn't happen again.' It's like if you went up to the average Democrat and asked them what they think about having explicit LGB books made available to minors in schools? Again the overwhelming majority would have literally no clue what you're talking about. If you explained this incident or that, their response is going to be 'Well that's dumb. I hope they're doing something so this doesn't happen again.' The 'other side' these bubbles build up simply doesn't exist in reality.
MangoToupe 1y ago
I don't suppose I really disagree with any of this, but I do want to highlight that there are really more than two sides on basically all issues. Traditional media did a terrible job of portraying this, typically lazily assuming that the parties form the opposite ends of the political spectrum and that people discontented with both parties naturally fall between them. This is the dynamic that implies one or two "wedge" issues dominate politics, and most things people likely want to discuss/improve/address aren't even on the table. Social media may stoke radicalism, but the underlying discontent was there before—politicians could just act like it was ridiculous. And yes, there are people—like you—who continue to act like there is "the other side" when the way people characterize themselves outside of partisan affiliation is much more nuanced and complex. Eg there are many, many Americans who are anti-war, but there is simply no anti-war vote on most ballots, nor certainly any anti-war party. In other words, manufacturing consent got us into this mess, social media just makes us anxiously aware of how bad mainstream media was at capturing the political sentiments of the people who live here. That includes, yes, radicals (violent bigots & ideologues), but this also includes realizing that many or most people have no idea what the party whose candidates they vote for actually stand for. I've put a lot of effort in surrounding myself with people very unlike myself in the last year for reasons, in-person, around real-life activities and scenarios, where politics is simply not relevant outside of stimulating conversation. What I've put together is that basically nobody in this country is both well-educated about politics and satisfied with either party. We've somehow created a two-legged monster that doesn't want to do, you know, the actual substantial end of democracy. Now, I discovered this in the real world, but social media has made it much easier to see if you relentlessly block all "both sides"/"other side" partisans and look directly to values, struggles, desires, etc. But, this does take discipline, and if you're trying to tune out, you're a prime candidate to be taken directly into outragetainment.
- account42 1y ago
  > This is the dynamic that implies one or two "wedge" issues dominate politics No, that's the natural result of a representative democracy. You only get one vote so all nuance has to be boiled down to a single choice.
  - 1y ago

Ray20 1y ago

> The result? People still knew they were all full of shit. It's just that the purpose of all this totalitarian control wasn't so that people wouldn't know. It was so that people couldn't do anything about it even if they knew. The result was achieved, the measures you listed as examples worked effectively.

somenameforme 1y ago
Was it? The USSR didn't even make it to its 70th birthday. The leaders of the next generation are brought up in the current. Gorbachev essentially destroyed the USSR, but that's probably in large part because his formative years where under Stalin. His first major foray into politics was as as a rather enthusiastic advocate of the de-Stalinization that happened after Stalin's death. So the leader of a system was somebody who lived under, suffered under, and likely loathed, even if secretly, that system. This is one of the many examples of the consequences of actions stretching out much further than many realize. A famous quote from Stalin is that, "I know that after my death a pile of rubbish will be heaped on my grave, but the wind of History will sooner or later sweep it away without mercy." His Machiavellian vision likely had him seeing himself as the savior of the USSR, when in reality his actions are almost certainly a key reason that it no longer exists today.
- Ray20 1y ago
  > The USSR didn't even make it to its 70th birthday. Not because the will or the struggle of the people. Gorbachev began to abolish the aforementioned totalitarian measures, creating the opportunity for a party coup. If totalitarian control had not been weakened, nothing would have prevented the Soviet Union from existing to this day. > Gorbachev essentially destroyed the USSR No, he didn't do that. He loosened the totalitarian control, and that was it. Then other opportunistic leaders of the Communist Party took advantage of the situation and seized power, dividing up the resources of the huge country among themselves. And because the old regime was full of shit and everyone knew it, no one stood up for it. > his actions are almost certainly a key reason that it no longer exists today. Rather, his actions were the reason why the Soviet regime lasted so long. I mean, the unviability of the socialist project was a proven fact in 1918, long before the USSR was even called that. And everything that happened after that was simply an attempt to cling to power by totalitarian and terrorist methods, first by Lenin, then by Stalin.

wat10000 1y ago

“ democrats thinking republicans are against immigration.” Um, I don’t know if you’ve just returned from a long journey in the wilderness or something, but Republicans are definitely against immigration.

somenameforme 1y ago
When asked "On the whole, do you think immigration is a good thing or a bad thing for this country today?", 64% of Republicans state it is a good thing. [1] And note that that question has dubious phrasing since it simply says immigration. Change that to legal immigration and the number will probably be more in the 90% range. Notably this (64%) is higher than even the Democrat level up until about 2012, after the Occupy Wallstreet movement. [1] - https://news.gallup.com/poll/692522/surge-concern-immigration-abated.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/692522/surge-concern-immigratio...
- wat10000 1y ago
  There’s a concept in economics called “revealed preferences.” The idea is that you might not say what you really want, or even know it, but your behavior reveals it. For example, somebody might say that they hate tiny airline seats and they’d gladly pay substantially extra for more legroom. But then they’ll be presented with a choice of an airline ticket with more legroom, or the exact same ticket but with less legroom for $3 less, and they’ll choose the latter. Their revealed preference is that they don’t actually value legroom very much, despite what they say. Likewise, if someone says that they support immigration, but you vote for and continue to support someone who opposes immigration to the point of carrying out heinous human rights abuses against legal immigrants, well, actions speak louder than words. I’m pretty sure this is the “virtue signaling” that people are always going on about. Supporting immigration is seen as a good thing, so people say they do. But when it comes down to actual concrete policy, they don’t. This used to be covered by the fig leaf of “we support legal immigration” but that’s gone now.
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    With due respect, think about what you're doing. You're now simply discarding any poll that doesn't conform to your own personal biases, and replacing those data with some rather extreme partisan talking points. This is the point about stepping out of bubbles. The people you see as 'the other side' do not think in any way, shape, or fashion like you believe that they might. For instance if you went up to an average Republican and said 'So what do you think about the human rights abuses being carried out against legal immigrants?' The overwhelming majority would have literally no clue what you're talking about. If you explained this incident or that, their response is going to be 'Well that's dumb. I hope they're doing something so this doesn't happen again.' It's like if you went up to the average Democrat and asked them what they think about having explicit LGB books made available to minors in schools? Again the overwhelming majority would have literally no clue what you're talking about. If you explained this incident or that, their response is going to be 'Well that's dumb. I hope they're doing something so this doesn't happen again.' The 'other side' these bubbles build up simply doesn't exist in reality.

MangoToupe 1y ago

I don't suppose I really disagree with any of this, but I do want to highlight that there are really more than two sides on basically all issues. Traditional media did a terrible job of portraying this, typically lazily assuming that the parties form the opposite ends of the political spectrum and that people discontented with both parties naturally fall between them. This is the dynamic that implies one or two "wedge" issues dominate politics, and most things people likely want to discuss/improve/address aren't even on the table. Social media may stoke radicalism, but the underlying discontent was there before—politicians could just act like it was ridiculous. And yes, there are people—like you—who continue to act like there is "the other side" when the way people characterize themselves outside of partisan affiliation is much more nuanced and complex. Eg there are many, many Americans who are anti-war, but there is simply no anti-war vote on most ballots, nor certainly any anti-war party. In other words, manufacturing consent got us into this mess, social media just makes us anxiously aware of how bad mainstream media was at capturing the political sentiments of the people who live here. That includes, yes, radicals (violent bigots & ideologues), but this also includes realizing that many or most people have no idea what the party whose candidates they vote for actually stand for. I've put a lot of effort in surrounding myself with people very unlike myself in the last year for reasons, in-person, around real-life activities and scenarios, where politics is simply not relevant outside of stimulating conversation. What I've put together is that basically nobody in this country is both well-educated about politics and satisfied with either party. We've somehow created a two-legged monster that doesn't want to do, you know, the actual substantial end of democracy. Now, I discovered this in the real world, but social media has made it much easier to see if you relentlessly block all "both sides"/"other side" partisans and look directly to values, struggles, desires, etc. But, this does take discipline, and if you're trying to tune out, you're a prime candidate to be taken directly into outragetainment.

account42 1y ago
> This is the dynamic that implies one or two "wedge" issues dominate politics No, that's the natural result of a representative democracy. You only get one vote so all nuance has to be boiled down to a single choice.
- 1y ago