Comment on A few people are ruining the internet for the rest of us
t3rmit3@beehaw.org 3 days agoMis/disinformation is not the same as “divisive political content”. Political content can be both true, and divisive (e.g. Trump being a pedophile). Something that is accepted by the majority may still be misinformation, yet not be divisive.
Truthfulness determines whether something is misinformation. How much something matches a group’s beliefs determines whether it is divisive: if everyone agreed that the world was flat, that would not be divisive to state, but it would be misinformation.
Conflating them entrenches the perception that the most widely-held, non-“divisive” viewpoint must not be misinformation.
Go check out Truth Social if you want to see what a space where only “non-divisive” (to them) but near-total misinformation looks like.
memfree@piefed.social 3 days ago
I agree that as categories, the are different things, just as 'tools' are not the same as 'weapons', but ignoring the perncious overlap borders on criminal. If you follow actual news sites and reporters but omit the likes of Musk, you will still see Musk quoted, but it is more likely to be properly discredited where needed. At no point does the article suggest you avoid all partisan content, it simply says the most divisive is likely to hurt us all. You know the platforms profit from engagement, so they'll promote the worst offenders' content upward, but we don't have to take that bait.
The accounts with the MOST divisive political content are unlikely to be your best source of information. You might hate Rachel Maddow or Charlie Kirk, but you''ll be better off getting news from a generic MSNBC or FOX feed than either personality. Better still, pick BBC, Reuters, and AlJazeera to see a variety of views.
A reverse example of context: Project 2025 never explicitly says anything about IVF, but it repeatedly talks about human life "from conception to natural death", which would mean IVF would be problematic. If you try quoting just the last sentence in this chunk, 'day one' might be interpreted as birth, but in context, 'day one' is obviously conception:
P.S. Do we agree that Bernie Sanders is NOT divisive? That the majority of actual people agree with most of what Bernie says, and it is only a few rich interests that object?
t3rmit3@beehaw.org 3 days ago
I think we probably agree that Bernie Sanders is correct, and that most people want for themselves what he says we should all have, but I don’t think he would necessarily be considered “non-divisive” by these standards if his social media account were more prolific.
I think perhaps where you and I may disagree, is that I don’t think political animosity is intrinsically bad, only misplaced political animosity. We should have animosity towards people intentionally causing harm.
I also don’t think it’s a coincidence that we’re seeing yet another source telling people that now is the time to defuse and become less polarized to politics, right when Trump is in the process of deporting thousands of people and setting up concentration camps.
Yes, the real war is the class war, but even if the foot soldiers of the oligarchy shouldn’t be working class people, they are. It’s not billionaires out there in ICE uniforms, or getting deputized or joining bounty hunter groups to arrest brown people, or reporting brown people to ICE. That’s also where the “for themselves” bit that I emphasized comes in, because the truth is that there are a LOT of working class people who are opposed to helping others (especially along racial or religious lines), and helping others is the core of solidarity. Not all problems can be solved with class consciousness.
memfree@piefed.social 3 days ago
I, too, know the trend of criminal U.S. administrations to tell the other side to tone it down and just go with the President. The current administration makes me more outraged than post-9/11 when we knew the hijackers were Saudis, we knew bin Laden was around Afghanistan/Pakistan, and we had a team of Nuclear inspectors WITHIN Iraq saying they'd found no evidence of such weapons, yet a few days before their official report was finished, Bush declares war on Iraq? With no exit strategy? When Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?
Rather than suggesting we all calm down, or that true patriots back the President, I'm simply seeing the article's point in asking people to stop following the top, say, 2% most divisive voices. It is a sad truth that the worst liars will get their followers to disbelieve Dr. Fauci such that he becomes divisive through no fault of his own, but he won't hit the critical 'worst' list because he's not spouting vitriol of his own.
As far as Bernie goes, there were a good number of Bernie backers at Trump rallies, so I honestly doubt that anyone but moneyed think tanks have much bad to say about him.
t3rmit3@beehaw.org 2 days ago
I would perhaps believe this if the article (or the study) actually listed those accounts. As it is, all they’re doing is leaving it up to readers’ perceptions who the “divisive” accounts are, and insinuating that those are likely misinformation. It’s just pushing people towards the political center.
In 2016, 12% of people who voted Sanders in the primary voted for Trump in the general. By the 2020 election, that demo was gone. In 2016 Trump was a rebellion vote against the rigged democratic primary, but after Trump’s first term, they’d all seen what a monster he was, and begrudgingly voted Biden.
I don’t think you’ve spoken with many Trumpers if you think they don’t have bad things to say about Sanders. I discussed him extensively with conservatives in my sphere. The conversation usually goes something along the lines of, “yeah, it’s great he’s pro-union and wants to fix healthcare, but he’s also pro illegal immigration and wants to raise taxes through the roof! You know he’s a socialist, right?” The better-informed/ indoctrinated ones will even bring up him (correctly) lauding the literacy gains in Cuba under Castro.