I know! It’s like some people go on the internet actively looking for things to take as outrages and will focus in on any little iota of a notion they perceive they can declare as unacceptable.

Of course it’s not just the left. Look at how quickly Trumpers turn their heroes into goats if they sense anything less that full-throated support of the Trump agenda.

Some of those have on the left have even turned on AOC.

I mean, I get a need for purity. Otherwise you get a place full of Sinemas, but AOC is the best ally and champion the left has right now (Jayapal a close 2nd)

I keep my pragmatic side/political side away from these folks. We know we agree on things generally, but I don’t get into specifics because that’s a hornet’s nest.

There are assholes everywhere. In every group and faction. I mean, Nixon was a Quaker.

That’s not what the study says, in multiple ways, as that thread explains. In particular Sunder I’m sure would object to you characterising the tories as far right!

Sunder’s discussion is actually really good (as always). I’d encourage people to read the thread.

A really simple explanation would be that the algorithmic amplification is based at least partly on news coverage, whereas the chonrological feed is based on preferences of twitter users. If twitter skews left (both in terms of activity and userbase) then you’d expect this result.

It’s interesting that in the US, where the right is extremely active on socmedia, the effect is much smaller.

I don’t know how you would even start to measure this.

One of the biggest scumbags in the NC State Legislature is a Quaker who uses his church as nothing more than a campaign finance scam. I went to high school with his daughter (who at least back then was decent, unlike many in that bigoted hive of scum and villainy I grew up in)

The Software Freedom Conservancy issues an optimistic prediction of how long Trump’s new social media site will last.

The world rebrightens a slight amount.

Edit: Posted it to Facebook and it took 4 minutes to appear. Tried it again. Same thing.
Doesn’t mean anything, but posting to Facebook is normally instantaneous.
So Facebook either now checks links before posting them, or this is a special case. I lean towards the former, but it’s also Facebook, so the latter is just as likely.

Edit2: Used another NBC article, also took several minutes. So it must a be an outside article thing.

So 60 minutes was trending. I click on it.

I see some 60 minutes stuff. But mostly I see this:

Her entire account is like a thousand of these.
There are hundreds of accounts like this in the “60 Minutes trending” all doing the same thing.

Their bots can come after me for talking about Monster Hunter but it’s too much work to look for these I guess.

The expected drop of Facebook internal papers is out now.

No one wants to be on a social media app with their parents.

Yeah, I recently thanked my students for not using facebook. Of course, they just reminded me they all use instagram. But I feel like that’s not as bad for whatever reason.

Facebook promotes hate groups, conspiracies, and scams. Instagram promotes unhealthy body image issues. I’ll take Insta’s brand of toxicity any day.

The next step is for Instagram to start pushing unrealistically sexy fascists.

Not to mention that TV and movies have been doing that for decades already, anyway.

It’s worth mentioning that you only see that if you want to. I’m following 60 people on there atm (artists & friends) and get none of that.

Can’t say the same about facebook’s crap.

I assume that Instagram is no less dastardly, but the extent of their collected data must be less, given that the platform has fewer ways to connect people and fewer types of interactions to track. I’m not really basing that on anything other than a gut feeling, though.