this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2025
448 points (100.0% liked)
politics
22568 readers
3646 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Democrats could have a pretty powerful anti-establishment and anti-billionaire narrative in the near future, and it would probably be pretty successful.
But only if the Democrat billionaires and establishment get out of the way.
They published a Tax the Rich plan which removed the cap for social security so the rich paid their share, targeted unrelized gains on the top while lowering taxes for people who make less than 100k, and never raising taxes below 400k.
It doesn't fucking matter what their platform is if we're not actively promoting them because they aren't pure enough they will still lose.
It doesn't matter cause there is no press in America. Just play things for billionaires.
I don't like anti-journalist blanket statements, it sounds like the shit you hear on Fox News and Maga Subreddits.
How would this narrative get out there?
Yeah the problem is that these narratives even though they are powerful — are often silenced by tech companies.
Or we could stop hoping the Democrats take the lead and force them to follow the people. However, that would likely get ugly.
It also depends on the non-fascist elements of society putting aside their differences and working together, which has historically been a requirement and a stumbling block any time the populace wants to get out from under the oppression of the 1%.
You’re saying that as if the GOP Base cares about billionaires & the establishment?
No shit.
Using a controlled experiment involving hundreds of simulated user accounts, the study found that Republican-leaning accounts received significantly more ideologically aligned content than Democratic-leaning accounts, while Democratic-leaning accounts were more frequently exposed to opposing viewpoints.
Does this mean the algorithm was designed to push a republican agenda? Or does the algorithm know that liberals are more likely to watch videos from the opposing side than conservatives?
I don’t doubt that billion dollar social media companies wanted Trump to win and put their fingers on the scale in whatever way they could. But I wonder how you can prove the algorithm is pushing an ideology at the expense of its users as opposed to the algorithm is just pushing the ideology that gets the most views from its users.
Does this mean the algorithm was designed to push a republican agenda? Or does the algorithm know that liberals are more likely to watch videos from the opposing side than conservatives?
Both of these things can be true.
A friend of mine likes to say, a systems goal is what it does in practice, not its design intent.
Sure, kinda like saying, if it looks like shit and it smells like shit, it’s probably shit. Apt metaphor.
I guess I’m just wondering about the intent. Like, is it possible to prove that an algorithm was designed to have a bias vs the bias is a natural result of what people spend their time watching. I am sure it’s the former, but how does one prove that without leaks from the inside.
The intent on e.g. YouTube is to optimise views. Radicalisation is an emergent outcome, as a result of more combatitive, controversial, and flashy content being more captivating in the medium term. This is documented to some extent in Johann Hari's book Stolen Focus, where he interviews a couple of insiders.
So no, the stated intent is not the bias (at least initially). The bias is an pathological outcome of optimising for ads.
But looking at some of Meta's intentional actions more recently, it seems like maybe it can become an intentional outcome after the fact?
I think it's a matter of How Many Coincidences Does It Take
If we're assigning good faith to the TikTok algorithm.
Which - reading that out loud just sounds absurd.
TikTok being owned by the CCP and used for their political interests means they absolutely would do everything in their power to weaken the USA and NATO.
I mean, there's also that the Democrats ran a campaign to ban Tiktok.
A yes Trumps ban. So Biden gets the credit band plans crash when Trump is president and Biden gets the credit.
...I miss r/aneurysmposting.
Biden promised not to enforce the ban, the ban was bipartisan, you're being lied to.
It was not only bipartisan, it was, in fact, Trump's idea initially.
And yet, the Democrats did run the campaign, and Biden was the one to actually sign the ban.
And waited until last second to say he wouldn't enforce it
Gosh, so shocking.
Seen that more after the election honestly
My TT algorithm was about as far from right wing as it could get
If your TT didn't promote Kamala then it was promoting the Right Wing.
It was promoting Kamala. Was also promoting communism and hatred of Jill Stein. Pre-ban TikTok seemed to show you whatever you were interested in.
Lets ban tiktok! They promote socialist propaganda.
Huh? That didnt work...
Lets ban tiktok! They promote republican propaganda.
Now that should do it.
You just need to keep screaming "China! China! China! They hacked our elections! We have to stop China!" and either you'll get something banned eventually.
Let's just ban corporate-controlled social media.
How about just media.
Personally I'd like some way to be able to access information from people who know more about various things that I do. If it's delivered to me and doesn't require me going and visiting them each individually, that would be a nice bonus.
If by "Socialist" you mean the Chinese government then both are true. The CCP backed the Trump campaign from start to finish. Weakening the USA and NATO is a dream come true to them.
Even the Tankie communities here on Lemmy were praising Trump and trashing Biden and the DNC.
Democrats: "We're going to obliterate your company and hand the scraps to our friends in Silicon Valley."
Republicans: "Maybe we can cut you a deal if we win, so they won't do that."
Can't believe TikTok has developed a conservative bias. Stunning.
Banning TikTok was widely supported and Bipartisan. It is run by the Chinese State and sends massive amounts of USA citizen data directly to China including contacts, audio recordings, message history, and photo library.
Biden promised not to enforce the TikTok ban just the same as Trump did.
Probably not by millions of mostly young people who use it.. The Dems pushing that through in an election year probably didn't help their chances..
It was good policy, pushed through by both parties, but wasnt implemented fast enough to be effective.
They created 323 “sock puppet” accounts—fake accounts programmed to simulate user behavior—across three politically diverse states: Texas, New York, and Georgia. Each account was assigned a political leaning: Democratic, Republican, or neutral (the control group)...
To analyze the political content of the recommended videos, the researchers downloaded the English transcripts of videos when available (22.8% of unique videos). They then used a system involving three large language models—GPT-4o, Gemini-Pro, and GPT-4—to classify each video. The language models answered questions about whether the video was political, whether it concerned the 2024 U.S. elections or major political figures, and what the ideological stance of the video was (pro-Democratic, anti-Democratic, pro-Republican, anti-Republican, or neutral). The majority vote of the three language models was used as the final classification for each question.
Imagine believing one super sketchy study from some dudes in the UAE ffs. Even if this is accurate (highly doubtful), it might be because kamalacaust didn't campaign in swing states for example. There's no real evidence that this is real and, even if it's real, there's no evidence that's it's due to bias at TikTok.
However there is plenty of evidence that people are trying to ban TikTok because it reveals unfiltered information about palestine, etc.
Fuck off with this bullshit.
You quoted a bunch of stuff from the study like there's a problem with it. If you're going to attempt to dismiss the study as bullshit, you should probably try finding evidence of bullshit, rather than pointing and screaming, like we all understand whatever incredibly biased point it is you think you have.
Yeah, right, don't believe your ears, and your eyes, just believe what dear leaders tells you too.
The problem is literally no one cares about Palestine. They should, but they don't.
You chose the worst fucking hill to die on. Some brown people getting exploded in a place most people can't find in a map on the other side of the world is nothing to an average working person compared to their rent, utility or grocery bills going up.
The problem is literally no one cares about Palestine.
Quite a few people care about Palestine. That's a "problem" in so far as there are no pro-Palestinian political currents in the American political scene. So you've got these people eager to support candidates, but no candidates for them to support.
You chose the worst fucking hill to die on.
At some point, "I'm going to vote for the second biggest pro-genocide party on the ticket" isn't the message that gets people to the polls. Dems lost 15M votes over four years, as they shed their reputation of competency and compassion for one of compromise and corruption. Trying to force TikTok to sell its operations to an American Tech Company, on the grounds that it was too friendly to Palestinians, was just one more straw on the camel's back.
compared to their rent, utility or grocery bills going up.
Dems couldn't bring themselves to do anything about that either. All they could do was inflate the rate of profit enjoyed by the NASDAQ. And once they'd accomplished that task, they were of no more use to the Silicon Valley bag men.
So you've got these people eager to support candidates, but no candidates for them to support.
This is delusional. Majority of voters don't think about this nonsense at all.
https://www.npr.org/2024/11/21/nx-s1-5198616/2024-presidential-election-results-republican-shift
For example, in Maricopa County, Ariz., home to Phoenix, Harris got roughly 61,000 fewer votes than Biden in 2020. Trump, on the other hand, gained about 56,000, for a 117,000-vote shift in just one county.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/02/us/democrats-ipsos-poll-abortion-lgbt.html
In a broad sense, the poll, which surveyed a representative sample of 2,128 adults nationwide, found that Americans think the Republican Party is more in sync with the mood of the country. The issues that people said mattered most to Republicans were also, for the most part, the issues that mattered to them: immigration, the economy, inflation and taxes.
Yes my personal study came to the same conclusion.
But the cool tiktokers and swifties were supposed to save democracy, what happened?
Taiwan's a goner.
Pre-ban/restoration I used to watch a lot of TikTok. If anything I saw very little if any right wing content, and more anti right wing content. Maybe I was too far left and deemed a lost cause.
If it didn't actively promote Kamala the same way it actively promoted Trump then it was biased by definition.
Did you see the politics? It made me angry.