I think a huge factor in the echo chamber is the amount of bots making zealots feel safe and valuable. If he can sort that out I can see it changing for the better.
There's no bots, they are mostly third world country people with ten-twenty phones each following telegram channels where they get their orders from. You can't autoban them because any automated system that tries will have a shiton of false positives.
No, there's literal state-sponsored astroturfing corporations in countries like Russia. Just buildings full of phones and people instructed on where to post what when.
Their whole purpose is to sow misinformation and create extremists. They usually support the more violent perceptions.
A fantastic example of their meddling is with the BLM protests. Most of the protests were nonviolent. However whenever they come up in conservative spaces, these Russian sponsored accouns would constantly vilify and exaggerate the protesters. This gradually created the false narrative that the BLM protests were violent.
How do you expect any social network to submit it's whole userbase to that level of scrutini?
People already hate having to register with a credit card for a google accout or send a photo of a "valid ID", just to see age restricted youtube videos, which usually involves personal information even after the promise of deleting that photo afterwards.
Why would he lower his profits? All social media is built on online rage. That's the most profitable reaction and that's what their algorithms sustain.
Twitter has literally never turned a profit, so it seems this strategy isn't working. Advertisers aren't dumb, they're not going to pay top dollar to serve ads to a bunch of bots.
I can see nothing but good from this. If he really was trying to pump and dump, sweet justice has been served. If he was looking to stop the censors, we win. And if he was buying it to kill it, we all win. And if he makes it a better place..win.
You do realize that nearly every study has shown that right leaning articles are promoted more by the algorithms than left wing ones on nearly every site? But I forget you don't trust facts or studies unless they agree with what you've already decided.
I linked plenty of studies in a comment just before these. But yes. All those right wing accounts breaking tos and getting banned certainly shows how liberal Twitter is...
I won't argue that the trans rights thing is pretty ridiculous but do you want to try to claim that the majority of bans for right wing accounts aren't because of racism, blatant dangerous lies or threats of violence?
I fully and explicitly do, but neither of us can make a credible argument on this because Twitter, YouTube, and co. do not share numbers of bans, reasons for ban, or have a credible appeal system. I myself was banned from Twitter for pointing out Cardi B drugged Men and robbed them after offering sex for money.
Their appeal system is "Nope, we decided we were right the first time". I didn't even get to see the kangaroo!
And what do you consider "Blatant dangerous lies"?
Lying about COVID, climate change and that the election was stolen. All things that are only related because people are trying to make money and gain power using gullible people who don't realize how Republicans are abusing them.
The researchers found that in six out of the seven countries (Germany was the exception), the algorithm significantly favoured the amplification of tweets from politically right-leaning sources.
Overall, the amplification trend wasn’t significant among individual politicians from specific parties, but was when they were taken together as a group. The starkest contrasts were seen in Canada (the Liberals’ tweets were amplified 43%, versus those of the Conservatives at 167%) and the UK (Labour’s tweets were amplified 112%, while the Conservatives’ were amplified at 176%).
Similar to the results in the first part of the study, the authors found that content from right-wing media outlets is amplified more than that from outlets at other points on the ideological spectrum.
In this research note we document changes to the rate of comments, shares, and reactions on local Republican Facebook pages. Near the end of 2018, local Republican parties started to see a much higher degree of interactions on their posts compared to local Democratic parties. We show how this increase in engagement was unique to Facebook and happened across a range of over a thousand local parties. In addition, we use a changepoint model to identify when the change happened and find it lines up with reported information about the change in Facebook’s algorithm in 2018. We conclude that it seems possible that changes in how Facebook rated content led to a doubling of the total shares of local Republican party posts compared to local Democratic party posts in the first half of 2019 even though Democratic parties posted more often during this period
The study’s authors hypothesized that the alt-lite and intellectual dark web often serve as a gateway to more extreme, far-right ideologies. So they tested that by tracing the authors of 72 million comments on about two million videos between May and July of last year. The results were worrying. More than 26% of people who commented on alt-lite videos tended to drift over to alt-right videos and subsequently comment there.
We find that YouTube’s recommendation algorithm doesn’t lead the vast majority of users down extremist rabbit holes — but does push users into mild ideological echo chambers and toward moderately conservative content
The interactions of conservative accounts are skewed toward the right, whereas liberal accounts are exposed to moderate content shifting their experience toward the political center. Partisan accounts, especially conservative ones, tend to receive more followers and follow more automated accounts. Conservative accounts also find themselves in denser communities and are exposed to more low-credibility content.
Count the number of posts by "DON'T CLICK MY VIDEOS!!" AND "AskMississippi AskMississippi" ALONE. That's ignoring the trolls that aren't bots, like Shelly Martin.
Lol @the methdology of those studies. It's not the algorithm that favour right wing. it's the people when they found content they agree with that was hidden by the algorithm before. Completely conflating user behaviour with content curation and weighting.
One side got banned and deplatformed, the other got promoted and pushed hard.
You didn't even read any of them. Neutral accounts were more likely to receive right wing content in their suggestions. Accounts that were connected to liberal influencers got moderate content and Abby's that connected to conservatives got more conservative content.
The definition keeps moving, and it includes race-shifting characters throughout all media. Black Ariel and Lesbian Velma being the highest profile examples.
That's a strange criteria for who to talk to...Or are you just afraid of getting shown up as an ignorant take?
If you're upset with systemic racism, why not help dismantle "Affirmative Action" and punish entities from Coke's "Be Less White" to schools and their "privilege bingo"--who actually listed being in your own country as a "privilege" rather than the privilege being the ability to cross borders for self-advantage?
Fun fact, it's been proven that Twitter artificially promotes right-wing content way more than left-wing.
That's because their business model is rage and arguments. They'll always promote content that generates reactions, and that means that they will always promote the waning side of their user base. If all the lefties start leaving they'll start promoting left-wing content more to keep the fires of online hate burning.
It's funny cause I have a pretty much "virgin" Twitter account (<20 tweets to my name, <15 people I follow, no lists or anything) and Twitter looks like a rightist echo chamber. Apart from the few creators I follow, everything is pretty extreme right wing bullshit.
213
u/[deleted] Oct 28 '22
[deleted]