Comments
Khaldara t1_j1e9rfb wrote
Yeah, I mean common sense dictates that it almost needs to be true by virtue of these platforms seeking profitability as well. The right wing is the minority party by population, it also trends older and rural (both segments of the population that are further less likely to be online as persistently).
Consequently if their content wasn’t being amplified, you’d presumably naturally encounter right wing stuff at much lower rates by virtue of its overall representation in the digital space. But companies thrive off “engagement”, regardless of whether it’s positive or not. So the bickering and internet fighting right wing content provides drives it higher than it’d presumably otherwise be.
This of course does absolutely nothing to dissuade their pundits from going on the largest traditional media outlets on the planet to whine about being “canceled” and “silenced”, whilst holding a microphone and staring into a camera.
JuliusErrrrrring t1_j1fxbdg wrote
Just take a step back and realize how bad everyone thinks the economy is, when the following is 100% true: 1. there are more people currently employed than at any point in U.S. history 2. wages are higher than at any point in U.S. history 3. GDP is at the highest point in U.S. history 4. about 11 million jobs have been added to the economy in the last 21 months
The media, especially the business and economic media is certainly without a doubt biased - but it's biased in favor of the right wing. Now that inflation is easing they will most certainly switch their narrative to push some new negative narrative while continuing to bury all the positive news.
rddman t1_j1hlleq wrote
> the following is 100% true: 1. there are more people currently employed than at any point in U.S. history 2. wages are higher than at any point in U.S. history 3. GDP is at the highest point in U.S. history 4. about 11 million jobs have been added to the economy in the last 21 months
100% true but also incomplete: cost of living is higher than ever.
JuliusErrrrrring t1_j1insbx wrote
That’s exactly my point. My point is the reporting is incomplete. Inflation and cost of living has been the only story for over a year. Everything I just said-which is why inflation is so high, has been ignored due to political bias in reporting.
rddman t1_j1j23w9 wrote
> Inflation and cost of living has been the only story for over a year. Everything I just said-which is why inflation is so high
Everything you said has been true more than a year ago, while inflation and cost of living were not as high as they have been for the past year. So it does not follow that the things you mentioned are the cause of high inflation.
JuliusErrrrrring t1_j1j8jch wrote
That's an odd take. You think record wages, record employment, record GDP - thus record spending don't contribute to inflation? More than 11 million people working and spending more than 20 months ago doesn't contribute to inflation? You think inflation is only due to supply issues and demand plays no role?
[deleted] t1_j1giunh wrote
[removed]
Anotherherolost t1_j1ei3ym wrote
This article, if you bother to read it or just read the headline a little slower, comes to the conclusion that more users on the right share links. That is all.
[deleted] t1_j1fj8jm wrote
[removed]
ComfortWeasel t1_j1enpdh wrote
Maybe check out the Twitter files. They were right.
eazyirl t1_j1f96dl wrote
The "Twitter files" showed that prominent right wing accounts were flagged as "do not intervene" and required special intervention from executives in response to violations of the TOS. In short, they were given special treatment to allow them to break rules without recourse.
On top of that, both independent and internal Twitter research has consistently showed that right wing accounts and content were more often given algorithmic preference (boosted), which you might know is the opposite of suppression.
Unfortunately for everyone, the information Elon released in his co-called "Twitter Files" is very clearly selective to show only part of the story, as we are given no such information about commensurate left wing accounts from which to draw comparison.
[deleted] t1_j1fyvqv wrote
[removed]
OrangeJr36 t1_j1ev4fo wrote
They pretty much show the opposite. But that doesn't stop far right media from claiming that people acting reasonably and unbiased is in fact bias against them.
When there's a law or rules in place and you keep getting busted for it, you don't complain about why everyone else that isn't breaking the law isn't getting in trouble. You're the only one in trouble because you're the one who keeps breaking the rules.
[deleted] t1_j1ewvna wrote
[removed]
marketrent OP t1_j1cjync wrote
Excerpt:
>Here, we document the clash of perspectives that arose on Twitter around the BLM protests in 2020. Critically, we address the questions of who produces news coverage and how audiences respond to it.
>Social media users consume much more content than they produce^27 which allows mainstream media and other content creators to have an influence on the platform.
>Our analyses show that most of the news sources posted on social media as the massive street protests unfolded are produced by media with a right-leaning ideological slant (in partisan terms) and that this content generates more engagement in the form of retweet activity, thus increasing its reach.
>Our results suggest that right-leaning domains do better (in terms of gaining visibility and engagement) than left-leaning domains. The right, in other words, has an advantage in the attention economy social media creates.
>
>The social signals users create when engaging with content (to praise or criticize it) are picked up by the automated curation systems that determine which posts are seen first on users’ feeds.
>Our analyses cannot parse out which of these mechanisms (intentional seeding versus counter-attitudinal sharing; social versus algorithmic amplification) are the most relevant in explaining the asymmetries we observe.
>But these asymmetries are the aggregated manifestation of social and technological mechanisms and, regardless of the motivation of users in sharing certain URLs or the specific parameters of curation algorithms, the result is still an asymmetric information environment where some coverage gains more traction and visibility.
>The increased visibility of right-leaning content we identify can also result from the larger supply of content with a specific partisan slant: the users in our data are, in the end, picking content to share from a set of available sources.
>It is plausible that the asymmetry starts at the supply stage within the larger media environment, where news deserts are growing, and the gaps left by local newspapers is being filled by a network of websites created by conservative political groups^28 known as the right-wing media ecosystem^7.
PNAS Nexus, 2022. DOI 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac137
[deleted] t1_j1ctcpr wrote
Recently or historically?
eazyirl t1_j1f8obm wrote
Every study that has been done on this subject has come to the same conclusion, so while this one might be limited in scope this is a historical trend.
[deleted] t1_j1eno1h wrote
[removed]
Banea-Vaedr t1_j1djarl wrote
This only looks at the 2020 BLM riots
mrhoopers t1_j1cjx13 wrote
Which one was Twitter?
I can't remember...
-Us in 3 years prolly
PropOnTop t1_j1ckdu6 wrote
The one bought by that rich white guy... What was his name...
AutoModerator t1_j1cj8jf wrote
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[deleted] t1_j1dfvdc wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j1dgb6o wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j1djbyc wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j1f6ucf wrote
[removed]
DamonFields t1_j1g3127 wrote
Exactly my Mush bought Twitter.
Nzdiver81 t1_j1cz69g wrote
Could this be explained by Twitter being used more by right-leaning users and media?
[deleted] t1_j1ea2xh wrote
[removed]
The_WarpGhost t1_j1czd5g wrote
So this is specifically looking at only the 2020 BLM protests. The immediate thought that pops into my mind is that: as there was some infamously blatant misreporting going on in left-leaning media ("fiery but peaceful" et al), people would naturally look at other media sources hoping for a more honest appraisal of what the reality on the ground was. This seems simply too specific to draw any overall trends
Thercon_Jair t1_j1d4g0q wrote
All other studies conducted in media and social media show also an amplification bias towards the right.
> The immediate thought that pops into my mind is that: as there was some infamously blatant misreporting going on in left-leaning media ("fiery but peaceful" et al), people would naturally look at other media sources hoping for a more honest appraisal of what the reality on the ground was. This seems simply too specific to draw any overall trends
Looking on from Europe, the more blatant misreporting seems to have been coming from the right (though, US left-wing media isn't actually left, just less right).
I think what you are actually trying to say is "The reporting was not congruent with people's bias, which is why they looked at Social Media to find sources that confirmed their bias." Which is what studies show too. Also congruent with the 60% of people do not read the article linked in Social Media.
Plus, most stories shared on Social Media was from media companies anyways?
I_T_Gamer t1_j1d3nsy wrote
The article essentially says all of the news provided by the general media was misinformation free. I wonder if we're watching the same stations..... We are in a cycle of come up with the story, and then find evidence to prove it. Can't be bothered to have the facts beforehand, someone will scoop us!
[deleted] t1_j1ez0jo wrote
[removed]
PoetSeat2021 t1_j1fmlxa wrote
Yeah, that’s my immediate thought to some extent as well. To what you’ve said I’d also add that the goings-on in the summer of 2020 were particularly outrageous, and a lot of the biggest and most outrageous stories were the kinds that right wingers like to share.
I wonder how this would look if they did January of 2021 instead.
[deleted] t1_j1d4fmv wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j1d50z6 wrote
[removed]
TheGreatSausageKing t1_j1ds41d wrote
Funny enough, not what the Twitter files shows....
Dannysmartful t1_j1dvjl0 wrote
Twitter is a place that doesn't exist in the real world.
To get there You have to l recite your personal info, location, and perform a magical "log in" ritual before your imagination can take flight.
From there you are exposed to whatever imaginary crap they want you to experience. . .but all of it is really one big marketing ploy to separate you from your hard earned money by getting you to "click" "share" or "Buy" something you don't want or need.
:(
VerifiedTommyWiseau t1_j1cpld2 wrote
When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression
ZoeInBinary t1_j1dowgy wrote
This was specifically before Musk took over.
There was never equality, and it just got even worse.
ColeBane t1_j1e15q3 wrote
Ive always known this to be true, and yet they are the ones who cry the loudest about being silenced, or freedom of speech, blah blah blah.
Its sad how these people feel oppresed when they are treated fairly. And feel free only when they oppress the minorities.