this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
84 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37738 readers
50 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bownage 50 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Actually one of the conclusions from both the Science and Nature articles were that they mostly fuel far right radicalisation, not so much polarisation (which implies both ends of the political spectrum). Which I guess means leftists are generally either more capable of spotting misinformation or less inclined to act on it.

[–] PostmodernPythia 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also, there’s not a large, well-funded far-left movement in the US fighting to radicalize people.

[–] Erk@cdda.social 10 points 1 year ago

All I've got to offer are unionisation pamphlets and a brick.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Which I guess means leftists are generally either more capable of spotting misinformation or less inclined to act on it.

Or are less likely to be on Facebook in general.

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 7 points 1 year ago

The studies were percentage based, so yes, volume of posts could play an active role but likely more from an "activity" amount vs "presence".

[–] kingthrillgore@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

So this confirms all the studies and adages of conservative voters being less intelligent, more subject to scams and fraud, and less accepting of social norms.

[–] whelmer 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You've got studies suggesting that conservatives are less accepting of social norms?

[–] nzodd 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Does not literally turning traitor and attempting to overthrow the United States of America and murder the vice president count as a social norm?

[–] whelmer 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Bit of a non-sequitor, that would be an anecdote and not a study. But yeah I would say that those things would violate social norms. I don't know if I would agree that conservative people are more likely to violate those norms, which is presumably your point. Take a look at the history of political assassinations in the United States or in Europe, for example. Political violence does not belong uniquely to conservatives.

I think actually pretty much by definition that conservatives are MORE concerned with social norms. That's kind of one of the primary traits of conservativism. I think a pretty good argument could be made that the Tumpist people you're referring to do not so much represent a conservative point of view as much as a fascist or ultra-nationalist one, which explains why they will violate certain norms pertaining to peaceful electoral processes, while strongly maintaining other norms, like heterosexual nuclear families or religious observances or certain expectations of gender expression, etc.

[–] inconel@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

If it only drives the far-right, does that mean Facebook contributed shifting in window of discourse? (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window)

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 2 points 1 year ago

Not radicalization, just polarization, they are different. But overall, yes.