You must log in or register to comment.

drewhead118 t1_ivl6vr7 wrote

new international study concludes that gasoline can fuel cars and trucks


RaNerve t1_ivld3g7 wrote

It’s not “digital media” it’s algorithmic based content curation. The old internet had far more conflicting information to the point you were skeptical about everything, but now social media controls what you see and feeds you an abundance of same-message content which leads you to draw a false conclusion between that information being popularly accepted as fact.

If 9/10 people told you something you were already KINDA suspicious about, like “JFK was killed by the CIA,” or something, you’re WAY more likely to think that is FACT than if 1/10 people told you that. The result is many people who are entirely convinced their beliefs are a clear, logical majority, no matter how outlandish it may be.


fpcoffee t1_ivlf6xd wrote

wow, a nuanced comment in this thread, amazing


Successful-Cut-505 t1_ivmoxao wrote

this just sounds like moderation leads to polarization


SparroHawc t1_ivr83ib wrote

Not moderation; automatic personalized customization of your experience with an aim to maximize engagement.

In other words, the Facebook algorithm does everything it can to present you with content you will engage with, even if it means feeding you more polarizing content.


[deleted] t1_ivl4nv0 wrote



suodrazah t1_ivl693c wrote

I completely disagree.


sokos t1_ivl9tvs wrote

Well.. you're just wrong!! ( :-) )


DrDragun t1_ivla7a5 wrote

I think it's viral redirection of human territorial instincts. Can't let the other tribe seem like they're gaining ground or encroaching on yours. This is one of the most emotionally powerful behavior drivers in apes. Chimpanzees are driven to guard their territory relentlessly when another tribe invades, thats how people draw such infinite energy for political raging. We try to govern our behavior with logic for the good of society but it's hard to compete with instinctive programmed emotions.


[deleted] t1_ivle2ia wrote



Kirbyoto t1_ivlglrw wrote

>reddit extremists are so pitiful

Before I say anything else, can you just see the irony here by itself?

"Extremists are the kind of people who dehumanize large swathes of people by making sweeping statements about them and their behavior! Unlike those freaks, I would never do anything like that!"

The problem centrists experience is that by defending a generic status quo they imagine they don't really have political opinions, but they do. Centrists treat extremists the way that they imagine extremists treat each other, but then conclude that only the extremists are wrong to do that.

The people that "want other people to be nicer to each other", on the other hand, are just kind of dumb. What does "nicer" mean in politics? Do you care about actions, or just words?


[deleted] t1_ivlj4jd wrote



Kirbyoto t1_ivlk64s wrote

>I don't think it's ironic or hypocritical to stereotype terminally online reddit extremists.

"It's OK when I do it."

>There is simply nothing to be gained from engaging with people that are always angry, always uncompromising, and always right

Would you say you're willing to compromise on this statement, or perhaps admit that you might be wrong? Would you say you're angry about this conversation?

>They may as well be bots.

"They're barely even human."

>You're just proving my point.

I disagreed with you on a completely abstract point - not even a real political issue, just a vague comparison of the center vs the extremes - and you're already treating me like a hostile opponent. The way you are talking to me right now is literally the way that you characterize extremists as treating people. Look at what you have written and tell me honestly that you think it sounds civil.


TesNikola t1_ivlm4b7 wrote

"bitch ass losers" 🤣🤣🤣 cracking my shit up homie


barrystrawbridgess t1_ivlc3b1 wrote

Captain Obvious says: Social media causes people to fall into echo chambers and put more importance of likes or user counts. Oh yeah, everything turns into a marketing campaign regardless how unimportant.


TheLianeonProject t1_ivl7qn7 wrote

From the article: "While the impact of digital media on democracy cannot be judged as simply ‘good’ or ‘bad,’ the results clearly show that digital media can have several negative effects on political behaviour,” he added."

The fundamental problem is that, per Brandolinis Law, it's an order of magnitude more difficult to make a false claim than it is to prove it wrong.

The internet enabled an asymmetry between truth and untruths, with it heavily weighted toward untruths.

Not sure how this problem is solved.


JustGettingMyPopcorn t1_ivn3zsu wrote

Isn't it an order of magnitude more difficult to prove a claim is false than it is to make a false claim? Because I can think of a shit ton of false claims that have been made in the past two years that somehow seem not to have proven false, despite all evidence.


jp_rockhound t1_ivl8a2b wrote

Grass is green and sky is blue more at 11.


crushfield t1_ivlh957 wrote

How do I get a job as one of these people who gets paid to produce studies that indicate things literally everyone already fucking knows.


huggles7 t1_ivlhq31 wrote

I think the problem isn’t fundamentally that the internet exists it’s that we can access it in our private lives, alone, where we can’t talk about what we’re experiencing or viewing with other people

When we don’t have anything to challenge our thoughts they’re allowed to evolve and not necessarily always in a positive direction


A_Talking_iPod t1_ivlb3hy wrote

Study confirms breathing very likely to get air in your lungs


T3Tron t1_ivlfmmc wrote

These studies aren’t for us. They are for future generations to understand why society collapsed.


Vitringar t1_ivlic8f wrote

Oh really Einstein?


Doug_Nightmare t1_ivljinc wrote

Yes, digital media is less easily censored than print media, so the truth will out despite ‘their’ best efforts. Polarization and populism is a result of the peoples judgement.


SparroHawc t1_ivr8p0u wrote

The problem is that digital media is less easily moderated than print media as well, so lies, conspiracy theories, and intentionally inflammatory content will proliferate despite 'their' best efforts. When inundated with the same emotionally-charged content repeatedly thanks to social media's algorithmically-driven content, people become more radical in their views.


SkinnyV514 t1_ivlnwjo wrote

Breaking news: Rain fall from the sky.


Special_FX_B t1_ivm429f wrote

It took an international study to conclude the obvious? Next they should do a study to conclude that the vast majority of the polarization and populism is fueled by right-wing media outlets and fascist/authoritarian propaganda mills.


SlySychoGamer t1_ivm58ti wrote

Polarization, ya, makes sense. Populism? Good, maybe this will lead to another occupy wallstreet, though it won't happen if people stay polarized.


aeolus811tw t1_ivmddwr wrote

When you give village idiot a platform to reach other village idiots, they become a cult


[deleted] t1_ivog70d wrote

The fact that not just one country funded the study...


robbytron2000 t1_ivlcoim wrote

Being alive leading cause of death


kutkun t1_ivlb6s0 wrote

This study does not use sound methodology. It’s conclusions stem from fear of technology. They are afraid of the democratization of information. Oligarchs mad at digital technology because it shattered their monopoly on dissemination of knowledge.


trying-to-do-better t1_ivlh1kc wrote

In what way is its methodology unsound?

From my view there still seems to be strong influence over the dissemination of knowledge. It just looks like misinformation, disinformation, and echo chambers exacerbated by algorithms.

You say this is oligarchs being mad at technology but I see this as benefiting oligarchs if anything

Can u spell it out for me?


kutkun t1_ivoieu8 wrote

I cannot conduct a full review in the scope of a Reddit post. However I will state a few as a reward for your downvotes.

The study conflates correlational studies with experimental ones. Which should have been enough for desk rejection. However, the paper advances an ideological position that Nature already adheres to. Hence they published it.

The selection and exclusion criteria was so complicated that they needed a giant chart to make it more understandable. However it doesn’t hide the fact that authors excluded articles that do not fit to their ideological position. It is very clear even at that outset of the paper that authors were pre-determined to teach to a specific conclusion: “digital tech is bad so people should be restricted”. Introduction starts with a reference so Nazism. Incompetence of the authors were all over the introduction. If an individual references Nazism in a conversation regarding freedom of expression, then you are not actually in a conversation. You are listening to a leftist apparatchik who do not believe in individual rights.

They used only palates indexed in WOS and Scopus. Corporations that own wos and scopus both have a systematic bias against freedom of expression and academic freedom. This bias is well-documented now. We all are aware of it. It’s obvious and very natural that authors share and enjoy that bias. Editorial boards of those journals adhere to radical leftist ideologies and do not pulsing any research that is not in line with their ideology. Nature itself is one of them. And their radical leftist change in policy was news a few weeks ago. Leftists are against individual rights including but not limited to freedom of expression. They want total control of individuals and dissemination of knowledge by governments and government adjacent corporations such as CNN, MSNBC, Facebook, Twitter, Washington Post, AT&T, etc.

Authors did not conduct a scientific research. They write the ideological manifesto then put some jargon to make it like a research report. All the articles they reviewed were ideologically filtered.

You can understand it yourself. Look for “effect size” in the paper. You will find the truth yourself.


trying-to-do-better t1_ivvbd7d wrote

This is misleading...

I see that your response has much stronger political bias than you claim exists in the article. While, you have some valid points that I can agree with, you also seem to ignore or not understand the conclusion, because you then assert a narrative that there are "radical leftists" coming for your freedom. At this point I think your logic breaks down as your fears are unsubstantiated in the claims of the authors.

Yes, Correlation and causation are different things. There are biases in the databases that where searched, as well as the selection and coding process the authors used. That does not equal an agenda. I also think there should have been better discussion of authors' positions and biases. Certainly Nature has it's problems, I won't deny that. None of this makes the points in the conclusion inherently right or wrong.

You do however, conflate the institutions of academic publishing with radical leftists, which they very much are not. Criticism of academic publishing should remain centered around access to information, transparency of academic processes, and freedom of study.

It's funny that you say

>Leftists are against individual rights including but not limited to freedom of expression. They want total control of individuals and dissemination of knowledge by governments and government adjacent corporations

When the authors are simply calling for greater transparency so that more sound studies may be conducted in the future. It seems to me that you agree with the authors more than you realize even if you see their work as more an ideological manifesto or lacking academic integrity.

The study certainly lacks transparency, in that we don't know exactly what perspectives may have been excluded. That is not in itself evidence of a political or ideological agenda. It wouldn't rule out an agenda except that the authors acknowledge the contradictory and non-causal aspects of the findings.

You undermine your good points when you push a tangential political agenda. I don't think partizan lines show the actual issues such as consolidation of power like you imply.

Maybe if you listened better what the "radical left" is actually saying you would understand how much your broader goals align with other perspectives. Then maybe we could have a more productive discussion of policy.

If you want to make an argument for your political position I don't think this is the way. There is evidence of academic work being heavily biased toward the left and right. I certainly am biased myself, but the debates around climate science, funding of misinformation, disinformation, and unsound science that's been funded by right wing interests plainly show this is not just a problem with leftists. On the left there are issues but I don't see the same blatant efforts to mislead, simply bias rooted in different perspectives as well as occasional hypocrisy. Hypocrisy seems more symptomatic of people who want to seem like they care about others but want to maintain their own wealth and privilege even if at the expense of those the appear to care about.

Okay this has been fun to type up but I realize is a huge waste of time. We all have better things to do with our precious free time but I appreciate the dialogue none the less.