Lemmy is more left leaning because the rights popularity seen on other social media are driven by bots that are not here.
Lemmy is more left leaning because the rights popularity seen on other social media are driven by bots that are not here.
I think this is a huge part of it. Occasionally I'll surf Facebook after checking out the marketplace. Last night I saw tons of posts about that "Try that in a small town" song with tons of people claiming to support it. Just post after post of people saying they don't see anything racist about it at all, and not a single one pointing out how showing videos of the BLM protests while singing "we take care of our own, try that in a small town" miiiiiiiight just be a little bit racist. Fortunately I usually only click on cat videos and the rare left leaning recommended posts, so I got to see one post with a picture of John Cougar Mellencamp saying something like "I sang about my small town without mentioning violence." The post had hundreds of comments....all deleted by admins.
Even when you try to avoid the controversy and hateful comments, the system is still designed to keep you doomscrolling. Positivity doesn't help that...
This is underrated. I actually close Lemmy a lot easier and more quickly than I did reddit, it’s not hooking me with dopamine hits nearly as strongly.
As a result, since I know I’ll probably just scroll for a few minutes at a time, I’m more willing to check in more often and toss a few upvotes and maybe a comment or two around.
Not really. I mean that “because…” part.
Leftism is inherenty tied to technology, especially new. It’s part of its lifestyle. EVERY new, massive social “site” (or online service) is expected to be left-leaning by default. It may later change its political viewpoint, but in its relative infancy it’s left.
Rightism is more about actions taking place in real-world. As such, the technology isn’t perceived as more than a tool, used for specific purpose only, rather than part of, or the foundation of a lifestyle.
…and of course there’s a plethora of alternative political views, options and convictions that are a mix of either extremes of the spectrum - if you meet a person online, it shouldn’t be surprisied to learn about “pro-life”, but also “anti-Trump” and similarly puzzling approaches to various aspects of life.
tl;dr: it’s not about bots. It’s because Lemmy/Mastodon isn’t popular enough to serve as a tool for right-wing politics.
Leftism is inherenty tied to technology, especially new.
I don’t know, there has always been a huge libertarian contingent of the tech industry as well. I’m not sure which is bigger. I hope the leftism.
While yes, libertarian is originally a leftist term, that’s not true what I mean.
I mean the first comment saying most people on new tech are leftists is wrong. Most people who are technophilic are liberals. As in US style Democrat liberals. Which are NOT leftists. At all.
Why would you say they are? They all buy in hard into capitalism.
Where are all these leftist techies?
Hyperbole my friend. Exaggeration.
But to be much more precise and literal: a good amount of them. Likely even a majority, do.
It’s like you only read two words of my comment. The dixkheads who call themselves linertarian are NOT libertarian. It is a left wing ideology. You cannot have a society that is both right wing and libertarian. It is impossible.
That is exactly why those fuckheads bring in bullshit like “natural hierarchy”, to jam their square beliefs into the round hole that is a classless ideology.
My point was that anarchism is not compatible with capitalism because capital is a form of hierarchy.
And I read your post. Yes, tea party libertarians ultimately lean more big government authoritarian than strict libertarians should.
But libertarians aren’t anarchist because they ultimately use the power of money and privilege to create hierarchy and control others. They just don’t want democracy (i.e. governments) interfering in that power.
That’s not anarchy but feudalism.
They most definitely are.
I don’t know anyone who considers communists to be right-wing, and communists are as classic as libertarianism gets.
They most certainly do, lol.
Go to wiki, look up libertarianism, look under the section etymology.
In a political context it has always carried the meaning of anarchist - it was coined to differentiate libertarian/anarcho-communists from socialist communists.
When Rothbard appropriated the term for his neoliberal populism in recent American history, even he was drawing from that basis - although obviously in bad faith, since he promotes a platform of oppression.
I’d say I’m generally conservative and have been dabbling in alternative social media for a number of years. Some of the biggest Mastodon instances are/were right leaning. Gab.ai started off as a proprietary site and then migrated to Mastodon. Truth.social was always based on Mastodon. I’ve never been active on them because I don’t like echo chambers though. I’ve never really had a desire to have my thoughts reaffirmed by strangers…
I would assume they’re presence isn’t felt in the fediverse because the concept of de-federating is working? Gab is likely cut off by others and truth social never federated with others to begin with. I don’t think Truth ever intended to though, and really just wanted something they didn’t have to build from scratch.
The only Mastodon instance I actually have an account with now is somewhat right leaning but it’s not their emphasis. Even then I’m not too active on it.
From what I gather, Mastodon attracts little attention in conservative circles.
One of main reasons I’ve heard is that “there’s hardly anyone to talk with”. Beats me if it’s default, general conservative opinion…
Thanks to Big tech censorship, there are lots of people who are more anti-establishment right on the fediverse. Lots of fairly large instances. Some of them are real nasty pieces of work filled with folks dropping n bombs and swastikas, some of them are filled with some of the sweetest religious right folks you ever met in your life.
I think one of the biggest differences is that you don’t have the Jerry Springer algorithm trying to match up a bunch of black people with a bunch of KKK members. Most far right instances don’t defederate anyone, but many of the far left instances defederate the moment anyone looks at them funny so despite sharing a platform, typically there just isn’t that much engagement between the two groups. In the middle of there are instances that are more than happy to federate with both as long as they aren’t too big of jerks.
Yet despite the clear creation of echo chambers, which I think is inevitable given how freedom of association works so smoothly and easily online, the Fediverse forces them all to “live next to each other”.
It’s not an entirely separate service I need to go on if I want to see what all the Nazi kids are up to these days.
This forced adjacency and inability to create any blocks stronger than defederation (which is pretty weak, really, compared to what other services can do) is going to have overall beneficial effects in the long-run, I think. Though it’ll certainly cause its fair share of headaches too.
I’m actually happy to see the reduction in echo chambers for myself because it does 2 things:
For someone who thinks for themselves, seeing extremism in some cases actually makes you less extreme because you see it and realize you don’t agree with it at all.
Most smart right wing people (not me obviously), long ago gave up trying to discuss anything important with the left.
It’s not productive, and everyone that I know has just gone to more private chats and channels and don’t even have social media accounts.
You get banned enough times for saying something reasonable, or constantly get called a nazi or something ridiculous and you just stop using those places to talk.
The separation and division has already happened. For anyone hoping to have a discussion with anyone who has different opinions than you do, that train has left the station.
There are bots, lots of them (I’m sure from the left and the right) and that’s it’s own problem. But I doubt we will ever see a place where people can just disagree anymore.
No one seems to have the balls to let these conversations happen on either side.
This is something people on the right just find absolutely ridiculous. No one. NO ONE, think LGBT people shouldn’t be allowed to exist.
This is a big part of the problem, another response to my comment said people who think like I do support genocide.
Like this just sounds so hyperbolic and absolutely laughably ridiculous that no one has the patience to put up with it. It’s not a discussion.
You think I want an entire group of people to not exist. You have been taught this from somewhere and it’s not true. But you’ll never realize that.
So what’s the point?
Then explain to the class what you do believe in. Give us 3 bullet points you’d want a candidate to also support.
I’ll start as an example:
www.conservative.ca/pierre-poilievre/
This is who I’m voting for in the next Canadian election. I have a hard time disagreeing with anything Pierre Poilievre is campaigning on.
You can find a lot of him speaking in parliament on YouTube if you’re interested
But there are people recently that have said they should get stuck into asylums.
Does existing not include participating in society?
I don’t think gay or trans people shouldn’t participate in society. That doesn’t make any sense.
There are people that say a lot of crazy shit I don’t agree with, on the left as well.
Is there an argument that trans people need help? I think that’s pretty obvious. Is the help needed for the brain or the body? I think thats where a lot of disagreement comes from.
When I think about it, I can see why someone would think that surgery on a healthy body because the mind thinks it was born in the wrong body could be the wrong thing to do.
I don’t think that’s at all unreasonable. Most mental illnesses are treated by treating the mind.
And if your mind disagrees with the healthy body you were born in, I can see how the mine might be the place to start treatment, and not the body.
However, I also believe in adults being able to make their own decisions. Just as if someone wants to have cosmetic surgery to install horns in their head, or someone wants breast augmentation surgery, go fill your boots.
So if someone wants a surgeon to create a cosmetic neovagina forcthemselves and that would make them happy, go for it.
So there's the rub. Are puberty blockers treatment for the mind or body? If it's a "body" treatment and therefore the "wrong place to start" should children not have access to this treatment until they are 18? It does reduce morbidity of the condition.
You get shit on for your opinions because they are both uninformed and callous. You are also missing the point of the healthcare by focusing on elective cosmetic surgeries.
The way you talk about this subject is just awful.