this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2025
837 points (99.3% liked)

World News

41177 readers
4013 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Recommendation algorithms operated by social media giants TikTok and X have shown evidence of substantial far-right political bias in Germany ahead of a federal election that takes place Sunday, according to new research carried out by Global Witness.

The non-government organization (NGO) undertook an analysis of social media content displayed to new users via algorithmically sorted “For You” feeds — finding both platforms skewed heavily toward amplifying content that favors the far-right AfD party in algorithmically programmed feeds.

Global Witness’ tests identified the most extreme bias on TikTok, where 78% of the political content that was algorithmically recommended to its test accounts, and came from accounts the test users did not follow, was supportive of the AfD party. (It notes this figure far exceeds the level of support the party is achieving in current polling, where it attracts backing from around 20% of German voters.)

MBFC
Archive

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Research and Historic Examples both shows positive outcomes from voting against anti-tax racist fascists. The same is not true for the War on Drugs. What you're attempting to describe is dogma and closed-mindedness which are present in every single political ideology. What you fail to understand is that identifying those individuals and trying to inform them is not dogmatic, it's helping them make informed choices.

Also, the proof that far right is overrepresented on social media compared to their share of the population shows that the services are biased, not that this is "what people think."

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

the war on drugs in the US, was an invention by nixon as a way to truncate/distract the public from his own problems when he was making scandal after scandal in office. NIXON, REAGAN, ,,,etc.

[–] commander@lemmings.world -5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Right. And people can always point to "research" that says drugs are bad or "research" that says certain races are smarter than others.

The problem is you're trying to be some grand arbiter of truth, or deciding who those arbiters are, when historically every argument you've made so far has also been used to perpetuate lies.

I recommend a different approach that we've actually been doing for decades. Teach people about citing. Don't let them rely on other people deciding the truth for them, that's how we end up with anti-vaxxers in the first place.

There is no perfect solution, and conditioning people that lies will always be hidden from them will cause them to believe whatever they see without thinking critically.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Drugs are bad, that was never in question

Your assertion, since you've forgotten, is that the War on Drugs was bad, which research would agree with

I'm sorry you're struggling with this. I hope you get well soon.

[–] commander@lemmings.world -3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Drugs are bad, that was never in question

Whew, glad you don't get to decide what people put in their bodies.

Your assertion, since you’ve forgotten, is that the War on Drugs was bad, which research would agree with

Yes... and those who support the war on drugs can point to research saying drugs are bad. It's sad this has to be spelled out for you.

I’m sorry you’re struggling with this. I hope you get well soon.

Ironic, considering you've shown us you can't comprehend what you're reading.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

And if somebody points to research saying drugs are bad as justification for war on drugs, you can point to research that war on drugs is bad. Then they would get confused and start quoting every line of your comment one at a time as if to make it talk slower for them.

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee -1 points 1 day ago

are off your meds

[–] commander@lemmings.world -2 points 1 day ago

Stay in school.