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.)
What if people really want to see that stuff, though?
We’re doing more harm than good when we try to control what people think instead of including them in the discussion.
Anybody voting for anti-tax racist fascists is voting against their own interests, including anti-tax racist fascists themselves.
It’s fine if you think that, but you’re opening yourself up to controlling aspects of people’s lives you have no business controlling. You’re essentially taking on the role of their parent.
People would say similar things to “justify” the war on drugs. “Drug users are hurting themselves, so we’re doing a good thing by keeping them illegal!”
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.”
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.
Neat
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.
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.
Whew, glad you don’t get to decide what people put in their bodies.
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.
Ironic, considering you’ve shown us you can’t comprehend what you’re reading.
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.
are off your meds
Stay in school.
My counterpoint to that would be that social media is a psychological drug with negative effects and if people want to be informed, they should go to a library and read.
We have the greatest library in the history of mankind right at our fingertips.
Part of being informed is, you know, discussing information.
And social media is not a library. Tiktok and X is not a library. It’s a collection of thoughts of humanity and bots controlled by an algorithm where it’s purpose is to manipulate you to consume. The Internet is not a library but it can give you access to libraries. The Internet is also now colonised for the purpose of manipulating people to consume.
Right now, we are not debating. You’re telling me your opinion and I’m telling you mine. You want to be informed? Touch grass. Engage in human communication. Go. To. A. Library.
https://annas-archive.org/
Got more books right here than any library on earth.
Like it or not, that’s what social media is.
That’s was the original intent of social media but it doesn’t function that way now. It’s also filled with bots and you’ve got no idea if you’re actually talking to a human being. The only way to be sure is to touch grass so you’re actually outside the sphere of influence of misinformation and those that control the algorithm.
Let’s go back to the topic at hand, which is whether or not we should remove fascist content from social media like Tiktok and X. These platforms are not a gateway to that library you linked to and you have to go out of your way, i.e. purposely search for it, to access it. Tiktok and X are full of sound bites that do more harm than good; posts with links to your library, for example, would not get the same exposure as, say, a sound bite promoting fascism. Case in point: the article.
The generation that has grown up with 24/7 access to the Internet have no idea what it feels like to not have information streaming into your brain everywhere you look. When information is fed and available to you 24/7, you can’t learn to tell the difference between what’s bullshit and what’s not because the 24/7 stream is so overwhelming, all you have left is the will to scroll for sound bites. The only way to counter that is to step out of that stream and slow down the incoming information so you can process it and critically analyse it. Our brains can only process a maximum amount of information that is far below what an algorithm can do.
And that library link, what are you reading on there right now? Are you researching talking points against fascism? Are you looking at the history of previous fascist regimes and how they came to be?
half of the comments on some subs, if not the whole site of reddit are bots(mostly from countries like RU and Israel(if you are in a post specific to that region).
You think people you talk to outside of the internet aren’t influenced by social media?
Before the rise of corporate social media, yes. It was easy to speak with people who had different opinions on things because of their life experience.
Now, absolutely not because everyone is in some way connected to a stream of misinformation that is social media, which dictates the news cycle and determines what the talking points are for the day. But if society weaned itself off this social media drug, there is a better chance for improvement. At the very least, rage bait would be a lot less effective.
Getting back to what the discussion is though: you don’t want censorship of certain ideologies because you believe that’s a form of control that society doesn’t need. You want a ‘free’ flow of information to allow the user to decide for themselves.
But that information isn’t free flow. It’s controlled by corporate interests. And removing fascist content and ideology on Tiktok and X from the general uninformed public? Hell yeah. If they want to look it up, they can read it in a history book and see what has actually happened under fascist regimes, then decide for themselves if they want that.
Kids want to run across the road without looking and stick a knife in a power socket.