In Germany, social media algorithms are pumping out huge amounts of far-right, pro-AfD content.
-
This is really bad rage bait man. You at least have to engage with the topic at surface level if you wanna really make people mad.
-
Couldn't agree with you more there.
For what it's worth, I'm a member of the TUSC (trade union socialist coalition) and the Socialist Party. You're right they're not big hitters, smaller even than the greens, but they are there, they stand for what I stand for, and they're just a great bunch of people that I love hanging out with. Also, unlike Lemmy, it's a tankie-free zone!
They're good at building a community and they are active every day on a small, local scale. -
The issue here is decades of neglecting the wellbeing of citizens
Yes? But what does this have to do with immigration? Do you genuinely believe that immigrants are what's causing the decay of citizen wellbeing and not as you say "neoliberal governments grounding low and middle class workers into dust"?
You see the issue but you side with the neoliberals on their preferred solution?
-
Popper’s paradox of tolerance gives in my view pretty clear guidelines on what to protect and what not to tolerate. I believe that if we held onto that, fascism would have a much harder time.
Popper did make his line clear: physical violence.
"I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols."
So I agree with you. Tolerate up to the point of people using physical violence to enact their political aims.
-
Rage bait is being vile then calling people who point it out Nazis. Do better, cunt.
-
AfD will make massive progress. These social media algos had to be banned years ago. Same thing will happen with Canada.
-
Spending X on advertising will increase your product sales by Y.
Because it exposes products to customers who were otherwise unaware of their existence or features, not because advertising has special brainwashing powers.
I think there is an implied argument you are making that unless people vote the "correct" way, they're misinformed. I think some people just have different priorities. They care about different things and for this reason, consume different media. I was horrified to learn my wife clicks on ads when she's shopping. Apparently that works for her. It doesn't mean she's wrong. Just that she's not as rigorous about her selection process because she's ultimately happy with the outcome.
-
Wait, you're both saying people voted for Brexit out of their own free will but also that advertising doesn't persuade people? How do you explain Cambridge Analytica literally influencing millions of people to vote for Brexit? (a vote won by 2% margin btw) - like why would the right-wing establishment pay for ads if not to sway public opinion?
Do you really think neoliberals spent millions to inform people why Brexit is good for them actually because that was factual information people couldn't have found otherwise?
-
Yes? But what does this have to do with immigration?
I'm not making that link. The user above argued Brexit was caused by appeasement. I was addressing that specific claim.
I generally side against the neoliberals. In this case, they have been tirelessly fighting for globalisation and high immigration. Like all economic policies, it comes with some good and some bad. It has certainly resulted in a lot of top line wealth generation. The problem is that most of it has been accrued at the top. This is not sustainable. I think this is why we are seeing a general backlash to globalisation: the experiment hurt a lot of middle and lower class people.
-
I've had some good conversations with local TUSC members collecting signatures and so on, I've a lot of respect for them but sadly the general public don't seem to. I think after the kicking by thatcher, unions and socialism in general are out of fashion. I do think there should be a broadly left party, allowing secondary membership maybe. Work on getting agreement on some issues, laser focus on what's most urgent and get decent people elected. I'd support any party with decent policies and which had the most chance of getting elected.
-
I'm not sure if you read your sources but you are only corroborating what I argued. It's a lot of empty talk. None of them are willing to act. Take the example of the border security. It's theatre. Even if an illegal immigrant is stopped, they still have the right to reside in the country for many years, and indefinitely if they refuse to leave in most circumstances. All of this is paid for by German citizens. I can't believe you would use the Greens as an example of a party getting tough on immigration. They have zero policies to reduce immigration.
To summarise your sources: not a single party is willing to act on immigration. Don't be surprised when people vote for parties which will.
-
I don't know what you think you're proving with that link. Do you think I'm arguing that political advertising isn't real? Because I never argued that. Cambridge Analytica scraped a lot of Facebook data, and it is claimed they used that data to advertise to potential voters. So what? That's how democracy works: convincing potential voters of the righteousness of your cause. Are you arguing that people should no longer be allowed to debate and inform each other in a democracy?
-
I am not wasting any more time by digging out statistics about any of this stuff. Since you apparently on purpose ignore the blatantly obvious part where 2 other major parties actively voted with AfD for exactly what they want on migration I don't think any amount of sources or data could convince you anyway.
-
No, please, continue to support my arguments. I very much appreciate it.
-
Familiarity for one; it was a great Reddit client and it's a good Lemmy one too as well; sensible layout, decent customisation etc.
I paid for ad free ages ago and never looked back.
It hasn't been updated in a while though, so.im playing with Thunder and it's been a pretty nice option as well. Plus, you know, FOSS and available on Droidify/F-Droid.
-
So you're acknowledging that it's a problem of wealth extraction but your proposed solution is for left wing parties to adopt a more anti-immigration stance instead of resolving the issue of inequality?
Right wing parties platform on isolationist policies (Brexit) while massively boosting globalization (how there's now more migration post-Brexit than pre) and using migrants as a scapegoat for people's economic issues.
Pinning the issue of globalization on migrants is like putting the blame on the exploited for the crimes of the exploiters.
Globalization isn't bad because it allows people to resettle, escape political and environmental instability in their own countries - but because neoliberal interests specifically funnel away wealth from their local lower classes and destabilize poorer foreign nations to provide cheap labour for their businesses at home.
So instead of saying how great Denmark is for adopting "zero asylum" policies why not spend your energy advocating for wealth redistribution on a global scale? I agree, ideally people wouldn't need to migrate to richer counties - but I don't see the same "anti-globalist" parties advocating for paying reparations or providing zero debt aid to poorer nations instead either.
Denmark's approach seems to prioritize protecting their domestic welfare system rather than addressing the global systems that create inequality. They've maintained many of the same neoliberal international policies while building higher walls around their own social safety net - exemplifying a "freedom for me, but not for thee" approach.
-
You're equating Cambridge Analytica's targeted psychological manipulation based on secretly harvested personal data with ordinary citizens debating each other. Do you really see no difference between billion-dollar campaigns using Al to exploit psychological vulnerabilities and regular people discussing politics? Who exactly is doing the 'convincing' in your version of democracy?
-
I dunno, I've lost faith since Corbyn. He was prevented from being elected. I believe the left are kept from power, because in my lifetime, most of the people I talk to are to the left of the people who've been power. Jeremy Corbyn being character assassinated wasn't surprising to me. So I'm not fixated on getting lecturers into Westminster. I don't think it's possible.
-
Fascism is also supported by many billionaires, because they won't be targeted anyways.
-
Other than the ads, is there a compelling reason to?
