In Germany, social media algorithms are pumping out huge amounts of far-right, pro-AfD content.
-
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?
-
Yes ban tiktok and X... And meta too... All social media is infected! They're all impure!!! The state must attack! smh \s
-
Almost like capitalism promotes fascism.
-
Capitalism -> Fascism.
-
It worked great for genocide joe and kamalacaust then they passed the torch...
-
Ok, so shut them down. Block them nationally. I know people will get around it but take some kind of protective measures before it is too late for you.
-
Do something?
-
I knew a time before the internet. We don't need it. It has brought us great things, but the cons are outweighing it.
-
We are literally experiencing US disinformation. Trump is on the news telling lies, passing them off as facts. It's being reported, spread, reaching many people.
-
Russian disinformation is still more effective as of now. Trump himself is literally just repeating Russian disinformation and not making up lies on his own. The US has not yet become as proficient with the firehose of falsehood as the Russian state due to lack of experience for the most part.
You just cannot build up a Telegram channel network with hundreds of thousands of subscribers posting about how the EU harvests Adrenochrome from babies over night.
-
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.
I personally wouldn't make much of a distinction between "I remotely made a group of people do something they otherwise wouldn't have done" and "I have special brainwashing powers", but that's beside the point. You can look into 'persuasive technology' if you're interested in the current SOTA.
The more pertinent things in this context are the, as you put it, product's "existence or features" - because their existence, quality or veracity of claimed features has no bearing on whether the advertising works. It just does. Convince others that you have the solution to their problem and they will buy it - whether it solves the problem or not. Or go for the good old industry tradition of creating your own market niche by manufacturing demand that previously didn't exist: 1. Convince others that they have a problem and then 2. convince them to buy your solution to it.
We could make a distinction between terminal goals and instrumental goals (if you're interested) but it's not that important, for simplicity's sake I can just agree with "different people having different priorities". And while there's a spectrum, there absolutely are incorrect purchase decisions. Products that don't work, products that don't exist, products that solve problems that you don't have. You can see how this applies to advertising, political will and democratic elections?I deliberately used the word "tricked" earlier, because I think "misinformed" still carries some connotation that there's some onus on the informee here - there isn't. The victim of a con artist is always just that, a victim.
-
You're talking to yourself now
