"Social media is eroding democracy" said a magazine owned by Advance Publications. Gimme a fucking break. You know what erodes democracy? Fucking corporate capitalist media outlets that distort...
"Social media is eroding democracy" said a magazine owned by Advance Publications. Gimme a fucking break. You know what erodes democracy? Fucking corporate capitalist media outlets that distort the space for allowable discussion to serve the desires of wealthy elites.
Yeah the attacks are travesties. But they are a symptom. The problem is the multinationals.
Conversely, I think it would be more correct to say social media is encouraging and incentivising extremism. I think there's a lot of potential psychological exploration space in how internet use...
Conversely, I think it would be more correct to say social media is encouraging and incentivising extremism. I think there's a lot of potential psychological exploration space in how internet use encourages no-cost, no-drawback abilities to be mean. How herd mentality, and the subdividing nature of groups, subreddits, forums, etc exposes people to only insular thinking or thinking they agree with.
This trend, coupled with excessive media, a wealthy base of people who are continuing to concentrate wealth in the upper few percent of society, is leading to a crossroads whereby people are angry. They have things to be angry about. And a very influential set of people and entities are managing to make people direct their anger towards others, than looking to solve the root problem.
It's dead simple, really. Controversy drives engagement, engagement drives revenue. The social media giants profit off of the endless flamewars which plague their platforms. Ideological holy wars...
Conversely, I think it would be more correct to say social media is encouraging and incentivising extremism.
It's dead simple, really. Controversy drives engagement, engagement drives revenue. The social media giants profit off of the endless flamewars which plague their platforms. Ideological holy wars are good for business.
This title makes no sense whatsoever, and the article does nothing to fix that. It's like the author was desperately trying to write a win buzzword article and a fear buzzword article and just...
This title makes no sense whatsoever, and the article does nothing to fix that. It's like the author was desperately trying to write a win buzzword article and a fear buzzword article and just mashed them all together.
Gab's demise is the beginning of a horrific new era FOR far right extremism
or
GAB is the beginning of a horrific new era of far right extremism.
I don't understand what the issue is. The title makes sense and the article explains it fine. Adjusting a preposition doesn't change the meaning of the sentence.
I don't understand what the issue is. The title makes sense and the article explains it fine. Adjusting a preposition doesn't change the meaning of the sentence.
There's a difference in meaning between the two. "Gab's demise is the beginning of a horrific new era FOR far right extremism" means that far right folks are about to be in a horrific era -...
There's a difference in meaning between the two.
"Gab's demise is the beginning of a horrific new era FOR far right extremism" means that far right folks are about to be in a horrific era - presumably of their websites getting closed.
"GAB is the beginning of a horrific new era of far right extremism." The far right extremists will be inflicting a horrific era on everyone else with websites like gab.
Having read the article, I believe the second option is the intention. The idea is there will be a splintering of the internet as places like gab build the necessary infrastructure to exist.
The title is just fine. Gab has been de-platformed: that's Gab's demise. This demise is also a beginning. It begins a new era of something. The something which is beginning a new era is right-wing...
The title is just fine.
Gab's demise | is just the beginning | of a horrific new era | of far-right extremism
Gab has been de-platformed: that's Gab's demise.
This demise is also a beginning.
It begins a new era of something.
The something which is beginning a new era is right-wing extremism.
This new era of extremism is where right-wing extremists find themselves even more disconnected from the mainstream internet, convince themselves even more that they are being persecuted, and where they will create even more private and safe places for their online rhetoric, as per this sentence late in the article:
"The bigger the Internet has become, and the lower the cost of entry, the more likely sites like Gab.com and those further afield will proliferate—not just as social hubs, but as an alternate Internet with its attendant-support networks.
No, the article (and title) is saying that right-wing extremism is being pushed another step further away from mainstream platforms, and closer to being an alternate internet.
No, the article (and title) is saying that right-wing extremism is being pushed another step further away from mainstream platforms, and closer to being an alternate internet.
"Social media is eroding democracy" said a magazine owned by Advance Publications. Gimme a fucking break. You know what erodes democracy? Fucking corporate capitalist media outlets that distort the space for allowable discussion to serve the desires of wealthy elites.
Yeah the attacks are travesties. But they are a symptom. The problem is the multinationals.
Conversely, I think it would be more correct to say social media is encouraging and incentivising extremism. I think there's a lot of potential psychological exploration space in how internet use encourages no-cost, no-drawback abilities to be mean. How herd mentality, and the subdividing nature of groups, subreddits, forums, etc exposes people to only insular thinking or thinking they agree with.
This trend, coupled with excessive media, a wealthy base of people who are continuing to concentrate wealth in the upper few percent of society, is leading to a crossroads whereby people are angry. They have things to be angry about. And a very influential set of people and entities are managing to make people direct their anger towards others, than looking to solve the root problem.
It's dead simple, really. Controversy drives engagement, engagement drives revenue. The social media giants profit off of the endless flamewars which plague their platforms. Ideological holy wars are good for business.
Did you intend to reply to stephen's comment?
This title makes no sense whatsoever, and the article does nothing to fix that. It's like the author was desperately trying to write a win buzzword article and a fear buzzword article and just mashed them all together.
Gab's demise is the beginning of a horrific new era FOR far right extremism
or
GAB is the beginning of a horrific new era of far right extremism.
I don't understand what the issue is. The title makes sense and the article explains it fine. Adjusting a preposition doesn't change the meaning of the sentence.
There's a difference in meaning between the two.
"Gab's demise is the beginning of a horrific new era FOR far right extremism" means that far right folks are about to be in a horrific era - presumably of their websites getting closed.
"GAB is the beginning of a horrific new era of far right extremism." The far right extremists will be inflicting a horrific era on everyone else with websites like gab.
Having read the article, I believe the second option is the intention. The idea is there will be a splintering of the internet as places like gab build the necessary infrastructure to exist.
But what I need explained is what the issue with the actual title is.
The title is just fine.
Gab has been de-platformed: that's Gab's demise.
This demise is also a beginning.
It begins a new era of something.
The something which is beginning a new era is right-wing extremism.
This new era of extremism is where right-wing extremists find themselves even more disconnected from the mainstream internet, convince themselves even more that they are being persecuted, and where they will create even more private and safe places for their online rhetoric, as per this sentence late in the article:
So what you're saying the article is saying is that by not allowing right-wing extremism a voice on mainstream platforms it's being made worse?
No, the article (and title) is saying that right-wing extremism is being pushed another step further away from mainstream platforms, and closer to being an alternate internet.