Meanwhile there is another topic today about "baby boomers" (that is, old people). It seems like people want to believe this is limited to a particular demographic? Grandparents don't know any...
Meanwhile there is another topic today about "baby boomers" (that is, old people).
It seems like people want to believe this is limited to a particular demographic? Grandparents don't know any better. Kids are getting sucked in. Or maybe it's just Republicans, or it's people on Facebook. And now it's moms.
It's probably still the case that some people are more vulnerable to certain memes than others, but I doubt any group is entirely immune.
Another theory is that Twitter and Facebook are too big to moderate, and small communities will do better. (This is why federation is supposed to be better, and it's also why we think Tildes can be better.)
But the moderation load on these smaller groups seems pretty high too? Or maybe they aren't getting out the ban-hammer enough yet?
The important thing to keep in mind is that Q shit is so ill-defined and amorphous that it can target tons of different groups in ways that very specifically appeal to them. It's important to look...
The important thing to keep in mind is that Q shit is so ill-defined and amorphous that it can target tons of different groups in ways that very specifically appeal to them. It's important to look at all these cases within specific groups not because it has some core appeal that's so broad, but because there is no core appeal and it can change into anything that it needs to. Nearly every relevant conspiracy group of the past decade or so have formed into one.
There's undoubtedly a lot of blame-based discourse out there that is outright unfair, and I'm of the opinion that most culture war pieces are largely garbage, but I read both of these and I don't...
There's undoubtedly a lot of blame-based discourse out there that is outright unfair, and I'm of the opinion that most culture war pieces are largely garbage, but I read both of these and I don't think either of these articles play into that. They're much more descriptive than accusatory, and if they do point the finger, seem to do so more towards platforms and ideology, rather than any specific population.
The baby boomer article deliberately highlights the idea of unfair boomer blaming:
It’s a detail that’s often lost in the discussion around baby boomers and Facebook, which can sometimes unfairly malign the generation as clueless dupes and vectors for disinformation.
Meanwhile, this article highlights how QAnon morphs itself to fit with subcultures (much like @Whom identified in her comment), positioning moms as the latest targets of a pervasive, predatory ideology:
It gained popularity beginning a few years ago, first in the right-wing fringe, then it made its way through the evangelical Christian community and into some libertarian enclaves. So sprawling is the QAnon universe that it seems to be able to adapt to prey on the specific fears of subgroups. In the case of parents, of course, that’s kids.
I don't think the thrust of these articles are that boomers or moms are bad or are responsible for society's ills - I think they're more about examining how society's ills manifest within specific subcultures.
Meanwhile there is another topic today about "baby boomers" (that is, old people).
It seems like people want to believe this is limited to a particular demographic? Grandparents don't know any better. Kids are getting sucked in. Or maybe it's just Republicans, or it's people on Facebook. And now it's moms.
It's probably still the case that some people are more vulnerable to certain memes than others, but I doubt any group is entirely immune.
Another theory is that Twitter and Facebook are too big to moderate, and small communities will do better. (This is why federation is supposed to be better, and it's also why we think Tildes can be better.)
But the moderation load on these smaller groups seems pretty high too? Or maybe they aren't getting out the ban-hammer enough yet?
The important thing to keep in mind is that Q shit is so ill-defined and amorphous that it can target tons of different groups in ways that very specifically appeal to them. It's important to look at all these cases within specific groups not because it has some core appeal that's so broad, but because there is no core appeal and it can change into anything that it needs to. Nearly every relevant conspiracy group of the past decade or so have formed into one.
There's undoubtedly a lot of blame-based discourse out there that is outright unfair, and I'm of the opinion that most culture war pieces are largely garbage, but I read both of these and I don't think either of these articles play into that. They're much more descriptive than accusatory, and if they do point the finger, seem to do so more towards platforms and ideology, rather than any specific population.
The baby boomer article deliberately highlights the idea of unfair boomer blaming:
Meanwhile, this article highlights how QAnon morphs itself to fit with subcultures (much like @Whom identified in her comment), positioning moms as the latest targets of a pervasive, predatory ideology:
I don't think the thrust of these articles are that boomers or moms are bad or are responsible for society's ills - I think they're more about examining how society's ills manifest within specific subcultures.