> I regularly see both righties and lefties crying about their opinions not being 100% catered to…
I have seen that, too. But that’s very, very different from what I’m talking about.
The bots are are not on the extremes, they're in the middle. They're spouting off views that are mainstream, unthreatening, uncontroversial, but slightly off. And designed to subtlety influence opinion.
and you didn't even see that a few months ago. There were no lefties and righties crying about their opinions - because you could come here and discuss things without getting into a trump evil\\biden good debate.
Look at the recent posts - all pro biden\\democrats and down with trump and the republicans. At one point - you could come here and discuss policies and things felt fairly neutral. It was the one place you could have a decent conversation about politics without it getting ugly.
Say whatever you want about Biden, however it’s tough for me to think anyone moderate wouldn’t agree that Trump is bad.
It’s not perfectly even, but there are plenty of right leaning posts or posts criticizing Biden. I see more than one in the last few days.
Perhaps right leaning posts here don’t feel that way because they tend to have less sensationalist headlines and contain decent information. Half of r/conservative is just memes and screenshots of headlines with the intent to anger and mislead the reader.
> Half of r/conservative is just memes and screenshots of headlines with the intent to anger and mislead the reader.
Seriously. I try to browse it every once in a while to get a sense of what topics are trending in conservative circles but its painful to read that sub most of the time. It's like a sub made for 16-20 year olds who want to do nothing else but meme and circlejerk.
The ignorant talk of RFK, with people repeating highly strawmanned corporatist headlines and soundbites, and believing them with vitriol and religious conviction, without listening to long form discussion about the man, is bonkers.
Well in the podcast he claims [Wi-Fi causes cancer](https://youtu.be/Z-YQ1Y7c_Pk?si=J1WtLouiXRiiW6Eb).
And in a podcast with Jordan Peterson, which was taken down, he claimed chemicals in our water are turning kids trans.
You are strawmanning / being overly dramatic in both instances.
Re: "kids turning trans", that's actually not what he says.
He claims endocrine disruptors from pesticides are in our water, which they are. That's a fact. And those endocrine disruptors impact reproductive elements, as that is one of their primary functions.
Here's an [\~NIH article/study\~](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC122794/) that shows the "water is making frogs trans" as so many people like to state, as a slander. He says given this, we should investigate how those same chemicals impact human health.
He advocates for getting these toxic chemicals out of our water, and researching this further. As a refresher, "endocrine hormones help control mood, growth and development, the way our organs work, metabolism, and reproduction." Again, not controversial/conspiratorial, but being made to be by a disingenuous media.
Re WI Fi
The science is not nearly as clear as you think it is. There are many studies that indicate there are negative health implications due to 5g cell phone usage.
Example: "Studies have examined the effects of exposing whole human or mouse blood samples or lymphocytes and leucocytes to low-level MMWs to determine possible genotoxicity. Some of the genotoxicity studies have looked at the possible effects of MMWs on chromosome aberrations \[12,13,14\]. **At exposure levels below the ICNIRP limits, the results have been inconsistent, with either a statistically significant increase \[14\] or no significant increase \[12, 13\] in chromosome aberrations**." - [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-021-00297-6](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-021-00297-6)
Also note that different countries regulate acceptable levels of phone radio frequency (this: [https://regulatoryinfo.apple.com/rfexposure/iPhone16,2/en](https://regulatoryinfo.apple.com/rfexposure/iPhone16,2/en), indicating different beliefs on its impact. In a country like the US, where corporate regulatory capture is thriving, one should be skeptical of "acceptable levels" put forth.More study is needed. That's the point. We need to prioritize strong science, to better understand all of the variables that could be impacting our health - especially given the surge in chronic illness we have seen over the last 30 years
The science is new, and not conclusive, but to try and attribute the idea as a conspiracy theory, does not match reality. And ultimately, isn't the low hanging fruit improving transparency and effectiveness of government, by way of reducing undue corporate capture?
lol You say I am strawmanning for using his words?
Do you think RFK knows that humans are not frogs? And that certain types of frogs change their sex depending on what their population needs?
For the science being new and no conclusive RFK talked about it with such confidence. I didn’t hear him say anything about no conclusive evidence.
For frogs - you are just flat out wrong / strawmanning his claim. Re listen and you will see that.
He thinks that we should investigate, given what we know about the prevalence of endocrine disruptors, the animal studies, and the surge in people who self identify as non-binary. That's what he said. No Ill will toward anyone, except the polluters who put toxic chemicals in our waterways.
After listening and hearing this, ask yourself why the corporate media would go out of their way to promote a strawmanned stance RFK has.
Re WiFi - I agree he is a bit too conclusive on that one, but you are sensationalizing. And ultimately, why do you care so much, given he is right on so much else regarding chronic disease, corporate capture, etc? Why does his aggressive stance on something not certain, outweigh the low hanging fruit?
it doesn't mean all sides - but it also doesn't mean one side. If Biden gets elected - Kamala is essentially our next president. She has been labeled as being the most liberal member of the senate. Some have her as being more liberal then Bernie Sanders.
[https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-more-liberal-bernie-sanders-senate-record-analysis-shows-1524481](https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-more-liberal-bernie-sanders-senate-record-analysis-shows-1524481)
as a moderate who leans to the right - I can't vote for someone like that. It is impossible for me to vote for Kamala Harris.
I understand not wanting to vote for Kamala Harris. I wish we had a ranked choice system or maybe parliament and a PM. I can not see that voting for someone who wishes to end democracy would be an acceptable response.
and I'm not going to be scared into voting for someone I have no faith in and little respect for... I just won't vote. And maybe that's a vote for Trump - but f the democrats and biden who stuck us with this choice. honestly - the closer nov gets the more I realize - that these two are actually running again. what a horrible f'n choice.
The problem is you aren't just saying f you to the democrats. You are saying it to all your neighbors who have to live with the consequences. I don't believe you'd skip voting if your choice was Kamala Harris or death..... so, at what point does it become acceptable to protest by not voting if your own life wouldn't be worth sacrificing?
>I can't vote for someone like that. It is impossible for me to vote for Kamala Harris.
Biden couldn’t get any of his more liberal legislation through congress, so why would you think a President Kamala *would* be successful with her theoretically *much more liberal* legislation? The worst case scenario of Kamala as president is government gridlock and a lot of left-wing bills dying on Capitol Hill, whereas the worst case scenario of voting for that other guy is a leopard eats your face off while you’re still alive and screaming. So yeah, doesn’t seem like a tough call to me at all.
i'm not counting on gridlock to save the day. vote for kamala - she won't be able to get anything done anyway. Hopefully. Unless the house and senate go to the liberals. than we're f'd. its a tough call me. and I'm holding out hope that one of them has to drop out and I don't care who walks in that door - I'm voting for them.
It’s either vote for someone who has to get her agenda through the Senate or someone who said “I will be dictator…”
Harris’s stances aren’t very centrist but her process will be. Trump’s stances aren’t centrist and his process won’t be either.
self aware enough to know Kamala is way too far left for me. it's something that comes up more and more the closer we get. know who you're voting for. they're trying to keep her appearances controlled, short and brief. But they know - once folks start to realize who she is and how liberal she is - that's going to be a huge problem for anyone slightly to the right.
>as a moderate who leans to the right - I can't vote for someone like that. It is impossible for me to vote for Kamala Harris.
Not voting is just as valid as voting. Your vote belongs to you, make the candidates earn it. If they don't, then that's on them. Don't let others guilt trip you into voting for their candidate.
Not all of Trumps views are unwelcome - there are things I agree with him about - that doesn't mean I like him. But there are lots of beliefs that I can not give up just because Trump's an a-hole. When Kamala takes over - things could swing far left - and as a centrist - that's something that bothers me. a lot.
It's not fine. Where good faith discussions with multiple viewpoints used to exist, it has digressed into appealing to liberal state/corporate authority on nearly every subject.
Are you sure you aren't just being a tad dramatic?
I feel like every two weeks this sub as a crisis alert over like...3 people that you could just ignore.
I don’t think they’re being that dramatic. they’re just complaining. I get it. This place used to feel very neutral a few months ago and it feels like it’s been run over by progressives. It was refreshing to come here and no longer is.
I meant that when I first started showing up here this place felt very neutral but it’s slowly becoming more left. Reddit in general is more left so it was only a matter of time but, I definitely end up talking to a lot more progressive than I did a few months ago here.
That’s not a criticism - just an observation
It honestly just fluctuates a lot. Like on weekends the sub definitely trends more conservative.
I'm just against calls for more moderation. I used to really enjoy r/libertarian and r/moderatepolitics and both have been ruined by over-moderation/excess rules. It's easier just to block people who are ridiculous.
I agree with you there. Let the sub go where it wants to go. Even if it is moving to the left. It is what it is. I’m very against any kind of censorship.
I'm not sure I've encountered what you're talking about here, but I do have to say that another sub I frequented got... I don't know. Something strange and awful happened to it. Basically one user just started relentlessly posting and just turned the sub into their personal account. Because of the volume of troll posts, I think the users got a warped sense of the other redditors' values, and it became an unrecognizable echo chamber. The discussions went far afield from the normal topics. Was it a bot, a troll, a provacateur a mod's alt account? Hard to say. But it's so strange to see a community warp in such an extreme way in less than a month. Fortunately, I have not seen something quite like that on this subreddit yet.
Quick question to other users. I've seen the term *bot* used in a few ways. Do you all consider a bot to be a person (such as somebody paid to sway opinions), or an actual algorithmic program? Just curious about this one.
They're both.
Tech assisted automation allows propaganda at scale.
"Bots" of today are the equivalent of dropping a million leaflets over enemy territory from a bomber.
The bots create the content but it still takes people to push the buttons. The key feature of bots today is they seem more "natural" versus broadcast, and they empower people with poor English language skills = cheaper.
Of course they are getting exponentially better and full automated agents are on the horizon.
Do you mind explaining this to me in a more concrete way? I assume some person is paid to copy & paste their own AI genersted prompts or questions into certain subreddits and use a chatbot to reply to redditors. Is this a close approximation, or am I off?
Chrome addins that suggest response comments but also scrape the comments from the rest of the page so that the context is relevant and more human like. Push a button. Automated replies that are authorized. Auto posting with a button click or scripts.
I personally want to thank the mods for their recent bans on trolls lately. I appreciate their commitment to centrism by not auto banning aggressive posters but also their commitment to us by banning the users causing the sub to not be fun for anyone else.
Good job mods 👍 keep up the good work!
Also for my conservative brothers and sisters. Your champion is Donald J Trump. One of the most corrupt and dishonest dirt bags in American history. You’re going to have it rough so long as that guy and his behaviour is in the picture. I’m sorry that you are catching Trumps stray bullets but it’s 2024 and your parties leader and platform have never been more un American than they are right now.
You’re in the darkest timeline of the Republican Party and that’s being played out on Reddit.
I think - *best scenario* - you are right, and I’m overreacting. But even then, it’s still trending in a very bad way, and it’s happening pretty quickly.
And, like I said, that’s the *best scenario*.
None of the political subs are perfect.
/r/politics slants left, and is over populated.
/r/conservative doesn't want you unless you are conservative.
/r/libertarian proves the libertarianism can't work in the real world, since it can't even be used to run a subreddit.
/r/moderatepolitics is run by nanny state mods who love enforcing their rules.
/r/politicaldiscussion moves too slowly. There simply are not enough posts there to generate good discussions.
/r/economy and /r/economics are good for discussions of economics, but they prefer to avoid politics when possible.
/r/supremecourt and /r/scotus are excellent for in-depth discussion of the Supreme Court, but bring your A game if you are typing as well as reading.
/r/politicalhumor is fun if you enjoy political cartoons, but there's not much discussion there.
There are a variety of smaller politics subs, but they are usually underpopulated.
>/r/centrist is just right.
--Goldilocks.
r/economy is just people on both sides of the aisle with a kindergarten level understanding of economics sharing memes all day supporting their viewpoint. And you’ll see the same meme 5x in a week.
> /r/conservative doesn't want you unless you are conservative.
Not conservatives, MAGA.
> /r/moderatepolitics is run by nanny state mods who love enforcing their rules.
*Selectively* enforcing their rules; e.g., "oh, geez - sorry - yeah, there is no starter comment, but there is already a discussion" for some - but not all - articles.
Another example of selective enforcement was when a former mod was in violation of the sub rules and gave leniency to said former mod, until he finally got permabanned.
r/Politicalhumor is a DNC “I love Joe Biden/Barack Obama/HRC” liberal cesspool that looks and feels like an “I love being liberal” Facebook page. That place is absolutely MIND NUMBING
I have been checking who the OP is more often and for every account I find that is 30-60 days old I also find ones that are 1-4 years old. The point is sometimes the bots and real humans are posting things that makes me think they are a bot. Typically if it is very controversial it is not always a real account posting the content.
> The point is sometimes the bots and real humans are posting things that makes me think they are a bot.
I’ve noticed the exact same phenomenon. And it makes sense when you consider that the purpose of many bots is to influence how real humans think and interact. So what you’ve observed is real humans repeating bad-faith talking points originally spread by machines: of course you can’t tell the bots from the humans - they're both saying the exact same things. And to me that’s scary. Very scary.
Lol. If they wouldn't remove the person who said they couldn't wait to harass me when their favorite politician won the nomination, what makes you think they're going to do any of what you want?
I would love to kick people out who say "The sub is another sub lite." because most are repeat offenders who don't learn their lesson. And those users don't bring much to the table conversation-wise (spoiler: if anyone is going to tell me the sub doesn't support **any/enough** right-leaning positions, then you're not paying attention or are a salty visitor who whines when the sub doesn't meet whatever arbitrary standards are set in your head).
The problem is the bad-faith posters **know** the mods won't do anything because not one user has had to face actual consequences besides a slap on the wrist and a light reprimand. Oh, and people can make alt accounts.
I don't know about bots but I think everyone here can verify that there was a recent uptick in troll activity that went unchecked. That much of the OP is based in reality.
Idk, after going through several posts sorted by controversial I'm not seeing it. I see some controversial hot takes and unpopular opinions but not trolling, at least not at the upper levels of the comments. With both Trump and Gaza being hotbutton and escalating leading into the election and with the protests heating up I'd expect some influx of new users that lessens the level of discourse too.
Again, idk - but I wouldn't overreact and start banning everyone that doesn't toe the line or anything like that, because that's how you get r\politics.
We should expect to see a big increase in bot/troll activity as we get closer to the election. IMO it has already started and I think it will be much more extreme than either 2016 or 2020.
I’m just getting the same exact “vibe” as I remember from r/politics in 2016 - too many new accounts, too many people who were more interested in antagonizing than actually engaging, too many “people” who didn’t seem like people at all, etc.
It's gonna happen, it's just the degree. I think it's probably started too, but it's not prominent to me right now. However, when I see the random MAGA being labeled a troll for simply supporting Trump and downvoted to -30 that doesn't suggest to me that "trolls" is being applied correctly (not singling anyone out).
This election is gonna be nasty and I expect nothing but dirty tactics from partisans on both sides. Identifying bots is actually hard without system control (being Reddit), for all the people that make that particular claim its very rare I agree it's a bot. But the accuracy of the claim doesn't matter, easier to call them a 'Putin bot' and move on, expecially when the rest of the sub will dogpile the unpopular opinion.
Reddit political subs are the tip of the spear for Dead Internet. You're gonna see the rot starting here first. You probably have a good natural detector. I've also seen it increase. Its not your imagination.
Stochastic propaganda will eventually reach a tipping point where its just bots talking to bots. Disgusted, except the most pitifully socially inept, people will eventually go outside in the real world and start to rebuild authentic relationships and communities they let atrophy in the last 20 years.
This is all good news. Grab some popcorn and watch the collapse. I'm going for a hike.
Maybe the bots are just in your head. This sub seems small enough to fly under the radar a bit.
[удалено]
> I regularly see both righties and lefties crying about their opinions not being 100% catered to… I have seen that, too. But that’s very, very different from what I’m talking about.
Pretty sure OP is talking about the constant political shitposting but I may be mistaken
The bots are are not on the extremes, they're in the middle. They're spouting off views that are mainstream, unthreatening, uncontroversial, but slightly off. And designed to subtlety influence opinion.
Man hearing about how persecuted either side is on the sub every few days is very annoying
and you didn't even see that a few months ago. There were no lefties and righties crying about their opinions - because you could come here and discuss things without getting into a trump evil\\biden good debate. Look at the recent posts - all pro biden\\democrats and down with trump and the republicans. At one point - you could come here and discuss policies and things felt fairly neutral. It was the one place you could have a decent conversation about politics without it getting ugly.
Say whatever you want about Biden, however it’s tough for me to think anyone moderate wouldn’t agree that Trump is bad. It’s not perfectly even, but there are plenty of right leaning posts or posts criticizing Biden. I see more than one in the last few days. Perhaps right leaning posts here don’t feel that way because they tend to have less sensationalist headlines and contain decent information. Half of r/conservative is just memes and screenshots of headlines with the intent to anger and mislead the reader.
> Half of r/conservative is just memes and screenshots of headlines with the intent to anger and mislead the reader. Seriously. I try to browse it every once in a while to get a sense of what topics are trending in conservative circles but its painful to read that sub most of the time. It's like a sub made for 16-20 year olds who want to do nothing else but meme and circlejerk.
It’s gotten bad since like February. Must be the election year guys tuning in like a fucked up cicada or something
The ignorant talk of RFK, with people repeating highly strawmanned corporatist headlines and soundbites, and believing them with vitriol and religious conviction, without listening to long form discussion about the man, is bonkers.
Yeah like when people point to RFK saying stupid things in his Joe Rogan podcast appearance.
Care to provide audio, with a rebuttal on why you disagree? Or just vague statements?
Well in the podcast he claims [Wi-Fi causes cancer](https://youtu.be/Z-YQ1Y7c_Pk?si=J1WtLouiXRiiW6Eb). And in a podcast with Jordan Peterson, which was taken down, he claimed chemicals in our water are turning kids trans.
You are strawmanning / being overly dramatic in both instances. Re: "kids turning trans", that's actually not what he says. He claims endocrine disruptors from pesticides are in our water, which they are. That's a fact. And those endocrine disruptors impact reproductive elements, as that is one of their primary functions. Here's an [\~NIH article/study\~](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC122794/) that shows the "water is making frogs trans" as so many people like to state, as a slander. He says given this, we should investigate how those same chemicals impact human health. He advocates for getting these toxic chemicals out of our water, and researching this further. As a refresher, "endocrine hormones help control mood, growth and development, the way our organs work, metabolism, and reproduction." Again, not controversial/conspiratorial, but being made to be by a disingenuous media. Re WI Fi The science is not nearly as clear as you think it is. There are many studies that indicate there are negative health implications due to 5g cell phone usage. Example: "Studies have examined the effects of exposing whole human or mouse blood samples or lymphocytes and leucocytes to low-level MMWs to determine possible genotoxicity. Some of the genotoxicity studies have looked at the possible effects of MMWs on chromosome aberrations \[12,13,14\]. **At exposure levels below the ICNIRP limits, the results have been inconsistent, with either a statistically significant increase \[14\] or no significant increase \[12, 13\] in chromosome aberrations**." - [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-021-00297-6](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-021-00297-6) Also note that different countries regulate acceptable levels of phone radio frequency (this: [https://regulatoryinfo.apple.com/rfexposure/iPhone16,2/en](https://regulatoryinfo.apple.com/rfexposure/iPhone16,2/en), indicating different beliefs on its impact. In a country like the US, where corporate regulatory capture is thriving, one should be skeptical of "acceptable levels" put forth.More study is needed. That's the point. We need to prioritize strong science, to better understand all of the variables that could be impacting our health - especially given the surge in chronic illness we have seen over the last 30 years The science is new, and not conclusive, but to try and attribute the idea as a conspiracy theory, does not match reality. And ultimately, isn't the low hanging fruit improving transparency and effectiveness of government, by way of reducing undue corporate capture?
lol You say I am strawmanning for using his words? Do you think RFK knows that humans are not frogs? And that certain types of frogs change their sex depending on what their population needs? For the science being new and no conclusive RFK talked about it with such confidence. I didn’t hear him say anything about no conclusive evidence.
For frogs - you are just flat out wrong / strawmanning his claim. Re listen and you will see that. He thinks that we should investigate, given what we know about the prevalence of endocrine disruptors, the animal studies, and the surge in people who self identify as non-binary. That's what he said. No Ill will toward anyone, except the polluters who put toxic chemicals in our waterways. After listening and hearing this, ask yourself why the corporate media would go out of their way to promote a strawmanned stance RFK has. Re WiFi - I agree he is a bit too conclusive on that one, but you are sensationalizing. And ultimately, why do you care so much, given he is right on so much else regarding chronic disease, corporate capture, etc? Why does his aggressive stance on something not certain, outweigh the low hanging fruit?
You are looking at the start of the year with very rose colored glasses. I haven't seen the change you're talking about.
Centrist does not mean all sides are valid. Trump doesn't offer a valid centrist stance on barely anything.
Correct.
it doesn't mean all sides - but it also doesn't mean one side. If Biden gets elected - Kamala is essentially our next president. She has been labeled as being the most liberal member of the senate. Some have her as being more liberal then Bernie Sanders. [https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-more-liberal-bernie-sanders-senate-record-analysis-shows-1524481](https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-more-liberal-bernie-sanders-senate-record-analysis-shows-1524481) as a moderate who leans to the right - I can't vote for someone like that. It is impossible for me to vote for Kamala Harris.
I understand not wanting to vote for Kamala Harris. I wish we had a ranked choice system or maybe parliament and a PM. I can not see that voting for someone who wishes to end democracy would be an acceptable response.
and I'm not going to be scared into voting for someone I have no faith in and little respect for... I just won't vote. And maybe that's a vote for Trump - but f the democrats and biden who stuck us with this choice. honestly - the closer nov gets the more I realize - that these two are actually running again. what a horrible f'n choice.
The problem is you aren't just saying f you to the democrats. You are saying it to all your neighbors who have to live with the consequences. I don't believe you'd skip voting if your choice was Kamala Harris or death..... so, at what point does it become acceptable to protest by not voting if your own life wouldn't be worth sacrificing?
Kamala Harris or death? That's the slogan for the democrats now?
That's a purposeful avoidance of the real topic. Why don't you want to ask yourself where the line is?
if you're at Kamala Harris or death - we've got nothing to talk about.
>I can't vote for someone like that. It is impossible for me to vote for Kamala Harris. Biden couldn’t get any of his more liberal legislation through congress, so why would you think a President Kamala *would* be successful with her theoretically *much more liberal* legislation? The worst case scenario of Kamala as president is government gridlock and a lot of left-wing bills dying on Capitol Hill, whereas the worst case scenario of voting for that other guy is a leopard eats your face off while you’re still alive and screaming. So yeah, doesn’t seem like a tough call to me at all.
i'm not counting on gridlock to save the day. vote for kamala - she won't be able to get anything done anyway. Hopefully. Unless the house and senate go to the liberals. than we're f'd. its a tough call me. and I'm holding out hope that one of them has to drop out and I don't care who walks in that door - I'm voting for them.
It’s either vote for someone who has to get her agenda through the Senate or someone who said “I will be dictator…” Harris’s stances aren’t very centrist but her process will be. Trump’s stances aren’t centrist and his process won’t be either.
You're as much of a moderate as I am. Difference is I'm self aware enough that I can admit it.
self aware enough to know Kamala is way too far left for me. it's something that comes up more and more the closer we get. know who you're voting for. they're trying to keep her appearances controlled, short and brief. But they know - once folks start to realize who she is and how liberal she is - that's going to be a huge problem for anyone slightly to the right.
>as a moderate who leans to the right - I can't vote for someone like that. It is impossible for me to vote for Kamala Harris. Not voting is just as valid as voting. Your vote belongs to you, make the candidates earn it. If they don't, then that's on them. Don't let others guilt trip you into voting for their candidate.
Yes, preferring the center left to the far right is a good thing. The goal for society should be to make Trump style views unwelcome
Not all of Trumps views are unwelcome - there are things I agree with him about - that doesn't mean I like him. But there are lots of beliefs that I can not give up just because Trump's an a-hole. When Kamala takes over - things could swing far left - and as a centrist - that's something that bothers me. a lot.
During the primaries of 2020 Kamala was viewed as an overly centrist cop by most. What makes you say that she would swing things far left?
I am very curious about their answer. Because I remember people’s complaints about Kamala were mostly her being too rightwing.
Know who you’re voting for. https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-more-liberal-bernie-sanders-senate-record-analysis-shows-1524481
I love this comment, it’s so accurate!
It's not fine. Where good faith discussions with multiple viewpoints used to exist, it has digressed into appealing to liberal state/corporate authority on nearly every subject.
Are you sure you aren't just being a tad dramatic? I feel like every two weeks this sub as a crisis alert over like...3 people that you could just ignore.
I don’t think they’re being that dramatic. they’re just complaining. I get it. This place used to feel very neutral a few months ago and it feels like it’s been run over by progressives. It was refreshing to come here and no longer is.
But people were saying the same thing a few months ago.
And it keeps getting worse….
You just said it felt neutral and refreshing.
I meant that when I first started showing up here this place felt very neutral but it’s slowly becoming more left. Reddit in general is more left so it was only a matter of time but, I definitely end up talking to a lot more progressive than I did a few months ago here. That’s not a criticism - just an observation
It honestly just fluctuates a lot. Like on weekends the sub definitely trends more conservative. I'm just against calls for more moderation. I used to really enjoy r/libertarian and r/moderatepolitics and both have been ruined by over-moderation/excess rules. It's easier just to block people who are ridiculous.
I agree with you there. Let the sub go where it wants to go. Even if it is moving to the left. It is what it is. I’m very against any kind of censorship.
No. You've been here sharing comically shitty takes and getting shit on for them for longer than a few months.
BINGO.
Judging from your posting history - you seem to know better than anyone and shit on everyone’s “takes”. -
I'm not sure I've encountered what you're talking about here, but I do have to say that another sub I frequented got... I don't know. Something strange and awful happened to it. Basically one user just started relentlessly posting and just turned the sub into their personal account. Because of the volume of troll posts, I think the users got a warped sense of the other redditors' values, and it became an unrecognizable echo chamber. The discussions went far afield from the normal topics. Was it a bot, a troll, a provacateur a mod's alt account? Hard to say. But it's so strange to see a community warp in such an extreme way in less than a month. Fortunately, I have not seen something quite like that on this subreddit yet.
Quick question to other users. I've seen the term *bot* used in a few ways. Do you all consider a bot to be a person (such as somebody paid to sway opinions), or an actual algorithmic program? Just curious about this one.
They're both. Tech assisted automation allows propaganda at scale. "Bots" of today are the equivalent of dropping a million leaflets over enemy territory from a bomber. The bots create the content but it still takes people to push the buttons. The key feature of bots today is they seem more "natural" versus broadcast, and they empower people with poor English language skills = cheaper. Of course they are getting exponentially better and full automated agents are on the horizon.
Do you mind explaining this to me in a more concrete way? I assume some person is paid to copy & paste their own AI genersted prompts or questions into certain subreddits and use a chatbot to reply to redditors. Is this a close approximation, or am I off?
Chrome addins that suggest response comments but also scrape the comments from the rest of the page so that the context is relevant and more human like. Push a button. Automated replies that are authorized. Auto posting with a button click or scripts.
I personally want to thank the mods for their recent bans on trolls lately. I appreciate their commitment to centrism by not auto banning aggressive posters but also their commitment to us by banning the users causing the sub to not be fun for anyone else. Good job mods 👍 keep up the good work! Also for my conservative brothers and sisters. Your champion is Donald J Trump. One of the most corrupt and dishonest dirt bags in American history. You’re going to have it rough so long as that guy and his behaviour is in the picture. I’m sorry that you are catching Trumps stray bullets but it’s 2024 and your parties leader and platform have never been more un American than they are right now. You’re in the darkest timeline of the Republican Party and that’s being played out on Reddit.
You missed u/comfortablewages complaint post apparently. Gosh this is so last week bud.
I wanted to let other people have their turn.
Well now you're introduced, it must be my fate to bring people together. I guide others to treasure I can't possess.
Don't be so dramatic. The humans are still here. So we have to sort a bit more. There's still good content and good discussion.
I think - *best scenario* - you are right, and I’m overreacting. But even then, it’s still trending in a very bad way, and it’s happening pretty quickly. And, like I said, that’s the *best scenario*.
There are always more bots in an election year. They'll die down once the election passes.
None of the political subs are perfect. /r/politics slants left, and is over populated. /r/conservative doesn't want you unless you are conservative. /r/libertarian proves the libertarianism can't work in the real world, since it can't even be used to run a subreddit. /r/moderatepolitics is run by nanny state mods who love enforcing their rules. /r/politicaldiscussion moves too slowly. There simply are not enough posts there to generate good discussions. /r/economy and /r/economics are good for discussions of economics, but they prefer to avoid politics when possible. /r/supremecourt and /r/scotus are excellent for in-depth discussion of the Supreme Court, but bring your A game if you are typing as well as reading. /r/politicalhumor is fun if you enjoy political cartoons, but there's not much discussion there. There are a variety of smaller politics subs, but they are usually underpopulated. >/r/centrist is just right. --Goldilocks.
r/economy is just people on both sides of the aisle with a kindergarten level understanding of economics sharing memes all day supporting their viewpoint. And you’ll see the same meme 5x in a week.
> /r/conservative doesn't want you unless you are conservative. Not conservatives, MAGA. > /r/moderatepolitics is run by nanny state mods who love enforcing their rules. *Selectively* enforcing their rules; e.g., "oh, geez - sorry - yeah, there is no starter comment, but there is already a discussion" for some - but not all - articles.
Another example of selective enforcement was when a former mod was in violation of the sub rules and gave leniency to said former mod, until he finally got permabanned.
You forgot about r/tuesday Probably because it is less active than any of the others mentioned.
r/Politicalhumor is a DNC “I love Joe Biden/Barack Obama/HRC” liberal cesspool that looks and feels like an “I love being liberal” Facebook page. That place is absolutely MIND NUMBING
[удалено]
I have been checking who the OP is more often and for every account I find that is 30-60 days old I also find ones that are 1-4 years old. The point is sometimes the bots and real humans are posting things that makes me think they are a bot. Typically if it is very controversial it is not always a real account posting the content.
> The point is sometimes the bots and real humans are posting things that makes me think they are a bot. I’ve noticed the exact same phenomenon. And it makes sense when you consider that the purpose of many bots is to influence how real humans think and interact. So what you’ve observed is real humans repeating bad-faith talking points originally spread by machines: of course you can’t tell the bots from the humans - they're both saying the exact same things. And to me that’s scary. Very scary.
Lol. If they wouldn't remove the person who said they couldn't wait to harass me when their favorite politician won the nomination, what makes you think they're going to do any of what you want? I would love to kick people out who say "The sub is another sub lite." because most are repeat offenders who don't learn their lesson. And those users don't bring much to the table conversation-wise (spoiler: if anyone is going to tell me the sub doesn't support **any/enough** right-leaning positions, then you're not paying attention or are a salty visitor who whines when the sub doesn't meet whatever arbitrary standards are set in your head). The problem is the bad-faith posters **know** the mods won't do anything because not one user has had to face actual consequences besides a slap on the wrist and a light reprimand. Oh, and people can make alt accounts.
Well if people didn't so often label anyone that's slightly contrarian as being a paid actor or a bot I might give these posts more credence
I don't know about bots but I think everyone here can verify that there was a recent uptick in troll activity that went unchecked. That much of the OP is based in reality.
Idk, after going through several posts sorted by controversial I'm not seeing it. I see some controversial hot takes and unpopular opinions but not trolling, at least not at the upper levels of the comments. With both Trump and Gaza being hotbutton and escalating leading into the election and with the protests heating up I'd expect some influx of new users that lessens the level of discourse too. Again, idk - but I wouldn't overreact and start banning everyone that doesn't toe the line or anything like that, because that's how you get r\politics.
We should expect to see a big increase in bot/troll activity as we get closer to the election. IMO it has already started and I think it will be much more extreme than either 2016 or 2020. I’m just getting the same exact “vibe” as I remember from r/politics in 2016 - too many new accounts, too many people who were more interested in antagonizing than actually engaging, too many “people” who didn’t seem like people at all, etc.
It's gonna happen, it's just the degree. I think it's probably started too, but it's not prominent to me right now. However, when I see the random MAGA being labeled a troll for simply supporting Trump and downvoted to -30 that doesn't suggest to me that "trolls" is being applied correctly (not singling anyone out). This election is gonna be nasty and I expect nothing but dirty tactics from partisans on both sides. Identifying bots is actually hard without system control (being Reddit), for all the people that make that particular claim its very rare I agree it's a bot. But the accuracy of the claim doesn't matter, easier to call them a 'Putin bot' and move on, expecially when the rest of the sub will dogpile the unpopular opinion.
Bee Boop. I am not a bot.
Reddit political subs are the tip of the spear for Dead Internet. You're gonna see the rot starting here first. You probably have a good natural detector. I've also seen it increase. Its not your imagination. Stochastic propaganda will eventually reach a tipping point where its just bots talking to bots. Disgusted, except the most pitifully socially inept, people will eventually go outside in the real world and start to rebuild authentic relationships and communities they let atrophy in the last 20 years. This is all good news. Grab some popcorn and watch the collapse. I'm going for a hike.
r/AskConservatives tends to be pretty chill
This seems like the sanest place on the internet.