General Politics Discussion (VI) [ARCHIVED] • Page 1057

There was that short vid of AOC talking about this very thing the other day and it really resonated with me, mainly because I know I am feeling very cynical and negative about where we are at as a country. My default for dealing with people like that is to say fuck them and completely write them off.

 

“It is also where Bernie Sanders got 2M views in 17 hours, more than Rogan's most popular episodes get in 30 days.”

This is also a big reason I think it’s a mistake. Bernie helps Joe more than Joe helps Bernie. Bernie fans watched that episode, which is why it did so well so fast, so they now are going to get more recommendations based on that on YouTube, and I don’t think those recommendations are going to be for leftist causes based on the algorithm. I think that’s a net negative.

The question I have is where does it swing toward a positive and how to actually measure the impact. How many new Bernie donors or voters would be needed to counter what I consider the negatives of going on to platforms, and helping them monetize. How do we calculate the person that sees Bernie and goes “I like him” in this episode with someone that goes “I didn’t know about Rogan and now I’m watching his multiple Ben Shapiro episodes” and goes the other way.

I dunno how to calculate those things, so that’s why I still come down on that I think it’s extremely dangerous to use your platform to prop up, and monetize, those that are counter to your own belief. It’s why I weigh where to put my voice and point my audience, and what programs or podcasts I’d introduce my (very very small comparatively) readers too. It’s my belief that I have a responsibly to wield carefully and why I get upset when I see things like podcasters I like recommending harmful stuff. (Like when one of my favorite tech podcasts once recommended Ben Shapiro even though he “doesn’t agree with what he has to say.”) Maybe I overthink it and the responsibility, but I’d rather error on that side than the other.

 

You may enjoy this study, since it’s built on how to change peoples mind in an online forum:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.01103v1.pdf

 

This was a big part of Food Inc., which came out eleven years ago. I believe it highlighted Smithfield's practices of doing this.

 

Also, if people haven’t read the Debunking Handbook, it’s a good collection of information:

https://skepticalscience.com/docs/Debunking_Handbook.pdf

Debunking myths is problematic. Unless great care is taken, any effort to debunk misinformation can inadvertently reinforce the very myths one seeks to correct. To avoid these “backfire effects”, an effective debunking requires three major elements. First, the refutation must focus on core facts rather than the myth to avoid the misinformation becoming more familiar. Second, any mention of a myth should be preceded by explicit warnings to notify the reader that the upcoming information is false. Finally, the refutation should include an alternative explanation that accounts for important qualities in the original misinformation

 

I just saw the episode #1 on trending, played it for a minute or two and skimmed the comments. I'll let you know if I get some messed up algorithm stuff.

I think the biggest thing I lean on, is that its to manipulate people that want to be manipulated. Because I strongly believe that the ideology of Bernie is righteous, thoroughly honest, and logically sound, I think he has more power to convince people than the right wing grifters. I have faith that more people can change their views on Bernie from hearing him speak, as opposed to the straw man he is portrayed as in right wing circles, than people who like Bernie can fall down the Joe Rogan rabbit hole and get radicalized by his fucked up guests.

I don't have the data to back that up, but you don't have the data either, so we're kind of at a standstill in terms of effects. I do think Rogan has a massive impressionable audience, and reaching them shouldn't be off limits. I also think he is more useful idiot for these right wing groups than some sort of evil manipulator. The more left wing people he has on, as a guy who often just agrees with guests and lets them talk, the better.

 

I am sure Bernie being very intelligent thought about these very things and weighed out the pros and cons, but my personal thoughts on it line up with what you are saying here. I know it is cynical of me, but I just don't think people way down those type of paths can be 'brought back to the fold' so-to-speak just by hearing someone like Bernie making a lot of sense and being logical and honest on a podcast. I suppose I feel like the only thing that can change that kind of thinking would be an intervention type event by actual real people in your life who care deeply about you, similar to how people would do an intervention for drinking or drug use. So the benefit would be small, if it exists at all, while the harm and damage is great.

Also, where do you draw the line...? Meaning, if I were Bernie, I personally would look at who Joe Rogan has had on his program and would feel that I am giving credence and weight and helping to normalize the other guests he has had on, even if only indirectly.

I know my brother listens to Joe Rogan's podcast all the time, but for me, once he brings on guests like Ben Shapiro and especially Alex Jones, that is it for me. That is where I draw the line. I can't support that.

 

Pretty sure that actually is a negative sign to the algorithm. It looks at what you play, and keep playing, and then what you click on next and how long you watch. At least, that was a big part of it a while back. The incentive to keep you continually on the site, watching things, so if you go to something else and not watch, that would rank it lower for things you like.

This is where I disagree. I think the evidence is that appeals to emotions and anger that the right wing grifters, and Fox News, use is extremely powerful. I don’t think logic is going to change someone’s mind in that regard.

Well, we have data from the original tweet that says Bernie brought more, and new, people to Joe Rogan than normal guests, so we can extrapolate that Bernie helped Joe more than Joe helped Bernie. He brought more of an audience to Joe’s platform than Joe’s built in audience did to Bernie’s causes. I don’t think that’s a standstill, I think that’s troublesome in and of itself. At what point do principles matter more than “reaching an audience?” That’s the key part of the equation that I’m asking. I think at a certain point there’s platforms that should be de-platformed and not propped up or helped. Certain ones walk right up to the line and act as gateways to the more horrible ones; I’d argue Rogan sits pretty clear in that gateway area. He’s problematic in quite a few ways, but the biggest issue I have with his show is how I think it acts as a way to wash and sanitize over many harmful guests.

Then again, I’m not running for President. But I do know my principles line up more on the “nope, not going to use my voice to help those kinds of shows” than the “go on anything and try and have a ‘conversation’ with the White Power Hour on Fox.” Rogan’s kinda in the middle of those two extremes, but farther toward one than the other IMO.

 

Anyone have that story about the line from Joe Rogan to alt right YouTube channels?

 

From Joe Rogan to the Far Right: Inside YouTube's Alt-Media Ecosystem

Alternative Influence

There’s a bunch. These were recent.

 

Love seeing Warren’s slow and steady rise in all these polls. She’s fucking crushing the campaign game between her massive amount of thought out ideas and charming the shit out of people in person.

 

I think her strategy has been very smart so far. Probably the best run strategy currently. Some other candidates have had little blips up, but nothing like this steady climb. We’ll see how it holds out, cause this number is something that if it doesn’t change, Biden is gonna win:

 

Do you think a lot of that is sexism...?

 

I agree that Bernie brought people to Joe, but I don't think those Bernie fans are likely to change their views suddenly because of the Rogan podcast. Even with an algorithm working behind them, its harder to change someone's views who are more grounded than with someone who is kind of blank and lost. That's where I think the really danger is, the grifters who exploit depressed, traumatized, aimless people at low points, with emotional arguments of hate. I don't think Rogan is one of those guys.

I do think Rogan props up those guys, and gives them credibility. That's a dangerous gateway to open, and why I have huge problems with how he uses his platform and the kind of stuff he let's through. Its a big mix of neutral people to downright awful, pure con artists selling racist bile. And he goes along with it. That's madly troubling in and of itself.

But a gateway works kind of differently from other mediums like fox news, which are not a gate but clearly on one side, explicitly using partisan hacks to feed partisans the spin they want to hear. A gateway can take those who are open, who may be exposed to and more sympathetic to emotional hateful garbage, but not fully turned down the wrong path yet. People like Bernie, or Cornell West, are important to get in front of that kind of audience, because there is more of a chance that they can be swayed to a better state of mind and more solid thinking, out of the path of hate and emotional brain melting.

I do think Rogan is a huge problem for the kind of people he uplifts and legitimizes. For that exact same reason, his platform is valuable to take over for someone like Bernie, who does have the ability to reach people before they are fully off the deep end on radical bullshit. Basically I think a Shapiro fanboy is more likely to check out Bernie's podcast and have their view shift than the other way around. I'm potentially real optimistic here.

 

19 of these motherfuckers need to drop out yesterday.

 

honestly think liz gets the nomination at this point. call it wishful thinking, but that's where i'm at

 

feel good story of the day

 

He’s always seemed like a good guy

 

he decidedly has not always been a great guy, by his own admission, but has definitely seemed to be on a truly inspiring path for decades

 

I came to this thread because of this guy. Funniest thing I’ve seen in the longest time

 

just watched all of bernie on joe rogan. what a peach. also what an incredibly smart move to hop on the podcast of the guy who lets his guests say whatever they want without much pushback at all, especially considering the reach of rogan's podcast. lots of people are gonna hear this interview and rogan makes bernie seem like the most reasonable man in the country to his largely moderate/conservative fanbase.