In Germany, social media algorithms are pumping out huge amounts of far-right, pro-AfD content.
In Germany, social media algorithms are pumping out huge amounts of far-right, pro-AfD content.
A new study found that, on TikTok and Elon Musk's Twitter, nearly 3/4 of all partisan content being pushed algorithmically to German users favored the party best known for its ties to neo-Nazis.
You're viewing a single thread.
This is an easy problem to solve. Denmark solved their right wing problem years ago. The centre left party adopted slightly tougher immigration policies and the right wing party last half their supporters almost overnight. Poll after poll across Europe finds the same: immigration is a major issue for voters. Get tougher on immigration and watch AfD disappear. It’s the easiest political win in history but so many parties refuse to do it. Bleating about social media influence is a losing battle. The internet is free and will remain free. It’s literally designed to work around censorship like it’s a damaged part of the network.
This is absolutely wrong. The validation of immigration concerns by the SPD, Greens and CDU is what gave AfD the popularity they have now.
This effect is well proven in political sciences.
Same in France. All the major parties have been tougher and tougher with immigration for decades, and the far right popularity keeps increasing. It's just validating them and it solves nothing.
I think that’s your opinion and you’re making a claim for which you don’t have any evidence. We have real world evidence that giving voters what they want wins elections. I cited the Danish example. The Social Democrats adopted slightly tougher immigration policies after the 2015 election, in which the right wing Danish People’s Party (DF) won 21.1% of the votes. Following these changes, the DF lost most of their votes, dropping to 8.7% in 2019. I would hardly call Denmark a right wing hellscape today.
I take issue at your broader contention that it’s somehow wrong to give voters what they want. That’s how democracy works.
By your logic, AfD should now be below 5% because all major parties in Germany are now tougher on immigration, the CDU is now directly taking positions of the AfD a few years back.
In Denmark this may have worked, might just be correlation, but in general, what your saying is wrong and would make AfD even stronger.
because all major parties in Germany are now tougher on immigration
But they aren’t. Only the CDU has proposed some changes which they haven’t implemented, and aren’t expected to make any measurable impact. It is far too little, far too late.
Chancellor Scholz (SPD) is pushing a tougher stance on deportation.
To summarize:
AfD wants Nazi shit.
CDU/CSU, FDP and BSW are copying them on the topic, including demanding things that are obvious violations of European law and our constitution.
SPD is steering in that direction as far as possible without obviously breaking European law and our constitution.
The Greens are begrudgingly going along with it.
Among all the relevant parties here only the Left have a clear stance against all this madness.
I'm not sure if you read your sources but you are only corroborating what I argued. It's a lot of empty talk. None of them are willing to act. Take the example of the border security. It's theatre. Even if an illegal immigrant is stopped, they still have the right to reside in the country for many years, and indefinitely if they refuse to leave in most circumstances. All of this is paid for by German citizens. I can't believe you would use the Greens as an example of a party getting tough on immigration. They have zero policies to reduce immigration.
To summarise your sources: not a single party is willing to act on immigration. Don't be surprised when people vote for parties which will.
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.
You're talking to yourself now
The voters from DF mostly switched to other populistic right wing parties. In total very few voters moved across the middl, even if the middle has moved further to the right.
People are being polarized more which is exactly the intention with the foreign propaganda. So, no, Denmark did not solve the problem.
I don't think that's accurate. You can see voter turnout for the 2015 and 2019 elections here. It's true that some voters went to KF and Nye Borgerlige, but even more voters went to RV and SF. I think you are right to argue it caused more people to vote for parties further on the left and right, but the far left appears to be the aggregate winner.
This is the opposite of true. Appeasing the far right on immigration in other countries has led to disaster, every time. It's caused Brexit. It shifts the overton window., allowing their rhetoric to become mainstream, making it credible. You do not give these fucks an inch. You tell them no. They have to be fought as early as possible, because they're like bedbugs: if you allow them in you can't get rid of them.
Its not only that but how the left has been marginalised, as what happened with the labour party in the UK - Jeremy corbyn, the old leader who was actually left wing has been barred from the party, which he was part of for his whole life. A lifelong anti-racist on the correct side of every issue has been smeared as being a racist and that is now the mainstream 'truth'.
The only left wing party of any size in the UK now is the green party. The only alternatives to business as usual labour/conservatives (same thing) are the greens (seen mostly as a middle class protest vote) or reform.
Labour are definitely not for the working class anymore.
Couldn't agree with you more there.
For what it's worth, I'm a member of the TUSC (trade union socialist coalition) and the Socialist Party. You're right they're not big hitters, smaller even than the greens, but they are there, they stand for what I stand for, and they're just a great bunch of people that I love hanging out with. Also, unlike Lemmy, it's a tankie-free zone! They're good at building a community and they are active every day on a small, local scale.I've had some good conversations with local TUSC members collecting signatures and so on, I've a lot of respect for them but sadly the general public don't seem to. I think after the kicking by thatcher, unions and socialism in general are out of fashion. I do think there should be a broadly left party, allowing secondary membership maybe. Work on getting agreement on some issues, laser focus on what's most urgent and get decent people elected. I'd support any party with decent policies and which had the most chance of getting elected.
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 leftists into Westminster. I don't think it's possible.
Agreed its not likely but it's not possible to give up. I mean, it could and has been worse. We aren't slaves, our country hasn't been invaded, we aren't living in Russia... It could be worse and we can't give up or it will probably get worse.
Apparently telling voters “no” is working terribly because right wing parties keep rising in polls. The evidence directly contradicts your claim. I don’t see how Brexit was caused in any way by appeasement. If anything, Brexit was caused by derision and dismissal, leaving low socioeconomic voters in particular no other way to vent their anger than by burning an institution to the ground. If you don’t give voters what they want they will vote extremists into power, or vote for extreme solutions out of spite.
Broadly speaking I find the argument of telling voters “no” in a democracy absurd and authoritarian.
Those voters had already been brainwashed by fascists into thinking destitute refugees and asylum seekers were at the root of their problems instead of offshore bank accounts stuffed with their taxes, which should have been used to pay for public services and housing.
I was clearly talking about telling the far right "no", not the voters.
If you don't see how Brexit was caused by appeasing the right wing then you aren't in possession of all the facts, as it is a fact. Go read about it.
I have, and I think you are wrong. However both of us are using very vague words like “appeasement” and I’m beginning to think we’re not using the same definitions. We might be remembering the facts which align with our narrative and ignoring those which do not. The truth might lie somewhere in between.
Brexit happened because David Cameron needed to appease the right wing of his party. That is a fact, and I won't be ceding any ground there. It looks like you might try and rewrite history next, and I had taken you for someone who just didn't know, rather than someone spreading lies.
Brexit happened because successive neoliberal governments ground low and middle class workers into dust. The two party system provided no alternative to voters than the two neoliberal governments. So when voters got the chance, they burned a cherished institution to the ground in protest. The issue here is decades of neglecting the wellbeing of citizens, and I'm dismayed that you would argue the issue might be actually listening to voters for the first time in generations. It is the exact opposite that is needed in the UK and around Europe.
The issue here is decades of neglecting the wellbeing of citizens
Yes? But what does this have to do with immigration? Do you genuinely believe that immigrants are what's causing the decay of citizen wellbeing and not as you say "neoliberal governments grounding low and middle class workers into dust"?
You see the issue but you side with the neoliberals on their preferred solution?
Yes? But what does this have to do with immigration?
I'm not making that link. The user above argued Brexit was caused by appeasement. I was addressing that specific claim.
I generally side against the neoliberals. In this case, they have been tirelessly fighting for globalisation and high immigration. Like all economic policies, it comes with some good and some bad. It has certainly resulted in a lot of top line wealth generation. The problem is that most of it has been accrued at the top. This is not sustainable. I think this is why we are seeing a general backlash to globalisation: the experiment hurt a lot of middle and lower class people.
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.
Which leads to the real crux of the issue - can a truly progressive approach stop at national borders, or does it require addressing the international systems that create inequality and drive migration in the first place?
Yep. Rewriting history.
This is an easy problem to solve. Denmark solved their right wing problem years ago. The centre left party adopted slightly tougher immigration policies and the right wing party last half their supporters almost overnight. Poll after poll across Europe finds the same: immigration is a major issue for voters. Get tougher on immigration and watch AfD disappear. It’s the easiest political win in history but so many parties refuse to do it. Bleating about social media influence is a losing battle. The internet is free and will remain free. It’s literally designed to work around censorship like it’s a damaged part of the network.
Hey boss, got rid of those nationalist xenophobes for you!
What did you do?
Oh, I just had to become a nationalist xenophobe! Now we cater to the widespread isolationist political demands manufactured by a few demagogues. But don't worry, the demagogues didn't get elected, so it's alright!“Hey boss I lost the election to right wing xenophobes.”
“Why?”
“I refused to give voters what they want in a democracy.”
Feel free to stay on your high horse. That doesn’t win election and I promise you, milquetoast immigration reform is better than what AfD is planning.
“Hey boss I lost the election to right wing xenophobes.” “Why?” “I refused to give voters what they want in a democracy.”
Feel free to stay on your high horse. That doesn’t win election and I promise you, milquetoast immigration reform is better than what AfD is planning.There are possibly a few things to unpack here, but I'm mostly concerned with the central implication I'm reading into this: Are you resigned to accepting that political power in modern democracies lies with those with the highest advertising budget and/or most ruthless advertising practices? That's certainly an bleak and interesting thing to discuss, but I'm not entirely sure it's what you meant. Is it, or am I reading this incorrectly?
No, but I don’t believe voters are mindless drones which vote for whatever they are told to. Do you? This contempt for voter agency is a major reason the AfD is polling so well.
What makes it tricky is, I think, that there are both kinds of voters so both viewpoints are kind of correct but piss the other side off with the implications. E: typo
That’s probably a fair and nuanced take. Perhaps some voters are swayed by TikTok ads. I suppose I believe this contingent is small and inconsequential, while the person above believes it is large and consequential. Perhaps my perception is coloured by my belief in the principles of free speech. I think it is essential to the functioning of a democracy, and for science. Free speech only exists if we protect speech we don’t like. I grow very uneasy with equivocating over which political dissent is allowed. History has taught us that it is inevitably used for nefarious purposes eventually.
Popper's paradox of tolerance gives in my view pretty clear guidelines on what to protect and what not to tolerate. I believe that if we held onto that, fascism would have a much harder time.
I am not an expert on political science, so I don't know what the data tells us. The feeling I get from the world though is that the "impressionable" part is large enough to be consequential, in part because the "educated" part has already made up their minds.
It's also not sufficient to talk specifically about ads in tiktok without considering them in the wider context of online messaging, all of which is going to be systemically tailored to feed into the same fears and shame.
Popper’s paradox of tolerance gives in my view pretty clear guidelines on what to protect and what not to tolerate. I believe that if we held onto that, fascism would have a much harder time.
Popper did make his line clear: physical violence.
"I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols."
So I agree with you. Tolerate up to the point of people using physical violence to enact their political aims.
I.e I disagree; free speech only exists if we specifically reject speech that aims to suppress free speech, while accepting speech we don't like but that doesn't aim to suppress.
Can we do that? Can we draw the line? Why do so many believe there is no line to be drawn here?
No, but I don’t believe voters are mindless drones which vote for whatever they are told to. Do you?
No, I wouldn't agree with that statement.
This contempt for voter agency is a major reason the AfD is polling so well.
Voters will vote in favor of addressing whatever issue is important to them. And whatever issue happens to be important to them can be influenced by advertising, just like the purchase decision of a customer. That's why that 4-trillion-dollar industry, on par with the petrochemical sector, exists. That's neither a secret nor an insult to individualism, but an academic and economic reality. Do you... not agree with that?
No. Advertising exists to inform people about products and services. I do not subscribe to the notion that advertising can convince an average voter to vote against their best interests or contra to facts. Not in a Western society in which one can easily obtain the facts on the internet. This might be true in a country like China where the internet is tightly controlled and facts aren't easy to obtain.
Wait, you're both saying people voted for Brexit out of their own free will but also that advertising doesn't persuade people? How do you explain Cambridge Analytica literally influencing millions of people to vote for Brexit? (a vote won by 2% margin btw) - like why would the right-wing establishment pay for ads if not to sway public opinion?
Do you really think neoliberals spent millions to inform people why Brexit is good for them actually because that was factual information people couldn't have found otherwise?
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?
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?
In the West yes, people can obtain information on the internet.. But will they?
With declining economy and increasing disinfo, we don't have the time to sift through all the nonsense and obtain the actual facts. We might as well be living in China.
Did you follow what happened when a lot of American TikTok users made a trip to Rednote, a Chinese lifestyle app, to escape the looming ban earlier this year? The Americans discovered that a lot of what they knew about China was propaganda. The Chinese, to their horror, discovered what they knew about America, that they assumed to be propaganda, was correct..
I think you are falsely equating the choice not to seek out new knowledge with the belief that the adverts one sees on TikTok are all correct. I understand you believe the latter is a serious problem. I just do not. I have much more respect and faith in the average person.
One does really not have to believe such things at all to be influenced by such platforms, especially if there is intent behind controlling its algorithm. Do you understand how recommendation systems work ans why them being black boxes is so dangerous on a big platform like TT?
No. Advertising exists to inform people about products and services. I do not subscribe to the notion that advertising can convince an average voter to vote against their best interests or contra to facts.
Then I commend for your idealism and congratulate you further for never having had anything to do with the cancerous growth on humanity's back that is the advertising industry. Keep it that way, you're already making the world a slightly better place by staying away. But no, it unfortunately does not work as you describe it. Spending X on advertising will increase your product sales by Y. That's the simple equation that justifies the industry's existence - and it works. Helping consumers (or voters) to make informed decisions does not factor into it.
Not in a Western society in which one can easily obtain the facts on the internet. This might be true in a country like China where the internet is tightly controlled and facts aren’t easy to obtain.
You'd think that, yeah, it's absolutely natural! But then you could also consider that even though a rural forest warden in the Harz mountains may hold and be entitled to opinions on, for example, both bark beetle control and foreign policy, he'll only ever be able to make a truly informed decision on how one these issues should be handled in his best interest. For the other he'll substitute a lifetime of proficiency with whatever is available. And that may or may not be in his best interest.
That's how everybody does it. Spending your lifetime immersed in academic peace-and-conflict-studies for example might leave you to conclude that in a world of squabbling monkey tribes, transnational governing bodies with actual agency and legislative weight like the EU are, so far, humanity's greatest and most unlikely achievement and that maintaining, growing and strengthening them while further eroding national borders is a reliable (and possibly the only) way to ensure sustainable peace and prosperity for everybody. And after reaching that conclusion you'd think "Why is this not obvious to everybody? The facts are freely available." They are not. They are there, but in a complex world the cost to aquire them is high. Few will spend six months researching a tricky solution if they already got tricked by somebody else into believing that there's an easy solution. That's not on them though, that's on the trickster.
And now I'll probably dive into reading about bark beetles for a week because I've nerd-sniped myself. But that's another thing: I can just do that. I have a well-paying job and plenty of spare time. In other words, I have a high budget to spend on informed decisions. That's a bit of a tangent from the original topic but the gist is: If you wish to assume ideal voters then you quickly arrive at ultimate socio-economic and educational equality as a necessary prerequisite for a working democracy.
Spending X on advertising will increase your product sales by Y.
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.
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.
Germany has enacted border controls to catch illegal immigrants, causing massive traffic jams. There are huge pushbacks kicking out thousands of refugees. Social services have been cut for refugees. All of that leads to a doubling of the right wing party, because migration ends up a topic in the media and the right wing is calling for everybody who is not 100% ethnic German to be kicked out of Germany, which is obviously insane.
Trump will give them space in Guantanamo bay
Voters are not asking for temporary border patrols. They want lasting solutions. This is at best political theatre because even if an illegal immigrant is detected, they are still permitted to apply for asylum and will be given free accommodation for many years at minimum. The CDU reduced refugee benefits by less than 4%. They retain all their other benefits like free and subsidised housing, free medical care, free education, and free daycare in most states and very cheap in all others. These measures are not addressing the root cause. They aren’t going to make any lasting change. The social benefit change was only enacted last month. It’s far too little, far too late. As long as incumbents refuse to listen to the needs of voters, the AfD will continue to gain in popularity.
I see this as well. "Nationalist" parties only have traction because they keep on talking about immigration problems (which they enhance). Take that away and their fascist and elite agendas become extremely obvious.
It worked great for genocide joe and kamalacaust then they passed the torch...