Yeah I don’t care about haxxor789 on hackernews either. Could be an llm, a foreign agent or a teenage troll. The more divisive the event the less I trust the online comments.
Yes but in the aggregate, you can make inferences about public sentiment. I guess I've just resolved to be more tuned-in to what's going on in the world. I do admit, it's not for everyone...
I saw the comments everywhere from right-wingers, saying all left-wingers should be rounded up and imprisoned or killed. Are those the comments you're talking about?
It's really not great of all those right-wingers to advocate for violence against those they disagree with.
Of course, both you and I probably saw carefully curated outrage feeds, rather than actual data. I'm sure the actual data shows those openly advocating for violence are the minority across the board.
Are you seriously "both sidesing" this? Or wait, you're "neither siding" this, saying that it's all an artifact of the algorithm. Well, okay. I don't know what to say to that!
Well yeah, I assume that every consumer of social media knows that the major ones actively curate posts that make you angry, because they've calculated that you will stay on the site longer if you're outraged than if you're happy, and more time on the site makes them more money selling you as the product.
That's to say nothing of the discovery years ago that malicious actors, foreign nation states in particular, engage in influence operations on the sites with bots. Some do this to swing opinion to their side, others have bots inflammatorily posting on both sides of an issue just to foment unrest among the populace.
My comment above was to illustrate this: that what you see on the site isn't what everybody is posting on the site. Likewise for me. We both look at the same algorithmically-run site and are served with 2 totally different experiences, and I guess now you can see why.
In short, no matter what social media company you patronize, it likely does not have your best interests in mind, and definitely is not a statistically representative sample of people.
You've dodged the question twice now - which prominent left-wing politicians are applauding this?
I've seen all kinds of reactions, but the only one I've seen from political officials is condemnation. On both sides of the aisle, regardless of what the x.com peanut gallery insists on.
I'm not dodging the question, I refuse to accept that your question is relevant to the discussion just because you think it'll make your point for you (the wrong point, but hey, you'll take any win you can get when you don't have a logical way to attack an argument I suppose)
If we are going to use rando twitters to define groups of people, the right are white nationalists and support the mass murder of civilians. They vote too!
> So, every poster on the internet is a real and authentic person saying real and authentic things? Cmon, try harder.
> Sample garbage and you get garbage results.
Are you saying that it's mostly AI? What are you saying exactly?
Okay, where can I get reality? Maybe I can get it from the news media, who will just take a sampling of posts on the internet? Maybe I can get it from academia, who will do the same? Or can I cut out the middlemen?
I'm literally reading them now in this HN comment section.
Surreal it is. Even if you were a twisted leftist who was totally happy with this, you'd think you'd keep quiet, or at least limited it to "he was mean but violence bad ok?" - but can't hold back their implicit support for the killing - almost peeved that we're bothered about his killing and not focusing on the mean things he said.
Like, the brazenness of it.
Even the dishonesty of your own comment - what prominent left wing figure would be so demented as to destroy their career by publicly supporting this, even if they do in fact support it.
The real mentality of the left are what we're seeing freely spewing out onto the internet now. They literally are as vile and twisted as all their strongest critics have said.
I agree, nobody prominent is celebrating this. Just a lot of people who vote. I have to confess, I don't really understand the point of this discussion. Nobody reading this is going to start out agreeing with me and then see your post and go "oh, yeah, good point, I guess it's fine that lots of people are celebrating this, because they aren't prominent!" I guess this means I have nothing more to say.
The point for most people is while there is plenty of hateful rethoric from left comment sections on the internet, unlike the right, you won't find the same energy amongst the political leadership.
Someone can go from relative unknown to POTUS in just a few years. Candidates appear out of nowhere these days (probably because it's hard to find candidates who have a clean record). I look to the voting public as the driver of tone for political parties, not the leaders, who are fleeting.
If you are getting this worked up by anonymous comments on the internet it is time to touch grass. I promise you the sun will still rise in the morning no matter what some teenage edgelord posts.
Do you think that "anonymous comments" are not backed by real humans? Do you think that the internet is a magical bubble with no relation to the real world? Touch all the grass you want, roll in it, eat that grass, mulch it up and drink it, I'll stick to understanding humans by what they SAY on the internet, thank you very much.
