Society/Culture Are trolls good for social/media's bottom line?

[Chief]

The SRP board is an extreme left echo chamber.
How can you be surprised when you only appoint mods from 1 side of the spectrum

ShanDog might disagree.

 

[Chief]

What? So you can place me in a convenient little box?
Not a chance you will hear my thoughts. I have better things to do with my time than to get caught up in s**t fights on this board.
Enjoy your time in your never ending crusade.

You're afraid to post on topic in case KV doesn't like it?

Come on.

 

[Chief]

Of course the Antifa troll has an opinion.
There is only one word for someone who lives on this board and manages so many posts.
Radical.
You are a major factor as to why so many threads degenerate into an incoherent s**t fight to determine which of your favourite labels should be bestowed upon anyone who disagrees with your radical views.
But thats ok. I'm sure the mods see you as a quality poster and find your disposition completely normal.

You made no effort to talk about the subject of the thread.

You just went off into a personal rant against KV.

Can you see that?

 

[GreyWind]

Channel 4's Dispatches programme, Inside Facebook: Secrets of the Social Network, screened on ABC's 4 Corners last night.

The reporter quizzed Facebook as to if extreme content was kept up on their site primarily because it provokes reactions, and so keeps people online, rather than any substantial consideration being given to if it does society good or ill. That line of questioning wasn't always justified, but it reminded me of a lot of social media (e.g. Twitter, Big Footy) when it mentioned that right-wing political groups were 'shielded' because their anti-immigrant stuff was popular and created engagement.

You could justifiably bring up troll/bot farms for creating the illusion of popularity and promoting divisive opinion (left and right), but I'm more interested in the idea that people banging on endlessly about Islam/immigrants/Trump/identity politics might keep people online? For me, I think it has driven many people away from political discussion and social media generally. SRP on Big Footy being an example of that.

The social media sites love the controversial opinion, left or right, it doesn't matter to them. All they want is people logging into their product. It's all about the hot take on the newest topic, you need to be the first one out the gate with everything so people are saying these controversial things in order to boost their own popularity and make money from the idiots on both sides.

I think half the problem of the popularity argument is that both sides only look at their own echo chambers and see all these people with the same opinion and think it's therefore the popular one. So instead of looking at things in a rational light, especially online, people are treating their political alignment as barracking for their footy team.

Do you think you're more likely to engage when you see a dumb 'hot take' or get baited by a troll? Or in your experience do you think such charged discussions are all we are left with now because the trolls have scared off most of the normal people?

I would like to engage in more discussions on this board. Ultimately I don't because every thread becomes a quagmire of teams teeing off on each other adding nothing to the discussion.

 

[CatFan79]

It’s clear you don’t want to talk about it sensibly. That’s fine.

But this is why you get banned.

You can't give any examples of fascism or Nazism. You refused to answer any of my questions in #36 which were absolutely sensible.

You like throwing threats around the thread don't you. It doesn't help prove your points and I'm not intimidated if that's the intention.

If there's a problem send me a pm and deal with it properly.

 

[Chief]

The social media sites love the controversial opinion, left or right, it doesn't matter to them. All they want is people logging into their product. It's all about the hot take on the newest topic, you need to be the first one out the gate with everything so people are saying these controversial things in order to boost their own popularity and make money from the idiots on both sides.

I think half the problem of the popularity argument is that both sides only look at their own echo chambers and see all these people with the same opinion and think it's therefore the popular one. So instead of looking at things in a rational light, especially online, people are treating their political alignment as barracking for their footy team.


I would like to engage in more discussions on this board. Ultimately I don't because every thread becomes a quagmire of teams teeing off on each other adding nothing to the discussion.

You would say that, as a Harry Potter Fan!

 

[Chief]

You can't give any examples of fascism or Nazism. You refused to answer any of my questions in #36 which were absolutely sensible.

You like throwing threats around the thread don't you. It doesn't help prove your points and I'm not intimidated if that's the intention.

If there's a problem send me a pm and deal with it properly.

What are you taking, apart from "the piss"?

You said:

"Left leaning outlets and social media platforms are the ones stifling/refusing debate, and seem fine with banning alternate opinions. Who are the Nazis again?"

I said that this was not an example of Nazism, then gave an example that would indicate a racist/fascist type.

You then chucked a fascinating wobbly.

Again: this is why you get banned. Inability to stick to the point. Picking confrontation over discussion.

 

[CatFan79]

What are you taking, apart from "the piss"?

You said:

"Left leaning outlets and social media platforms are the ones stifling/refusing debate, and seem fine with banning alternate opinions. Who are the Nazis again?"

I said that this was not an example of Nazism, then gave an example that would indicate a racist/fascist type.

Wrong. Joseph Goebbels made sure any viewpoints in any way threatening to Nazi beliefs or to the regime were censored or eliminated from all media.

You then chucked a fascinating wobbly.

Nope, just calling out bad behaviour.

 

[EasternTiger]

You like throwing threats around the thread don't you. It doesn't help prove your points and I'm not intimidated if that's the intention.

We are aware of your mind games Chief

 

[Chief]

Wrong. Joseph Goebbels made sure any viewpoints in any way threatening to Nazi beliefs or to the regime were censored or eliminated from all media.

So do the Chinese.

Are they Nazis?

 

[Chief]

You can't give any examples of fascism or Nazism. You refused to answer any of my questions in #36 which were absolutely sensible.

You like throwing threats around the thread don't you. It doesn't help prove your points and I'm not intimidated if that's the intention.

If there's a problem send me a pm and deal with it properly.

What threat? I'm pointing out the EXACT BEHAVIOUR that ends up with people being banned. You're crying persecution as if this behaviour SHOULDN'T lead to anyone getting banned.

It's mind-boggling. Let's just leave it at that and get back to the topic.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Sure, they can ban whoever they want.. As long as nobody claims any of these platforms aren't politically influenced and welcome agendas from certain sides of politics and not others..

Have a think. There is still a s**t tonne of conservative and racist content all over social media. He was making unfounded pedophilia accusations and threatening federal prosecutors. Then he tried to get around the temp ban.

He is the annoying kid banging the desk for attention then crying he’s getting picked on when his mum tells him off.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[ShanDog]

ShanDog might disagree.

He does.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

"You will not post anything libelous, defamatory, harmful, threatening, harassing, abusive, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, racially or ethnically objectionable, or otherwise illegal.

• You will not make threats to other users or people not associated with the site.
• If you violate these rules, your posts and/or user name will be deleted.

Remember: you are a guest here. It is not censorship if you violate the rules and your post is deleted. All civilizations have rules and if you violate them you can expect to be ostracized from the tribe."


From the terms of service on Infowars.

 

[Kurve]

From the terms of service on Infowars.

How many clicks have you given them this month Kidd?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

How many clicks have you given them this month Kidd?

Counting just then, 1.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Channel 4's Dispatches programme, Inside Facebook: Secrets of the Social Network, screened on ABC's 4 Corners last night.

The reporter quizzed Facebook as to if extreme content was kept up on their site primarily because it provokes reactions, and so keeps people online, rather than any substantial consideration being given to if it does society good or ill. That line of questioning wasn't always justified, but it reminded me of a lot of social media (e.g. Twitter, Big Footy) when it mentioned that right-wing political groups were 'shielded' because their anti-immigrant stuff was popular and created engagement.

You could justifiably bring up troll/bot farms for creating the illusion of popularity and promoting divisive opinion (left and right), but I'm more interested in the idea that people banging on endlessly about Islam/immigrants/Trump/identity politics might keep people online? For me, I think it has driven many people away from political discussion and social media generally. SRP on Big Footy being an example of that.

Do you think you're more likely to engage when you see a dumb 'hot take' or get baited by a troll? Or in your experience do you think such charged discussions are all we are left with now because the trolls have scared off most of the normal people?


(*And for the sake of balance and transparency, I should say that Facebook has said the evidence in the documentary showed incorrect procedures so they ordered all their trainers in Dublin to be re-trained... even though all of this happened at the same time as Zuckerberg was in front of Congress saying they were trying harder, and Facebook were also producing videos claiming they know they'd done poorly and were changing for the better...)

Really all you needed was the highlighted, all the rest is just filler rubbish trying to disguise another swing at the right.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

The modern right has the biggest case of victim envy I've ever seen in my life. Every narrative is twisted to ensure that they're the ones being hard done by. The best example of this is Trump, most powerful man in the world and he spends half his time crying about everyone being out to get him and whoa is him. Ffs.

The modern left seem to spend all of their energy obsessing about Trump and the like and actually going out of their way to do it.

I truthfully didn't even know what Storm Front was until I visited these boards and posters of a left bent, Malifice being the biggest culprit, mentioned it repeatedly as a form of insult.

Personally I think that Trump is a peanut and I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him, yet the left seem to think it's important to keep reinforcing this to me. If you lot spent as much time and energy discussing things you believed in or were interested in we might have some interesting discussions again.

Turnbull = ****
Shorten = ****
Liberal = s**t
Labor = s**t

Where does that leave us? Up ship creek without a paddle I reckon with no idea of how we get out of it.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Really all you needed was the highlighted, all the rest is just filler rubbish trying to disguise another swing at the right.

Utter crap. Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean we have to alter for you. Same goes for your comment directly above. Just because you think you're a better judge than others doesn't mean other people aren't sucked in by bullshit which therefore needs to be fact-checked.

If you truly want:

some interesting discussions again

then how about you start one? Instead of coming in on one and arrogantly, incorrectly declaring that you know everything about it and it isn't worth discussing.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Dublin is a clue here, responsibility and accountability should start at the top, if Zuckerberg wants the world to be a better place he needs to only look at people like himself.

A Disney solution.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The modern left seem to spend all of their energy obsessing about Trump and the like and actually going out of their way to do it.

I truthfully didn't even know what Storm Front was until I visited these boards and posters of a left bent, Malifice being the biggest culprit, mentioned it repeatedly as a form of insult.

Personally I think that Trump is a peanut and I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him, yet the left seem to think it's important to keep reinforcing this to me. If you lot spent as much time and energy discussing things you believed in or were interested in we might have some interesting discussions again.

They are opposing leaders they don't like. That's pretty standard. You make it sound like this is some bug that only applies to "the left". But I recall "the right" being pretty strident in its opposition to Obama. For far less substantive reasons.

The left spends a shitload of time discussing "things they believe in and are interested in". It's a misnomer to suggest otherwise.

 

[Kurve]

Counting just then, 1.

Two here, I check in every now and again for a laugh

 

[RupieDupie]

A Disney solution.

Yep, when Mark Zuckerberg is on his deathbed, wasting away from a disease that could have easily been cured by a kid utilising year 11 biology in a fairer society, he’d come to the realisation that it’s due to people like himself that the world is not a utopia.

Then the credits will roll, and the audience will leave the theatre saying, “that was a good movie, I liked the part when Zuckerberg comes to the realisation that he’s the cancer that he’s been trying to cure” and their friend would say, “Yeah that is so true, deep”

(but this “friend” is only saying this because they want to get into the pants of the other person - the reality is the movie was pretty boring, it was one of those formulaic Hollywood movies where there is some creepy nerd kid who no one likes, who then happens to get some fantastical powers/gets heaps of cash, and as a result a hot chick suddenly finds themself attracted to them, but the hot chick is then all like, “you’re not staying true to yourself” - the reason she wasn’t interested in him in the first place - then right before the end the hero loses the girl, but in what seems a magical moment, by staying true to himself, the hero wins the girl back, and everyone is happy. But in this version, shock horror, Zuckerberg dies of cancer - so everyone in the audience is still happy, but whatever).

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

The infowars site is down! It’s under attack!

All that’s left is a few links including ones that link to the store and donation hub on the site which seem to have withstood the DDOS attack.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app