this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2024
72 points (92.9% liked)
Asklemmy
44143 readers
1220 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think a major issue is that nobody checks sources. Earlier, when everybody watched the news or read papers, sources were more reputable (not infallible for sure). Now any random creator can sway your opinion without that reputability. Pretty inherent to the internet as algorithms decentralise everybody into their own corner.
Ironically inspired by a Hank green video
That agrees with my preconceived biases, for sure.
Beyond that, I think it's possible that the "sting" of negative reactions, or the perceived lack of positive reactions my possibly shape how people think.
And, you can buy that kind of engagement in bulk if you have money. You can train people to engage in different thought patterns buy buying upvotes (buying them dopamine), that would be my hypothesis.
If that's true, I think the inherent danger from a sociological standpoint could not possibly be understated.