It’s a simple matter of normalizing.

I’m torn, on one hand, you are right. On the other, I will say that while we disagreed, my extended family used to get along. Enough time with social media and there’s basically people that can’t stand to talk to each other at all, let alone be in the same room. Folks that grew up together, spent decades hanging out. Same thing for a friend of mine that had been a friend for over a decade. Went down a rabbit hole and frothing at the mouth rage with all sorts of extremist talking points.

While direct responsibility is certainly tricky, social networks have allowed people’s worst inclinations to fester. The neat tendency for them to group “like-minded” folks together while guarding them from “unlike-minded” has really caused deep societal problems.

If it was simply serving videos, that would be fine.

The problem here is that the platform is trying to give you certain types of videos.

Even more than that: even though you try to avoid certain types of contents, youtube for example, will still give you that content.

And thats where the problem is. Because that content is often alt right speaking points that get served to you even though you don’t want it.

That’s the difference between a video game and a social media.

They are designed to filter out everything but what you interact with the most, and what you interact with the most is going to become skewed as it becomes a closed feedback loop, or a spiral if you will. Over many iterations, what it thinks you want shapes what you think you want.

It will also see what others who want what you want want, and serve you suggestions based on that. Likewise, it will serve what you want to others who want what you want.

At some point it becomes a self-feeding echo chamber, and that is exactly what we see happening.

I think no one holds the shooter blameless, but that’s of more limited value. It’s straightforward to keep the shooter from doing further harm. More complicated is the task of mitigating the chances of radicalization leading to more spree shootings.

It doesn’t even necessarily have to involve limiting speech, but it does suggest that a social media feed really needs to mix it up and avoid a feedback loop of one sided thought and rage.

What if someone had repeatedly told him to do it? Wouldn’t that person also be to blame?

Funding proper education for every citizen would be a good start.

Having hateful thoughts in your head and having hateful rhetoric spoonfed to you are 2 different things. There’s a reason why there is a surge in hate crimes and far-right rhetoric all over the world. It’s not a coincidence that it happened at the same time big tech gained full control of pretty much everyone’s information sources. IRC is not even remotely commonplace, TV print and radio don’t allow genocidal losers to spread their ideas since they can’t just make an account and post garbage.

As for reddit, how were they able to ban “watchpeopledie” and heavily censor the piracy subreddit? They 100% are responsible for not policing hate subs and allowing them to be easily accessible, they are also using an algorithm (that’s not as “polished” as YouTube’s but still exists and will most likely get worse as they cement full control over their platform’s users).

The solution is to induce financial penalty on these companies that makes it more expensive than the ad revenue they receive from such shitty algorithms. Which is exactly how the piracy subreddit was gutted so much, reddit risks financial harm from legal battles for hosting that content. It is not much different to do the same for hateful rhetoric advocating for murder.

I just wish that I could watch (intentionally or accidentally) a slightly hot-take video once in a blue moon without the algorithm deciding I’m a right-wing nutjob that only wants right-wing nutjob content. How hard would it be to allow users to give active input on what they’re getting? Right now, anything I do (downvoting, “don’t recommend this channel”, reporting hate speech) gives me MORE of the shit I hate.

No? Have you ever watched her, or did you just see out of context clips?

Unless by antifeminist and alt right, you mean disagree with stalin, and isnt a women supremacist.

Guessing from the witch in your username, you’re just upset shes doesn’t think women are superior.

TIL they show ads for guns. What exactly do they advertise?

Nearly all of your suggestions are already part of New York state law.

Exceptions:

No registration required for non-“assault weapon” long guns.

Of course, one has to have a valid reason to have a weapon on them. Going shopping with a gun out of fear is mot a reason.

Open carry in New York is not legal. Concealed carry requires a license. I believe that requiring a reason to carry for obtaining a license to carry was recently ruled unconstitutional. I don’t know whether you can legally require a reason for the act of carrying the gun.

Yeah that was crazy when they had to go around and confiscate all those nuclear missiles from millions of American households.

ANFO isn’t banned, people use it all the time.

I don’t think I mentioned guns at all. If you assume banning guns would be equally ineffective I can’t say I disagree, but that’s a conclusion you came to.

People want to regulate guns, not ban them. If a supply is reduced and people lock up the guns they do have rather than leaving them to be easily stolen, they’re less likely to be used in violence. That means when people are violent, they’re more likely to use a knife or other weapon that’s more convenient to access. When a knife is used, it’s highly unlikely that bystanders will also be killed. Also, it’s less likely that the victim themselves will die. And if you think you don’t care about the life of another person involved in violence, think selfishly about the cost that you’re paying in hospital costs and medical insurance to treat gun woulds of the people who die and can’t pay their bill which cost way, way more to treat than knife wounds. Not to mention that if you care at all about the lives of cops, you’ll realize that cops are usually the bystanders that get killed by the guns being used in violent acts.

The only guns that people want to ban are offensive weapons of war. The only thing they can do with that is commit terrorism.

No I’d kill the people that made it. There’s a difference.

Dude looks like he passed out way too early at a frat party hosted by the Klan.

He’s allowed to be racist, so yeah, it’s fine.

Being a racist piece of shit is not illegal.

I’ll take you at your word.

Is that how you tell if someone is mentally ill? Just sell them a gun and see if they take it?

deleted by creator

It’s literally rule 1…

Rule 1 Remember the human. Reddit is a place for creating community and belonging, not for attacking marginalized or vulnerable groups of people. Everyone has a right to use Reddit free of harassment, bullying, and threats of violence. Communities and users that incite violence or that promote hate based on identity or vulnerability will be banned.

I went on /pol and did Ctrl f + n word, got 7 results. Can’t say reddit is even slightly that bad. I’m sure it still gets said, but it’s very much looked down upon. Where in 4chan it’s just a normal word, and so is the f slur.

There is tho.