Hacker News Reader

> There's something wrong with mainstream reporting if mere exposure to social media turns people far right. It really strikes me that people are trapped in some pretty strong filter bubbles to the point mere exposure is enough to change political belief.

A different conclusion to draw from this is that far-right interests are responsible for the majority of the objectionable content on social media. One might further suggest that said content is deliberate propaganda, designed to push people to the right, and that this is a central pillar of their strategy that isn't shared to the same degree or extreme by other political factions.

This isn't "mere exposure". I haven't read the article so please correct me if I'm wrong but this is a job, a place they go to sit every day to be bombarded with this crap. To some extent they have to sit and let it wash over them—I don't imagine the people doing these jobs have much career mobility. IMO it's not realistic to suggest that if they were just better-informed, they wouldn't suffer these effects. The mind is not an inviolable fortress—no matter how strong you think your defenses are, they can be worn down.

>One might further suggest that said content is deliberate propaganda, designed to push people to the right, and that this is a central pillar of their strategy that isn't shared to the same degree or extreme by other political factions.

This is certainly part of it. I've literally watched Russian propaganda around the Syrian war featuring a "Canadian independant journalist". Yet overall this explanation strikes me as unsatisfying. From what I've heard from the researchers propaganda techniques have been less about promoting the right wing specifically and more about spreading social discord generally. The Russians had efforts to promote Jill Stein that were promoting left wing rather than right wing propaganda. I've never really bought that propaganda efforts weren't getting overwhelmed by the influence of regular users generally. It's possible but I haven't seen serious attempts to prove it.

>I don't imagine the people doing these jobs have much career mobility.

This is actually a more interesting criticism to me. Perhaps internet moderators are more drawn to far-right thought than others because of their life circumstances? This is a population that's lower income and tech savvy.

I took it more as an extrem application of : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect

> In a 2015 study, researchers discovered that familiarity can overpower rationality and that repetitively hearing that a certain fact is wrong can affect the hearer's beliefs.

Yeah but this phenomenon isn't unique to social media. Mainstream media sources and alternative media sources beat the same arguments into the ground enough times that you end up assuming validity.

I can make the inverse argument that being told an argument is so offensive it's not worth examining creates this bias in kind. In fact I would argue the point of opposing "hate speech" is not to rationally confront it but to denormalize it so it doesn't affect people's beliefs. Same goes for anti-heresy beliefs, "conservative-only" posting requirements, and many other forms of censorship. I don't think far right communities are unique in the amount of social conformity demanded from members.

I think it's more that there are personality types that really want a community feel like they belong to and are thus easily persuadable. Social media was a huge factor in radicalizing people to Islamic terrorism, and that ended when the networks started censoring that stuff.

There is a quite a big difference in magnitude between "mere exposure" and "eight hours a day, working nights and weekends".

I honestly would be surprised if any propaganda (no matter the subject matter) left no impression when applied with that intensity.

I see what you're saying - when mainstream outlets consistently hide swaths of current events, statistics, and long-form analysis from their front pages or even the back pages out of fear of giving airtime to "Republican talking points" the result is that independents and liberals who ignorant of that information are susceptible to the spin of the first person who presents it - whether that person is a moderate or an extremist.

I quite like the modern trend of "fact check" articles. Which is to say editorials with references that give lip service to non-partisanship. It's incredible really journalisms continued reliance on reputation and disdain for references.

I think if this trend continued it would be effective against the weak arguments pushed by far-right boosters.