Hacker News Reader

Comment by adlotsof | Hacker News Reader

I am quite sure meta does support the german AfD. Rage causes engagement. AfD (and Trump and Orban and le Pen) communicate in such emotional ways that algorithms prefer them. Facebook does not care about truth, it cares about active users

View on HN

Both extremes on the political spectrum use and heavily rely on emotions over nuance/truth. Probably why both have been steadily growing and that the clashes tend to be explosive.

Political manipulation by Russia, China, etc, have been using wedge issues to push people into extreme sides on issues, but they throw support behind the far-right political parties, because conservative voters unite their votes and because they're more willing to accept mistruths.

Liberal voters don't unite well, and they also tend to have lower trust when it comes to misinformation.

This isn't the case. People assume this is the case because only one side is reported for various reasons.

Just to be clear though: the Communist Party of China is not a massive fan of far-right parties, there are certain ideological barriers there.

Russia employed the former left-wing German Chancellor as part of their strategy making an invasion of Ukraine economically viable for them (it is worth pointing out that when right-wing politicians pointed this out, it was received as a crazy conspiracy theory..."liberal voters" distinguish themselves as people who believe themselves particularly unlikely to believe in "misinformation" whilst simultaneously believing in things that make no sense, most people who have a knowledge of politics are required to believe things that aren't true...if they were in touch with reality, they wouldn't vote).

To call Scholz left-wing is quite a stretch. But what can one expect of someone that believes that not voting is the natural consequence of "being in touch with reality".

Schröder, not Scholz.

Similar place on the political spectrum.

He’s really not, and even then the key part is “employed”.

My casual read is that the CCP can tolerate both the far left and right in the US, but only the far right is near the levers of power, and the far right is apt to leave them alone entirely(America first).

I've heard this theory sincerely expressed from the right about the left and from the left about the right, and I understand that it looks this way to many people, but I suspect it's mainly the out-group homogeneity bias.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-group_homogeneity

How dare you. It is only the people that I disagree with that are unstable. I am a stable genius. I am furious.

Yeah. Some things never change on the orange site.

Relying on emotions is human. I appeal to love, empathy, kindness, caring, and sadness when I discuss politics all the time. To experience the world is to have emotional connection with it and with others.

Pretending only rational discourse is valid ways to plan or engage in politics omits a lot of what's important.

All political parties and politicians rely heavily on emotional appeals both because they are effective and because people across the political spectrum are becoming more polarized, dumber and less informed (more saturated with their respective tribal propaganda) every day, making them even more susceptible to this sort of nonsense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com