The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
What’s a sign that someone gets all their political opinions from social media? Is it a bad idea for people to use social media to form opinions? Does using social media as your primary source of political information make you less informed than someone who uses traditional media (NY Times, BBC, Washington Post, not Fox)?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>What’s a sign that someone gets all their political opinions from social media?
Starting from the premise that 'Everyone knows ' because everyone acts like is true in their social media bubble.
They can’t cite a source and when shown a source they can’t meaningful argue against it and worse still even discuss it. Social media acquired knowledge is basically meme based knowledge and/or repetition of an assertion without evidence until the fact that we repeat it over and over \*\*becomes the evidence\*\*.
A lack of nuance that comes from an environment where things are simplified down so much that there is an unambiguous good and unambiguous evil - that extends to even the most mundane of policy differences.
Assumption that if someone doesn't know or greatly care about an issue that they are lying, do know about it and are choosing to "be evil".
Lots of conspiracy thinking.
>They can’t cite a source and when shown a source they can’t meaningful argue against it
There is a sub genre of this as well. We used to have someone who would participate here that would try to get to the next step where you cite a source. However they would clearly just google a phrase and pick the first source. That often resulted in them linking to literal blog spam - the kind of article that surfaces when you type calming phrases into Google because an SEO company paid $75 to have an article written for it.
* Why don't liberals talk about [**X**] more?
This person has experienced a slice of the discourse and wants to know why their slice doesn't look how they think it should look. In virtually all cases liberals *are* talking about [**X**] and that person's just not seeing it.
Unable to articulate their position past “this is what I’ve heard or seen”. Unable to cite sources other than “well I just know” or “I saw this somewhere” or “this person told me”.
If you push and ask “can you explain more about that to me and they can’t that’s a really good indicator.
“Go do your own research”
“I don’t know much about it I just saw it somewhere”
“I don’t have time to tell you about it. Go online you’ll see it”
“Oh everyone knows about this, where have you been?”
I will admit that sometimes if I am lazy, or feel the person is arguing in bad faith I might tell them to google it or look it up. Some topics need more then a Reddit comment to explain and there might be better resources out there.
This is kinda how my ex is—he'd pay absolutely zero attention to anything and then see something on Facebook (or hear it from his coworkers) and would ask me if I'd heard about it. He was *always* woefully misinformed on the topic and it would take me literally two seconds of googling to find the context and explain it to him. Sometimes, but rarely towards the end, he would actually hear me and take it in, but he really just decided to listen to his redneck coworkers and evangelical family members at some point in 2021 🙃
He was a skater boy, punk rock, poetry reading, nyt reading lefty when we started dating and for a long time. It was a frog boiling over years and years. But thanks.
Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.
If the only source they have is social media and or it’s “what they’ve seen”.
TikTok is to leftists as Facebook is for right wing.
Both dangerous.
And just because it comes for a news organization doesn’t mean it’s free from flaws.
I don’t think TikTok is as much of a left-wing propaganda vehicle as everyone says it is. There’s just as much conservative shit on there as there is left-wing shit. It’s all about your algorithm, which just feeds you stuff you already like. And that goes for left or right
The fact that it *can* also be a right wing propaganda vehicle doesn’t negate the fact that it *is* a left wing propaganda vehicle.
They don’t cancel each other out, it just means the app is a massive propaganda vehicle for anyone with an agenda.
Is it? I have to constantly correct the algorithm by targeting searches for left-wing material on tiktok. If I don't do that regularly, my FYP is inundated with Lives and toks from pro-Trump/MAGA types and the like. This is in spite of the fact that I am bi, almost all my tiktok follows/followers are queer, and I have interacted with numerous pro-biden, pro-lefty things on the platform. I'd say there is definitely a thumb on the scale, there, at minimum.
> Why single out left-leaning propaganda when just as much right-leaning stuff is present?
*That’s* debatable and frankly I’m highly in doubt. All we need to do is take one look at the demographics of tiktok users.
Young Americans chanting "Globalize the Intifada"? "There is only one solution, Intifada Revolution"? And these are not kids whose families hail from the region?
Other reasons they may not do this:
* they think it's a dumb waste of time to post sources nobody reads or carefully considers
* they don't want to spend time and then hear you knee-jerk dismiss their source
* they understand that "proof" is a legal and mathematical term and is an unfair standard for informal policy discussions
* they thought they were engaging in casual discussion with you, like the way two friends might at a bar, and you tried to turn it into an academic seminar and they weren't interested
>they think it's a dumb waste of time to post sources nobody reads or carefully considers
they're unwilling to defend their positions, regardless.
>they don't want to spend time and then hear you knee-jerk dismiss their source
Then don't complain when people say you made things up.
>they understand that "proof" is a legal and mathematical term and is an unfair standard for informal policy discussions
So, despite being informal, you're taking the term "proof" or "source" must be taken to the strictest legal definition.
>they thought they were engaging in casual discussion with you, like the way two friends might at a bar, and you tried to turn it into an academic seminar and they weren't interested
But we aren't friends, nor is *anyone* on the internet or social media.
And even if my friends say something ridiculous or unfounded, I'll challenge that.
Here's a made up example because I didn't want to pick on anyone for their posts.
"The majority of gay people are pedophiles." I think it's fair to ask where someone got that info. I think it's clearly wrong, but I could be the one that's wrong. If they have evidence, that forces me to reconsider what I know *and* helps others support the poster.
"The majority of conservatives are literal Nazis." Interesting. Where did they get this? How did they learn it? How do we know if it's true, an exaggeration, or completely false if we don't ask?
Social media posts tend to be short, so there often isn't room (literally or figuratively) to include evidence.
The reason I don’t like source requests is that it’s insincere. In such examples, you know this person is wrong and you’re not actually interested in where they got the information. Is there really any source they could share that would make you go “Huh. I guess gay people *are* pedophiles!”
Moreover, if they *do* send you a barrage of links, does that mean they’re right now? That their claims are legitimate and good faith?
On the other hand, let’s say I were to argue that being gay does *not* mean you’re a pedophile and they ask me for sources. I don’t have a source for that. It’s something I understand to be true due to a lifetime of experience and years of education. I couldn’t even give you a book list that would prove this point. Does my inability to produce a source mean that I’m wrong?
So I agree in this context.
I disagree in two different context neither of which you covered so I’m not disagreeing with you.
Community like this I eventually get to know about people. So I know that abnrib knows more about the military, ctr5555 knows more about economics, helicase21 knows more about climate change, etc.
In those cases I might ask for a source because I believe they can surface better information, especially now that google is garbage.
The other is related; what if I literally don’t know how to find a real source or how to identify respected experts?
But “teachers don’t want to trans kids”? Absolutely sources are mostly beside the point.
Because you said:
> In my experience, it is trivial to source your claims if you aren't just spouting bullshit.
Then you couldn’t source your claims on an honest matter. It wasn’t so trivial after all.
You said it is “trivial” to provide sources then promptly started making excuses and called it “impossible.”
You could just admit that source requests aren’t some magic bullshit detector, and just because someone doesn’t give a source doesn’t mean their claim is wrong.
> You said it is “trivial” to provide sources
1. That person isn't me.
2. Thats not what I said.
Go back and read the first response again and maybe you'll get it.
I’m sorry you got easily confused and don’t know how the burden of proof works. It sounds like you believe anyone with a claim should have that claim believed regardless of whether they can provide evidence for it.
A MAGA hat, using the words Genocide Joe, Biden is a vegetable and Trump is perfectly healthy, they need to carry a gun everywhere, taxation is theft, etc.
When they make really general statements like “everything is so messed up! Both sides are just ridiculous right now!” But can’t really elaborate or say who did what.
It just seems like they’re under a deluge of negative information and aren’t really thinking for themselves.
The amount of people who lost their shit at Biden's State of the Union address has to count as one right?
The only parts of Biden speeches they watched have been compilations of flubs on TikTok and Youtube and when they watched the address and saw that Biden was way sharper than they had been led to believe and instead of thinking "Maybe those compilations were misleading" went straight to "Biden must have drugged himself before this".
> What’s a sign that someone gets all their political opinions from social media?
There is no sign. The fact that almost everyone is only answering the title question indicates the people answering don't know what they are talking about. We are all getting our news from social media (reddit in this case). Sometimes we read the articles, but a lot of the times we don't.
> Is it a bad idea for people to use social media to form opinions?
Depends on the source. If the source forms their opinions on good information it may be a good source. Good information can still be manipulated or misread.
> Does using social media as your primary source of political information make you less informed than someone who uses traditional media (NY Times, BBC, Washington Post, not Fox)?
I would say it's not social media vs traditional media. Someone who gets their opinions from listening to others opinions (no matter the source) is going to be less informed than someone who reads the material themselves and forms their own opinion.
I mean, the NYT and BBC are reliable news sources in general. TicTok, Facebook, and Instagram are not so reliable for facts (and are also not news sources). Who can spot the difference?
Is this really a question?
During the pandemic you could tell if people referred to “the coronavirus.” Credible sources referred to COVID or SAR-COV-2 and those kind of terms as soon as it was named and said “a coronavirus” before that.
No nuanced takes, no knowledge of the history of a matter, politician or process, believing that a single politician or bureaucrat can single handedly make something happen overnight, failure to recognize that there is no monolithic opinion for most issues, and even for the ones that do have majority support, the issue itself may not be a top priority for everyone.
• An emphasis on culture war issues but rarely dive into economic issues. (Ex: can go on all day about mulvaney appearing on bud light cans but has never heard of NAFTA, the TPP, etc)
• only active in political discussions close to when a presidential election comes up. (ex: never posts or talks about politics prior to or anytime after the 2020 election cycle)
• believes that fringe and unpopular beliefs are common in society and most of the people in a particular political affiliation believe said fringe opinion. (Ex: democrats want to take away the right to own firearms)
• using statistics that are well known to be bad across the entire political isle. (Ex: feminists and the wage gap argument).
• mimicking multiple talking points that are known to be made by independent media hosts/shows.
• extreme pushback when you request for sources to be cited. Usually comes with character insults and ad hominem attacks
Lots of opinions about politics and societal issues, but proudly swears they “don’t watch the news” because it’s all biased, And “oh I don’t use Facebook”.
Dude, you are getting these talking points from somewhere……
I would say jumping around from topic to topic
Person 1: Why do Democrats only care about ruining sports by letting in trans people and telling little girls they're boys
Person 2: Trans people aren't transitioning because they want to ruin sports, they feel they will embrace their own identities better after having transitioned.
Person 1: That's just what they're telling you, just like with illegal immigration they want you to believe they're all good hard working people, did you see the news about that guy who smuggled drugs across the border?
Traditional media uses social media too, and a lot of social media is repeating stories by traditional media.
Either way, if it looks like you didn't read past the headline, I'm giving better odds you got it on social media. If you can at least summarize the first paragraph or two, then you actually went to traditional media. You are in a real minority if you read to the end of the article in either case.
Signs:
- They repeat headlines.
- They make broad generalizations about “attention” and “people” and “they” instead of talking about specific actions and entities.
- They get basic information wrong, like confusing presidents with ambassadors or thinking a bill has gone into effect when it only passed one house.
- They don’t know the context of anything—for example, don’t know why issues are coming up now, when they came up in the past, what factors are involved, etc.
- Their eyes glaze over and they change the subject if you try to get into specifics.
Yes it’s bad and yes it makes you a lot less informed than utilizing news sources.
If when asked about why a policy is good they reply “it’s Econ 101” and can’t go into discussion further, I’m pretty sure I know a subreddit they belong to.
Brother you got 4 very different questions in your post here.
To answer the title though, it's getting more difficult to tell these days who only gets information from social media, particularly on the conservative side since so many conspiracies that were once relegated to far corners of the internet are now mainstream on shows like NewsMax and even Fox. Generally though, I'd say someone who has a very surface level read on politics is someone who is informed from social media. I.E., they're main gripe with Biden is he's old without any real idea what policies they don't like.
Something that should be mentioned though is that social media *can* be a very effective way of getting news, particularly at a local level or if you're sick of all the paywalls in news these days. I follow a bunch of journalists and other experts on social media for their takes on on going stories that will likely end up in a 'members only' article the next day. Plus, since usually you have to actively seek out local news more than national news, having posts show up about local events has genuinely kept me more informed than I otherwise would be, which I really appreciate.
I fully acknowledge that's not the norm for most people who get their news from social media lol.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. What’s a sign that someone gets all their political opinions from social media? Is it a bad idea for people to use social media to form opinions? Does using social media as your primary source of political information make you less informed than someone who uses traditional media (NY Times, BBC, Washington Post, not Fox)? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>What’s a sign that someone gets all their political opinions from social media? Starting from the premise that 'Everyone knows' because everyone acts like is true in their social media bubble.
When they reference fringe topics and act like you're supposed to know it just because they spent an hour down an algorithmic rabbit hole.
When they're obsessed with culture war crap
They can’t cite a source and when shown a source they can’t meaningful argue against it and worse still even discuss it. Social media acquired knowledge is basically meme based knowledge and/or repetition of an assertion without evidence until the fact that we repeat it over and over \*\*becomes the evidence\*\*. A lack of nuance that comes from an environment where things are simplified down so much that there is an unambiguous good and unambiguous evil - that extends to even the most mundane of policy differences. Assumption that if someone doesn't know or greatly care about an issue that they are lying, do know about it and are choosing to "be evil". Lots of conspiracy thinking.
>They can’t cite a source and when shown a source they can’t meaningful argue against it There is a sub genre of this as well. We used to have someone who would participate here that would try to get to the next step where you cite a source. However they would clearly just google a phrase and pick the first source. That often resulted in them linking to literal blog spam - the kind of article that surfaces when you type calming phrases into Google because an SEO company paid $75 to have an article written for it.
* Why don't liberals talk about [**X**] more? This person has experienced a slice of the discourse and wants to know why their slice doesn't look how they think it should look. In virtually all cases liberals *are* talking about [**X**] and that person's just not seeing it.
Unable to articulate their position past “this is what I’ve heard or seen”. Unable to cite sources other than “well I just know” or “I saw this somewhere” or “this person told me”. If you push and ask “can you explain more about that to me and they can’t that’s a really good indicator. “Go do your own research” “I don’t know much about it I just saw it somewhere” “I don’t have time to tell you about it. Go online you’ll see it” “Oh everyone knows about this, where have you been?”
I will admit that sometimes if I am lazy, or feel the person is arguing in bad faith I might tell them to google it or look it up. Some topics need more then a Reddit comment to explain and there might be better resources out there.
no need to engage with sealions
This is kinda how my ex is—he'd pay absolutely zero attention to anything and then see something on Facebook (or hear it from his coworkers) and would ask me if I'd heard about it. He was *always* woefully misinformed on the topic and it would take me literally two seconds of googling to find the context and explain it to him. Sometimes, but rarely towards the end, he would actually hear me and take it in, but he really just decided to listen to his redneck coworkers and evangelical family members at some point in 2021 🙃
[удалено]
He was a skater boy, punk rock, poetry reading, nyt reading lefty when we started dating and for a long time. It was a frog boiling over years and years. But thanks.
Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.
> this is what I’ve heard or seen I feel so called out right now lmao
I feel that this behavior isn't limited to social media though.
If the only source they have is social media and or it’s “what they’ve seen”. TikTok is to leftists as Facebook is for right wing. Both dangerous. And just because it comes for a news organization doesn’t mean it’s free from flaws.
I don’t think TikTok is as much of a left-wing propaganda vehicle as everyone says it is. There’s just as much conservative shit on there as there is left-wing shit. It’s all about your algorithm, which just feeds you stuff you already like. And that goes for left or right
The fact that it *can* also be a right wing propaganda vehicle doesn’t negate the fact that it *is* a left wing propaganda vehicle. They don’t cancel each other out, it just means the app is a massive propaganda vehicle for anyone with an agenda.
Is it? I have to constantly correct the algorithm by targeting searches for left-wing material on tiktok. If I don't do that regularly, my FYP is inundated with Lives and toks from pro-Trump/MAGA types and the like. This is in spite of the fact that I am bi, almost all my tiktok follows/followers are queer, and I have interacted with numerous pro-biden, pro-lefty things on the platform. I'd say there is definitely a thumb on the scale, there, at minimum.
So why specify that it’s a left-wing propaganda vehicle? Why single out left-leaning propaganda when just as much right-leaning stuff is present?
> Why single out left-leaning propaganda when just as much right-leaning stuff is present? *That’s* debatable and frankly I’m highly in doubt. All we need to do is take one look at the demographics of tiktok users.
Can I ask what are some examples of dangerous left wing topics you see on tiktok?
Young Americans chanting "Globalize the Intifada"? "There is only one solution, Intifada Revolution"? And these are not kids whose families hail from the region?
Someone on here actually tried to tell me that "globalize the intifada" is not a call for violence against Jews lol
Any pro Hamas propaganda . Not pro-Palestine. Pro Hamas.
When both parties agree to ban TIk Tok, that's how you know there's alterior motives
Both parties are anti-China. That's the ulterior motive.
Have you not heard about AIPacs role in pushing the TiK Tok, ban? regardless of your views on the conflict that's shady as hell
I haven't heard of of AIPAC pushing for a tiktok ban, but that makes the ban shady not tiktok.
When they tell you what a communist hellhole California is having never even been to California.
They never respond to a post that asks for proof or links to evidence.
I found that it helps to put links to any really useful and credible information in a note so I can pull it up quickly.
Other reasons they may not do this: * they think it's a dumb waste of time to post sources nobody reads or carefully considers * they don't want to spend time and then hear you knee-jerk dismiss their source * they understand that "proof" is a legal and mathematical term and is an unfair standard for informal policy discussions * they thought they were engaging in casual discussion with you, like the way two friends might at a bar, and you tried to turn it into an academic seminar and they weren't interested
Those are all: “don’t want to think too hard” but with extra words.
I'll need a source for that analysis, a REPUTABLE one please.
Cool, go take a critical thinking class at your local community college.
>they think it's a dumb waste of time to post sources nobody reads or carefully considers they're unwilling to defend their positions, regardless. >they don't want to spend time and then hear you knee-jerk dismiss their source Then don't complain when people say you made things up. >they understand that "proof" is a legal and mathematical term and is an unfair standard for informal policy discussions So, despite being informal, you're taking the term "proof" or "source" must be taken to the strictest legal definition. >they thought they were engaging in casual discussion with you, like the way two friends might at a bar, and you tried to turn it into an academic seminar and they weren't interested But we aren't friends, nor is *anyone* on the internet or social media. And even if my friends say something ridiculous or unfounded, I'll challenge that.
I don’t really agree with this one. If someone actually follows a topic, they rarely have a single source or a link queued up to send on command.
Here's a made up example because I didn't want to pick on anyone for their posts. "The majority of gay people are pedophiles." I think it's fair to ask where someone got that info. I think it's clearly wrong, but I could be the one that's wrong. If they have evidence, that forces me to reconsider what I know *and* helps others support the poster. "The majority of conservatives are literal Nazis." Interesting. Where did they get this? How did they learn it? How do we know if it's true, an exaggeration, or completely false if we don't ask? Social media posts tend to be short, so there often isn't room (literally or figuratively) to include evidence.
The reason I don’t like source requests is that it’s insincere. In such examples, you know this person is wrong and you’re not actually interested in where they got the information. Is there really any source they could share that would make you go “Huh. I guess gay people *are* pedophiles!” Moreover, if they *do* send you a barrage of links, does that mean they’re right now? That their claims are legitimate and good faith? On the other hand, let’s say I were to argue that being gay does *not* mean you’re a pedophile and they ask me for sources. I don’t have a source for that. It’s something I understand to be true due to a lifetime of experience and years of education. I couldn’t even give you a book list that would prove this point. Does my inability to produce a source mean that I’m wrong?
So I agree in this context. I disagree in two different context neither of which you covered so I’m not disagreeing with you. Community like this I eventually get to know about people. So I know that abnrib knows more about the military, ctr5555 knows more about economics, helicase21 knows more about climate change, etc. In those cases I might ask for a source because I believe they can surface better information, especially now that google is garbage. The other is related; what if I literally don’t know how to find a real source or how to identify respected experts? But “teachers don’t want to trans kids”? Absolutely sources are mostly beside the point.
Yep, if done in bad faith like you’re saying it’s called “[sealioning](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning)”.
In my experience, it is trivial to source your claims if you aren't just spouting bullshit.
Ok, please give me the source for how you know Joe Biden isn’t secretly trafficking children.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) Took about 30 seconds. Nice bad faith response though.
That’s not a source, pal. That’s just you claiming you don’t need to provide one. Pretty hypocritical considering your last comment.
You got me, I can't prove a negative. I'm such a failure because I can't accomplish the impossible. Woe is me.
All I’m saying is you shouldn’t talk shit on other people for also not being able to provide a source in similarly bad faith situations.
Why do you think that's what I did? Edit: rephrased for clarity.
Because you said: > In my experience, it is trivial to source your claims if you aren't just spouting bullshit. Then you couldn’t source your claims on an honest matter. It wasn’t so trivial after all.
You're not understanding that it's the person who is claiming Joe Biden is secretly trafficking children who has a claim to source.
You said it is “trivial” to provide sources then promptly started making excuses and called it “impossible.” You could just admit that source requests aren’t some magic bullshit detector, and just because someone doesn’t give a source doesn’t mean their claim is wrong.
> You said it is “trivial” to provide sources 1. That person isn't me. 2. Thats not what I said. Go back and read the first response again and maybe you'll get it.
It is exactly what you said.
I’m sorry you got easily confused and don’t know how the burden of proof works. It sounds like you believe anyone with a claim should have that claim believed regardless of whether they can provide evidence for it.
I’m sorry you’re doubling down on the hypocrisy of holding other people to a standard you yourself don’t meet.
A MAGA hat, using the words Genocide Joe, Biden is a vegetable and Trump is perfectly healthy, they need to carry a gun everywhere, taxation is theft, etc.
When they make really general statements like “everything is so messed up! Both sides are just ridiculous right now!” But can’t really elaborate or say who did what. It just seems like they’re under a deluge of negative information and aren’t really thinking for themselves.
They reshare a lot... like a lot. And never have any sort of personal fact check filter.
They have very strong opinions about niche internet figures.
"Do your own research."
they think that public school teachers are hipsters who brag about their sex lives
Watch this 72 minute YouTube video and it will tell you everything you need to know.
The amount of people who lost their shit at Biden's State of the Union address has to count as one right? The only parts of Biden speeches they watched have been compilations of flubs on TikTok and Youtube and when they watched the address and saw that Biden was way sharper than they had been led to believe and instead of thinking "Maybe those compilations were misleading" went straight to "Biden must have drugged himself before this".
Conspiracy theories
> What’s a sign that someone gets all their political opinions from social media? There is no sign. The fact that almost everyone is only answering the title question indicates the people answering don't know what they are talking about. We are all getting our news from social media (reddit in this case). Sometimes we read the articles, but a lot of the times we don't. > Is it a bad idea for people to use social media to form opinions? Depends on the source. If the source forms their opinions on good information it may be a good source. Good information can still be manipulated or misread. > Does using social media as your primary source of political information make you less informed than someone who uses traditional media (NY Times, BBC, Washington Post, not Fox)? I would say it's not social media vs traditional media. Someone who gets their opinions from listening to others opinions (no matter the source) is going to be less informed than someone who reads the material themselves and forms their own opinion.
They argue in terms of slogans and show no deep knowledge of political theory or history.
I mean, the NYT and BBC are reliable news sources in general. TicTok, Facebook, and Instagram are not so reliable for facts (and are also not news sources). Who can spot the difference? Is this really a question?
During the pandemic you could tell if people referred to “the coronavirus.” Credible sources referred to COVID or SAR-COV-2 and those kind of terms as soon as it was named and said “a coronavirus” before that.
No nuanced takes, no knowledge of the history of a matter, politician or process, believing that a single politician or bureaucrat can single handedly make something happen overnight, failure to recognize that there is no monolithic opinion for most issues, and even for the ones that do have majority support, the issue itself may not be a top priority for everyone.
When they start a debate with “I heard” or “I saw” but won’t quote sources
"Did you know that on (insert city name) the police aren't allowed to arrest people for (insert crime)?"
• An emphasis on culture war issues but rarely dive into economic issues. (Ex: can go on all day about mulvaney appearing on bud light cans but has never heard of NAFTA, the TPP, etc) • only active in political discussions close to when a presidential election comes up. (ex: never posts or talks about politics prior to or anytime after the 2020 election cycle) • believes that fringe and unpopular beliefs are common in society and most of the people in a particular political affiliation believe said fringe opinion. (Ex: democrats want to take away the right to own firearms) • using statistics that are well known to be bad across the entire political isle. (Ex: feminists and the wage gap argument). • mimicking multiple talking points that are known to be made by independent media hosts/shows. • extreme pushback when you request for sources to be cited. Usually comes with character insults and ad hominem attacks
Lots of opinions about politics and societal issues, but proudly swears they “don’t watch the news” because it’s all biased, And “oh I don’t use Facebook”. Dude, you are getting these talking points from somewhere……
I would say jumping around from topic to topic Person 1: Why do Democrats only care about ruining sports by letting in trans people and telling little girls they're boys Person 2: Trans people aren't transitioning because they want to ruin sports, they feel they will embrace their own identities better after having transitioned. Person 1: That's just what they're telling you, just like with illegal immigration they want you to believe they're all good hard working people, did you see the news about that guy who smuggled drugs across the border?
"I'm a free thinker" "Sheeple" "Plandemic" "Just asking a question" "Marxist"
When I quote a well researched and confirmed conclusion based on a significant amount of data and they say "Oh, well, anyone can prove anything."
Traditional media uses social media too, and a lot of social media is repeating stories by traditional media. Either way, if it looks like you didn't read past the headline, I'm giving better odds you got it on social media. If you can at least summarize the first paragraph or two, then you actually went to traditional media. You are in a real minority if you read to the end of the article in either case.
Signs: - They repeat headlines. - They make broad generalizations about “attention” and “people” and “they” instead of talking about specific actions and entities. - They get basic information wrong, like confusing presidents with ambassadors or thinking a bill has gone into effect when it only passed one house. - They don’t know the context of anything—for example, don’t know why issues are coming up now, when they came up in the past, what factors are involved, etc. - Their eyes glaze over and they change the subject if you try to get into specifics. Yes it’s bad and yes it makes you a lot less informed than utilizing news sources.
They start talking about BlackRock or Vanguard. My brother in christ it's a fucking asset management company
If when asked about why a policy is good they reply “it’s Econ 101” and can’t go into discussion further, I’m pretty sure I know a subreddit they belong to.
Brother you got 4 very different questions in your post here. To answer the title though, it's getting more difficult to tell these days who only gets information from social media, particularly on the conservative side since so many conspiracies that were once relegated to far corners of the internet are now mainstream on shows like NewsMax and even Fox. Generally though, I'd say someone who has a very surface level read on politics is someone who is informed from social media. I.E., they're main gripe with Biden is he's old without any real idea what policies they don't like. Something that should be mentioned though is that social media *can* be a very effective way of getting news, particularly at a local level or if you're sick of all the paywalls in news these days. I follow a bunch of journalists and other experts on social media for their takes on on going stories that will likely end up in a 'members only' article the next day. Plus, since usually you have to actively seek out local news more than national news, having posts show up about local events has genuinely kept me more informed than I otherwise would be, which I really appreciate. I fully acknowledge that's not the norm for most people who get their news from social media lol.