Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Using social networks to show the polarization of the right

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Using social networks to show the polarization of the right

    Two professors from Harvard and MIT made a study and used social network theory which revealed how much the right is polarized and insulated from different opinions and views.

    Here are interesting parts of the study.

    https://www.cjr.org/analysis/breitba...vard-study.php

    We began to study this ecosystem by looking at the landscape of what sites people share. If a person shares a link from Breitbart, is he or she more likely also to share a link from Fox News or from The New York Times? We analyzed hyperlinking patterns, social media sharing patterns on Facebook and Twitter, and topic and language patterns in the content of the 1.25 million stories, published by 25,000 sources over the course of the election, using Media Cloud, an open-source platform for studying media ecosystems developed by Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society and MIT’s Center for Civic Media.

    When we map media sources this way, we see that Breitbart became the center of a distinct right-wing media ecosystem, surrounded by Fox News, the Daily Caller, the Gateway Pundit, the Washington Examiner, Infowars, Conservative Treehouse, and Truthfeed.
    Figure 1


    ...

    Notes: In the above clouds, the nodes are sized according to how often they were shared on Twitter (Fig. 1) or Facebook (Fig. 2). The location of nodes is determined by whether two sites were shared by the same Twitter user on the same day, representing the extent to which two sites draw similar audiences. The colors assigned to a site in the map reflect the share of that site’s stories tweeted by users who also retweeted either Clinton or Trump during the election. These colors therefore reflect the attention patterns of audiences, not analysis of content of the sites. Dark blue sites draw attention in ratios of at least 4:1 from Clinton followers; red sites 4:1 Trump followers. Green sites are retweeted more or less equally by followers of each candidate. Light-blue sites draw 3:2 Clinton followers, and pink draw 3:2 Trump followers.
    ...
    Another way of seeing this asymmetry is to graph how much attention is given to sites that draw attention mostly from one side of the partisan divide. There are very few center-right sites: sites that draw many Trump followers, but also a substantial number of Clinton followers. Between the moderately conservative Wall Street Journal, which draws Clinton and Trump supporters in equal shares, and the starkly partisan sites that draw Trump supporters by ratios of 4:1 or more, there are only a handful of sites. Once a threshold of partisan-only attention is reached, the number of sites in the clearly partisan right increases, and indeed exceeds the number of sites in the clearly partisan left. By contrast, starting at The Wall Street Journal and moving left, attention is spread more evenly across a range of sites whose audience reflects a gradually increasing proportion of Clinton followers as opposed to Trump followers. Unlike on the right, on the left there is no dramatic increase in either the number of sites or levels of attention they receive as we move to more clearly partisan sites.
    ...

    What we find in our data is a network of mutually-reinforcing hyper-partisan sites that revive what Richard Hofstadter called “the paranoid style in American politics,” combining decontextualized truths, repeated falsehoods, and leaps of logic to create a fundamentally misleading view of the world. “Fake news,” which implies made of whole cloth by politically disinterested parties out to make a buck of Facebook advertising dollars, rather than propaganda and disinformation, is not an adequate term. By repetition, variation, and circulation through many associated sites, the network of sites make their claims familiar to readers, and this fluency with the core narrative gives credence to the incredible.

    Take a look at Ending the Fed, which, according to Buzzfeed’s examination of fake news in November 2016, accounted for five of the top 10 of the top fake stories in the election. In our data, Ending the Fed is indeed prominent by Facebook measures, but not by Twitter shares. In the month before the election, for example, it was one of the three most-shared right-wing sites on Facebook, alongside Breitbart and Truthfeed. While Ending the Fed clearly had great success marketing stories on Facebook, our analysis shows nothing distinctive about the site—it is simply part-and-parcel of the Breitbart-centered sphere.

    And the false claims perpetuated in Ending the Fed’s most-shared posts are well established tropes in right wing media: the leaked Podesta emails, alleged Saudi funding of Clinton’s campaign, and a lack of credibility in media. The most Facebook-shared story by Ending the Fed in October was “IT’S OVER: Hillary’s ISIS Email Just Leaked & It’s Worse Than Anyone Could Have Imagined.” See also, Infowars’ “Saudi Arabia has funded 20% of Hillary’s Presidential Campaign, Saudi Crown Prince Claims,” and Breitbart’s “Clinton Cash: Khizr Khan’s Deep Legal, Financial Connections to Saudi Arabia, Hillary’s Clinton Foundation Tie Terror, Immigration, Email Scandals Together.” This mix of claims and facts, linked through paranoid logic characterizes much of the most shared content linked to Breitbart. It is a mistake to dismiss these stories as “fake news”; their power stems from a potent mix of verifiable facts (the leaked Podesta emails), familiar repeated falsehoods, paranoid logic, and consistent political orientation within a mutually-reinforcing network of like-minded sites.
    For more in depth analysis, follow the link
    Last edited by pamak; 02 Sep 17, 13:27.
    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

  • #2
    It is interesting that Breitbart actually mentioned this study, but (as the study shows) in a decontextualized way which revealed only certain facts.

    For example

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...not-alt-right/

    An extensive study that professors and data scientists at Harvard and M.I.T. conducted has concluded that Breitbart News does not represent the “alt-right,” undercutting the legitimacy of left-wing activists, Democrats, reporters in the legacy media, Never Trumpers, and establishment Republican bobbing heads and mouthpieces who rushed after Charlottesville to reflexively smear, malign, and defame Breitbart News as an “alt-right” outlet associated with white supremacists and Nazis.
    ...

    According to Hylton, “the last thing Yochai Benkler noted before” Hylton “left his office at Harvard was that his team had performed a textual analysis of all the stories in their database, and they found a surprising result”:

    “One thing that came out very clearly from our study is that Breitbart is not talking about these issues in the same way you would find on the extreme right,’’ he said. ‘‘They don’t use the same language you find on sites like VDARE and The Daily Stormer’’ — two sites connected to the white-nationalist alt-right movement. He paused for a moment, then added: ‘‘Breitbart is not the alt-right.’’
    In other words, an insulated Breitbart reader will create a totally distorted view of the study's findings. This is not because it misrepresents the facts about the professors textual analysis. It is because it takes these facts out of the study's broader context and hides the big picture.
    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

    Comment


    • #3
      Well, I'd say they're wrong. There's two obvious reasons for that:

      First, their study focuses on sharing links. That doesn't mean that people on the Right aren't going to Left leaning sites, they very well could be. This could be independent of shared links, or it could be that those are embedded within the exchanged social media.

      Second quantity doesn't equal quality.

      In fact, studies done where people self-identifying as on the Left and Right have been quizzed / tested on knowledge of the other's position, Leftists do much worse than Rightists in being able to correctly enunciate their opposite's positions.

      https://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/...ive-positions/

      http://www.theamericanconservative.c...the-far-right/

      Then you get the drivel from the Left:

      http://www.visionandvalues.org/2015/...-and-liberals/

      This sort of theory has been repeated in many other Leftist writings. For example:

      George Lakoff's sort of primer on how to talk to Conservatives, Don't Think of an Elephant

      http://www.sagadahocdems.org/wp-cont...n-Elephant.pdf

      On the whole, all the model shows is that the Left is better connected through social media than the Right. You can't draw further conclusions from it as there is no context beyond that.
      Of note: Notice that there are far more very large, to huge, nodes on the Left and even Left of Center (green) than Right leaning ones. This would imply that the Left has a far better set of connections in getting their messaging out to people in general.
      That would dove tail with the Right being more informed than the Left about their opposite's positions simply because they get more exposure to them. That in turn would say the Left often lives in an echo chamber only getting their own views presented to them and having little clue what their opponents actually are thinking.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
        Well, I'd say they're wrong. There's two obvious reasons for that:

        First, their study focuses on sharing links. That doesn't mean that people on the Right aren't going to Left leaning sites, they very well could be. This could be independent of shared links, or it could be that those are embedded within the exchanged social media.

        Second quantity doesn't equal quality.

        In fact, studies done where people self-identifying as on the Left and Right have been quizzed / tested on knowledge of the other's position, Leftists do much worse than Rightists in being able to correctly enunciate their opposite's positions.


        https://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/...ive-positions/

        http://www.theamericanconservative.c...the-far-right/

        Then you get the drivel from the Left:

        http://www.visionandvalues.org/2015/...-and-liberals/

        This sort of theory has been repeated in many other Leftist writings. For example:

        George Lakoff's sort of primer on how to talk to Conservatives, Don't Think of an Elephant

        http://www.sagadahocdems.org/wp-cont...n-Elephant.pdf

        On the whole, all the model shows is that the Left is better connected through social media than the Right. You can't draw further conclusions from it as there is no context beyond that.
        First of all sharing links does show an attempt to inform other people about different views. So, when conservatives do it in lower rates than leftists, it does show polarization or lack of enough appreciation for different views in order to recommend articles expressing opposing opinions to other people...

        As for the second part, I do not know what studies you are talking about. I have actually read the opposite. That is the left is more informed than the right, and considering the correlation of education levels and political affiliation, it makes more sense than what you say.
        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by pamak View Post
          First of all sharing links does show an attempt to inform other people about different views. So, when conservatives do it in lower rates than leftists, it does show polarization or lack of enough appreciation for different views in order to recommend articles expressing opposing opinions to other people...
          Wrong. Sharing links simply shows the rate at which they're shared. You are making the same mistake the researchers made and drawing a conclusion for which there is no support... That is, the purpose for which that link was made.
          Also, the rate at which these links are shared has ZERO to do with the political position of those sharing them. Making an assumption that only a Leftist would share a Leftist link, or a Rightist a Right wing link is completely without merit as there is no way of knowing that.
          But, since there is good evidence that the Right knows Leftist positions far better than the Left knows Rightist positions, it might be causally suggested that the Right goes to Leftist sites far more than Leftists visit Rightist sites.

          Given the propensity I've seen here and elsewhere for those with Left leaning views to dismiss Right leaning sites like FOX or Brietbart out-of-hand as fallacious, wrong, worthless, etc., I think there is at least a reasonable thesis to be made that the Left is ill-informed and unwilling to use Right leaning sites while the Right is far more open to using Left leaning ones.


          As for the second part, I do not know what studies you are talking about. I have actually read the opposite. That is the left is more informed than the right, and considering the correlation of education levels and political affiliation, it makes more sense than what you say.
          I gave articles and links. I'm not doing all your homework for you. Oh, the Left says all the time they're better informed. Then, why is it they can't correctly articulate Right wing positions nearly as well as the Right can describe theirs?

          I doubt education levels have much to do with it. A Fine Arts or Liberal Arts degree in some "soft" field is basically having a better high school education. FA and BA degrees are generally only a qualification to be the manager at a Walgreens because they mean you can read, write, and balance a checkbook. Thinking and logic are something the typical art history major doesn't do...

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
            Wrong. Sharing links simply shows the rate at which they're shared. You are making the same mistake the researchers made and drawing a conclusion for which there is no support... That is, the purpose for which that link was made.
            Also, the rate at which these links are shared has ZERO to do with the political position of those sharing them. Making an assumption that only a Leftist would share a Leftist link, or a Rightist a Right wing link is completely without merit as there is no way of knowing that.
            But, since there is good evidence that the Right knows Leftist positions far better than the Left knows Rightist positions, it might be causally suggested that the Right goes to Leftist sites far more than Leftists visit Rightist sites.

            Given the propensity I've seen here and elsewhere for those with Left leaning views to dismiss Right leaning sites like FOX or Brietbart out-of-hand as fallacious, wrong, worthless, etc., I think there is at least a reasonable thesis to be made that the Left is ill-informed and unwilling to use Right leaning sites while the Right is far more open to using Left leaning ones.




            I gave articles and links. I'm not doing all your homework for you. Oh, the Left says all the time they're better informed. Then, why is it they can't correctly articulate Right wing positions nearly as well as the Right can describe theirs?

            I doubt education levels have much to do with it. A Fine Arts or Liberal Arts degree in some "soft" field is basically having a better high school education. FA and BA degrees are generally only a qualification to be the manager at a Walgreens because they mean you can read, write, and balance a checkbook. Thinking and logic are something the typical art history major doesn't do...
            Regardless of the purpose of sharing a link, when you share it you let others get information from that link. So, higher rates of spreading links of different media, creates audiences with a broader perspective.

            As for who spreads the link, the study says

            "
            We began to study this ecosystem by looking at the landscape of what sites people share. If a person shares a link from Breitbart, is he or she more likely also to share a link from Fox News or from The New York Times?
            The good thing with statistics is that although it is impossible to predict the characteristics of an individual case, it IS possible to talk about the characteristic of a trend or pattern. So, when people who share a link from Breibart are more likely to also share a link from other conservative sources (revealed by the location of the Breitbart node within the social cloud), it does reveal the connection of a conservative political affiliation with the Breitbart link share. If you do not believe this, then you have to accept that it is equally (or more) likely for a liberal who shares a Breitbart link to also share more conservative links than progressive ones. This does not make sense...

            As for the links about conservatives being more informed, I did not see any link of yours with studies measuring objective results. I saw subjective interpretations and wishful thinking. For example, in one of the links which talks about the level of understanding the "moral values" of the opposite side, even if it is true, reveals that many conservative moral values (such as religion) are less prominent in the modern society and less people are exposed to such values. It is not about having some type of conservative information superiority or less polarization. Now, let me give you a link with a survey measuring objective standards which supports my position that liberals seems to be more informed.

            https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2...x-news-effect/

            In 2012, a Fairleigh Dickinson University survey reported that Fox News viewers were less informed about current events than people who didn't follow the news at all. The survey had asked current events questions like "Which party has the most seats in the House of Representatives?" and also asked what source of news people followed. The Fox viewers' current events scores were in the basement. This finding was immediately trumpeted by the liberal media—by Fox, not so much—and has since become known as the Fox News effect. It conjures the image of Fox News as a black hole that sucks facts out of viewers' heads.
            Of course, if a person wants to support that liberals are less informed, then he can pick a sample with non English-speaking Illegal immigrants in the study to skew the results. And the fact that these people do not vote does not count because conservatives "know" about the millions of illegals who voted...
            Last edited by pamak; 02 Sep 17, 14:49.
            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by pamak View Post
              Regardless of the purpose of sharing a link, when you share it you let others get information from that link. So, higher rates of spreading links of different media, creates audiences with a broader perspective.

              As for who spreads the link, the study says

              "The good thing with statistics is that although it is impossible to predict the characteristics of an individual case, it IS possible to talk about the characteristic of a trend or pattern. So, when people who share a link from Breibart are more likely to also share a link from other conservative sources (revealed by the location of the Breitbart node within the social cloud), it does reveal the connection of a conservative political affiliation with the Breitbart link share. If you do not believe this, then you have to accept that it is equally (or more) likely for a liberal who shares a Breitbart link to also share more conservative links than progressive ones. This does not make sense..."
              But, it says nothing about the political affiliation of the person sharing it. So what if Breitbart links to mostly other Conservative sites?

              Example: Let's say the Left is 20% of the population. The Right is 20% of the population, and the other 60% is in the Center with some percentage leaning Right or Left.

              What percentage of Leftists go to Right leaning sources? What percentage of Rightists go to Left leaning sources?
              By way of looking at the size of the nodes, it is likely that more people on the Right go to Leftist sources and link those, than do Leftists with Right leaning sources. Sheer volume alone would indicate that if the spread politically between Right and Left are about equal.

              As for the links about conservatives being more informed, I did not see any link of yours with studies measuring objective results. I saw subjective interpretations and wishful thinking. Still, let me give you a link with a survey measuring objective standards which supports my position that liberals seems to be more informed.

              https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2...x-news-effect/
              You are arguing pineapples to battleships here. FOX unquestionably is more Right leaning than other major news outlets. So what? That doesn't mean Conservatives listen / watch FOX exclusively any more than they go to Breitbart.

              My argument is that in asking Leftists about the Right's positions on things, and asking Rightists about the Left's position on things, the Right gets it correct far more than the Left does.
              It argues that on the Left there is an echo chamber going on where they only listen to their ideas and media, whereas on the Right (in part shown by the large Leftist nodes on the OP's picture) is more evenly sourcing their information across the political spectrum so they have a better idea what the Left is thinking.


              Of course, if a person wants to support that liberals are less informed, then he can pick a sample with non English-speaking Illegal immigrants in the study to skew the results. And the fact that these people do not vote does not count because conservatives "know" about the millions of illegals who voted...
              Strawman argument, with an ad hominem thrown in.

              The argument presented in the OP and the one you are trying to make is a No True Scotsman coupled with a Fallacy of Composition.

              It goes like this essentially:

              Only Conservatives (Right) go to Conservative sites and link those to other Conservative sites.
              Only Liberals (Left) go to Liberal sites and link those to other Liberal sites.

              Therefore, since there are fewer Conservative sites, and few large nodes, Conservatives don't socially network as effectively as Liberals do.

              That's completely fallacious.
              Last edited by T. A. Gardner; 02 Sep 17, 14:57.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by pamak View Post
                First of all sharing links does show an attempt to inform other people about different views. So, when conservatives do it in lower rates than leftists, it does show polarization or lack of enough appreciation for different views in order to recommend articles expressing opposing opinions to other people...

                As for the second part, I do not know what studies you are talking about. I have actually read the opposite. That is the left is more informed than the right, and considering the correlation of education levels and political affiliation, it makes more sense than what you say.
                1. Incorrect. Sharing links is an attempt to inform people about YOUR views. Find me a leftie on this forum sharing a right wing opinion or vice versa and discussing its positive merits.

                2. The Left engages in disinformation and ideological bubbles just as much as the right. Hell you can see examples of that here.

                3. "The Left is more informed than the right" is pseudoscientific horse never empirically demonstrated.
                A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                  But, it says nothing about the political affiliation of the person sharing it. So what if Breitbart links to mostly other Conservative sites?

                  Example: Let's say the Left is 20% of the population. The Right is 20% of the population, and the other 60% is in the Center with some percentage leaning Right or Left.

                  What percentage of Leftists go to Right leaning sources? What percentage of Rightists go to Left leaning sources?
                  By way of looking at the size of the nodes, it is likely that more people on the Right go to Leftist sources and link those, than do Lefti"sts with Right leaning sources. Sheer volume alone would indicate that if the spread politically between Right and Left are about equal.
                  The size of the node has to do with the number of retweets by BOTH left and right readers. The color has to do with the political affiliation of the audience which is determined by their choice of following Trump or Clinton in social media. It is the POSITION of the nodes which shows this insulation on the right.
                  Notice how liberal sites are positioned closer to green sites (sites retweeted equally by both conservatives and liberals). This means that there is a larger percentage of say CNN retweeters who decided to also share a link of the green (neutral) sites than the percentage of Breitbart retweeters. And this difference cannot be explained by saying that it is a result of having more conservatives visiting CNN because if that was the case then conservative sites had to be at at least equal distance from green sites in the cloud you see in the graph.

                  In addition, from the same study

                  Another way of seeing this asymmetry is to graph how much attention is given to sites that draw attention mostly from one side of the partisan divide. There are very few center-right sites: sites that draw many Trump followers, but also a substantial number of Clinton followers. Between the moderately conservative Wall Street Journal, which draws Clinton and Trump supporters in equal shares, and the starkly partisan sites that draw Trump supporters by ratios of 4:1 or more, there are only a handful of sites. Once a threshold of partisan-only attention is reached, the number of sites in the clearly partisan right increases, and indeed exceeds the number of sites in the clearly partisan left. By contrast, starting at The Wall Street Journal and moving left, attention is spread more evenly across a range of sites whose audience reflects a gradually increasing proportion of Clinton followers as opposed to Trump followers. Unlike on the right, on the left there is no dramatic increase in either the number of sites or levels of attention they receive as we move to more clearly partisan sites.
                  In other words, there is a propensity for conservatives to concentrate attention to a few partisan sites. THIS is what shows the insulation of the conservative media. By contrast, liberals spread their attention to more diverse media.Notice that this approach goes way beyond a simple comparison of if readers of x site shared links of Z site more or less than readers of z site shared links of x site. This is about if readers of x site shared links of A,B,C,D.... sites more often than readers of z site.

                  So, yes, the colors do indicate that a higher percentage of conservatives shared Breitbart links than a percentage of liberals shared CNN links. So, it is correct to say that a higher PERCENTAGE of people who shared CNN links were conservatives than the percentage of liberals who shared Breitbart links. But the POSITION of the CNN and Breitbart nodes within the cloud shows that CNN liberals are more likely than Breitbart conservatives to share links from non partisan sources.


                  You are arguing pineapples to battleships here. FOX unquestionably is more Right leaning than other major news outlets. So what? That doesn't mean Conservatives listen / watch FOX exclusively any more than they go to Breitbart.

                  My argument is that in asking Leftists about the Right's positions on things, and asking Rightists about the Left's position on things, the Right gets it correct far more than the Left does.
                  It argues that on the Left there is an echo chamber going on where they only listen to their ideas and media, whereas on the Right (in part shown by the large Leftist nodes on the OP's picture) is more evenly sourcing their information across the political spectrum so they have a better idea what the Left is thinking.




                  Strawman argument, with an ad hominem thrown in.
                  I answered that the explanation of "getting it right" with moral values does not mean that it is a result of polarization or misinformation in the liberal news. Is is a simple result of a society which has moved in general away from many traditional values. This is why I mentioned religion as an example. As for the FOX News study, it has consistently the highest view ratings in the last decade or so at least. So, yes, it makes sense to use it as an example for the conservative level of information.
                  Last edited by pamak; 02 Sep 17, 16:37.
                  My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by pamak View Post
                    The size of the node has to do with the number of retweets by BOTH left and right readers. The color has to do with the political affiliation of the audience which is determined by their choice of following Trump or Clinton in social media. It is the POSITION of the nodes which shows this insulation on the right.
                    Notice how liberal sites are positioned closer to green sites (sites retweeted equally by both conservatives and liberals). This means that there is a larger percentage of say CNN retweeters who decided to also share a link of the green (neutral) sites than the percentage of Breitbart retweeters. And this difference cannot be explained by saying that it is a result of having more conservatives visiting CNN because if that was the case then conservative sites had to be at at least equal distance from green sites in the cloud you see in the graph.

                    In addition, from the same study

                    In other words, there is a propensity for conservatives to concentrate attention to a few partisan sites. THIS is what shows the insulation of the conservative media. By contrast, liberals spread their attention to more diverse media.Notice that this approach goes way beyond a simple comparison of if readers of x site shared links of Z site more or less than readers of z site shared links of x site. This is about if readers of x site shared links of A,B,C,D.... sites more often than readers of z site.

                    So, yes, the colors do indicate that a higher percentage of conservatives shared Breitbart links than a percentage of liberals shared CNN links. So, it is correct to say that a higher PERCENTAGE of people who shared CNN links were conservatives than the percentage of liberals who shared Breitbart links. But the POSITION of the CNN and Breitbart nodes within the cloud shows that liberals are more likely than conservatives to share links from non partisan sources.

                    I answered that the explanation of "getting it right" with moral values does not mean that it is a result of polarization or misinformation in the liberal news. Is is a simple result of a society which has moved in general away from many traditional values. This is why I mentioned religion as an example. As for the FOX News study, it has consistently the highest view ratings in the last decade or so at least. So, yes, it makes sense to use it as an example for the conservative level of information.
                    In all that blather, you still completely missed the point. You, and those researchers have ZERO knowledge of the politics or political positions of those accessing those sites. The hardest Right or Left site isn't necessarily being accessed by people who share it's political views.
                    For all you, I, or those researchers know, it's regularly accessed by those with opposed viewpoints for purposes of showing how idiotic their opponents are to those of like mind to themselves.

                    All you have is a picture of the rate of linkage between sites. There is ZERO context as to why or by who those sites are being linked.

                    But, we can clearly see Left leaning sites are far more linked than Right leaning ones are by the size of the nodes (bigger node = more linking). That subjectively argues that across the ENTIRE political spectrum Left leaning ideas are being accessed more than Right leaning ones are.

                    That jibes nicely with studies that have repeatedly shown that the Left knows less about the Right than the Right knows about the Left.

                    Ancedote:

                    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...to-republicans

                    Dave Letterman welcomed Bill O'Reilly to his show by lashing into him, accusing him of dishing out crap. "Have you ever seen my show?" O'Reilly asked. "I wouldn't stoop so low," Letterman replied graciously, his audience howling.
                    http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/467716.html

                    Here's another book by George Lakoff you probably haven't read... (yes, I've read hard Left's George Lakoff's books... Know the enemy and know yourself and you are safe in 100 battles... Sun Tzu) I want to know what the Left thinks. The Left doesn't give a rat's patoot about what the Right thinks. They know with smug assuredness they're smarter, more informed, and right about everything so they don't need to pay attention to all those Neanderthals on the Right.
                    Lakoff's views are very widely held on the Left, and he's completely wrong about the Right.

                    Here's one list that gives a brief synopsis of each side's views according to the author(s)

                    https://www.studentnewsdaily.com/con...beral-beliefs/

                    I'd say I'm pretty Conservative overall. I doubt anyone here would disagree with that. I will also unequivocally state that every position on that list for Conservatives is completely or partially wrong when it comes to me. I'd say that most Conservatives I know would agree on that too. They didn't get one correct. I would agree with their "Liberal" positions however.

                    I see the same sort of thing with Left talk radio versus Right.

                    So, while the chart shows the linkages between nodes, it does nothing to show the why or who of those linkages and the conclusions the researchers, and you, have reached are invalid and useless.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                      In all that blather, you still completely missed the point. You, and those researchers have ZERO knowledge of the politics or political positions of those accessing those sites. The hardest Right or Left site isn't necessarily being accessed by people who share it's political views.
                      For all you, I, or those researchers know, it's regularly accessed by those with opposed viewpoints for purposes of showing how idiotic their opponents are to those of like mind to themselves.


                      All you have is a picture of the rate of linkage between sites. There is ZERO context as to why or by who those sites are being linked.

                      But, we can clearly see Left leaning sites are far more linked than Right leaning ones are by the size of the nodes (bigger node = more linking). That subjectively argues that across the ENTIRE political spectrum Left leaning ideas are being accessed more than Right leaning ones are.

                      That jibes nicely with studies that have repeatedly shown that the Left knows less about the Right than the Right knows about the Left.

                      Ancedote:

                      https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...to-republicans



                      http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/467716.html

                      Here's another book by George Lakoff you probably haven't read... (yes, I've read hard Left's George Lakoff's books... Know the enemy and know yourself and you are safe in 100 battles... Sun Tzu) I want to know what the Left thinks. The Left doesn't give a rat's patoot about what the Right thinks. They know with smug assuredness they're smarter, more informed, and right about everything so they don't need to pay attention to all those Neanderthals on the Right.
                      Lakoff's views are very widely held on the Left, and he's completely wrong about the Right.

                      Here's one list that gives a brief synopsis of each side's views according to the author(s)

                      https://www.studentnewsdaily.com/con...beral-beliefs/

                      I'd say I'm pretty Conservative overall. I doubt anyone here would disagree with that. I will also unequivocally state that every position on that list for Conservatives is completely or partially wrong when it comes to me. I'd say that most Conservatives I know would agree on that too. They didn't get one correct. I would agree with their "Liberal" positions however.

                      I see the same sort of thing with Left talk radio versus Right.

                      So, while the chart shows the linkages between nodes, it does nothing to show the why or who of those linkages and the conclusions the researchers, and you, have reached are invalid and useless.
                      Again, they have a good metric to see political affiliations by measuring the percentage of retweeters who followed either Trump or Clinton.
                      from the study

                      Dark blue sites draw attention in ratios of at least 4:1 from Clinton followers; red sites 4:1 Trump followers. Green sites are retweeted more or less equally by followers of each candidate. Light-blue sites draw 3:2 Clinton followers, and pink draw 3:2 Trump followers.
                      It is hard to argue that people of a certain political affiliation follow the leader of the opposition!

                      As for the anecdotes with Letterman joking that he did not go that low to watch O'Reilly, give me a break. I can find similar anecdotes with liberals dissecting everything O'Reilly says. Did you forget the "Daily Show"? In fact, every comedian, including Letterman follow very carefully FOX . It goves them material for their script!
                      Last edited by pamak; 02 Sep 17, 17:03.
                      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by pamak View Post
                        Again, they have a good metric to see political affiliations by measuring the percentage of retweeters who followed either Trump or Clinton.
                        from the study



                        It is hard to argue that people of a certain political affiliation follow the leader of the opposition!
                        Oh you could be wrong there. There is a psychological phenomenon known as hate watching or hate reading. Consider how many Trump haters here hang on his every word so they can talk about how much they despise it.

                        http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/09...hate-read.html
                        A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by pamak View Post
                          Again, they have a good metric to see political affiliations by measuring the percentage of retweeters who followed either Trump or Clinton.
                          from the study

                          It is hard to argue that people of a certain political affiliation follow the leader of the opposition!
                          Even your article inadvertently supports my position:



                          From the OP article.

                          Note how on the @realDonaldTrump side, many of the larger Left leaning sites are listed as being retweeted regularly, while on the @HillaryClinton side of the list it's all Left leaning sites with no content from the Right.

                          That completely validates my supposition: The Left is insular and has no clue what the Right is thinking because the Left doesn't want to know or care about what the Right is thinking.
                          On the other hand, the Right is going to Left leaning sources regularly as well as Right leaning ones and has a better, more even, and likely far better informed view of the entirety of the political spectrum than the Left does.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
                            Oh you could be wrong there. There is a psychological phenomenon known as hate watching or hate reading. Consider how many Trump haters here hang on his every word so they can talk about how much they despise it.

                            http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/09...hate-read.html
                            Sorry, but the trend is there to see. There is a reason why ALL conservative media are colored red in the graph, and why liberal media are colored blue. There is also a reason why the shade of color corresponds to partisanship with deeper blue and red associated with names WE KNOW are partisan o the left and the right. Such patterns cannot be explained by "hate reading" theories. The latter can explain sporadic behaviors but cannot explain the broad patterns we see.
                            Last edited by pamak; 02 Sep 17, 17:16.
                            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                              Even your article inadvertently supports my position:



                              From the OP article.

                              Note how on the @realDonaldTrump side, many of the larger Left leaning sites are listed as being retweeted regularly, while on the @HillaryClinton side of the list it's all Left leaning sites with no content from the Right.

                              That completely validates my supposition: The Left is insular and has no clue what the Right is thinking because the Left doesn't want to know or care about what the Right is thinking.
                              On the other hand, the Right is going to Left leaning sources regularly as well as Right leaning ones and has a better, more even, and likely far better informed view of the entirety of the political spectrum than the Left does.
                              You do not read what I write...

                              Let me repeat what you dismissed as "blather"

                              So, yes, the colors do indicate that a higher percentage of conservatives shared Breitbart links than a percentage of liberals shared CNN links. So, it is correct to say that a higher PERCENTAGE of people who shared CNN links were conservatives than the percentage of liberals who shared Breitbart links. But the POSITION of the CNN and Breitbart nodes within the cloud shows that CNN liberals are more likely than Breitbart conservatives to share links from non partisan sources.
                              Or to generalize, liberals are more likely to share links from no or less partisan sources. The list actually supports this claim. Of course, it cannot prove it because it does not reveal actual values for the different items of the list...
                              Last edited by pamak; 02 Sep 17, 17:23.
                              My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X