Awesome thanks for answering. I knew this would turn into a political hate fest but hoped someone like you would understand the true question.

I'll let you in on a secret. No one likes Trump or Biden.

It's not different, that's my concern. I want something different and better and fragmented instances of biased social media sites isn't it. I want a politics discussion to be diverse and varied not "politics" on the republican lemmy instance, "politics" on the democrat lemmy instance, and so on. It seems to be impossible these days for moderators or admins to promote an unbiased forum even if they themselves are biased. Everyone just kind of accepts and admits the bias and stays in their little bubble thinking this is how it should be. It didn't used to be this way.

Actually I'm asking what I asked and interacting with Lemmy for the first time. Did I know it would be contentious? Yes, but that is part of the point. I wanted to see how contentious content is treated so you're somewhat right.

It looks pretty good actually. I was able to post and comment with a new account without being restricted 100 different ways even while posting something that might upset some people. I don't want platform level restrictions being driven by stupid group think and brigade activity. That's about it.

Well, that isn't at all what happened, but okay. This was a platform discussion and probably beyond most users here even understanding. Not because they're stupid but because they don't really understand how social media algorithms and rules work to curate content in certain ways.

That's just your bias. Everyone is biased but social media platforms don't have to be designed to kettle people and feed their biases as correct. Let me put it this way using your own words..

current state of american politics manifested in a discussion platform

If that is true, can you show me the people talking about banning books because they were written by minorities and taking kids away from their parents for providing them healthcare? Even further, can you show me them talking about it in the POLITICS community?

I'm willing to bet that you can't because this isn't representative of the current state of American politics. It's a one sided biased discussion absent this "other side" you're referring to yet that "other side" is equal in numbers so where are they? Why are they so completely absent?

If I do post anti-Biden stories in politics or make anti-Biden comments in politics how long until I'm limited in some way compared to anti-Trump users? That is what I'm getting at. Does the platform support functionality to bias communities or does it actually rely on the users like old social media? Will my comments be time restricted? Will I be shadow banned? Will people have to click to expand my comment? How much will the platform itself interfere in these ways that create echo chambers?

The whole "they're a fringe minority" claim is bizarre when Trump won the election and last election set records. Republicans and Democrats are roughly equivalent in numbers and so are their fringe crazies, who are increasing in number. Eventually the much larger majority of Americans who isn't affiliated with a party and doesn't vote will weigh in on this nonsense.

bias against right-wing ideology occurs naturally on internet forums

Is that why 4chan is the way it is? Is that why Twitter shifted hard to the right when people stopped being banned? I don't think it proved that at all.

All it proved is that Lemmy world is biased to the left which was already known. I found out that Lemmy isn't biased as a platform but also the userbase sadly thinks further fragmentation is the solution. Don't like the left bias here? Go find a right bias instance. Uhh.. No thanks to both? I want impartial authority and diverse participation not ANOTHER layer of bias on top of existing bias promoting mechanisms used in popular social media platforms.

That was the solution offered. Don't like the left bias? Go find the right bias Lemmy instances and some names were dropped. So obviously your theory is garbage if people are outright telling me where to go find "right bias" Lemmy instances.

Oh no, Lemmy supports images like this? Garbage.

Also reductionist garbage anyway. How about the freedom of religion and being censored for protesting government mandated closure of places of worship while alcohol stores were allowed to remain open? Is that conservative? It's just one example.

I have Twitter blocked at the network level. Whenever I see a screenshot of a Twitter post I know it's literally the stupidest thing you could imagine. You didn't let me down. Also the whole screen shotted Twitted posts making a claim about conservatives that is easily refuted if conservatives were actually allowed to talk is peak Reddit.

Feel good, makes you laugh, hate your neighbor content. Just be sure you don't show it to your neighbor they might say some things that confuse you. Believe me this isn't unique to Democrats the same Twitter screen shot psy ops are run against conservatives. Look, some random person said this, let's talk about it like that is what all X's say and believe. Look, some random person said this, let's talk about it and how it's so true.

Screen shots of comments on Twitter being reposted is.. very disturbing. For reasons that go far beyond the stupidity of American politics.

Not at all, that's why it is a platform question. Obviously the users are biased that isn't my question.

The scale and severity of the accusations against Trump and those against Biden are on completely different levels.

No, they're not. You said accusations. Remember Trump Russia? Well now this is Biden China. If you think Jan 6th was an attempted coup and that is why this is so serious then you can also acknowledge that Biden China is using the legal system to attack his political opponent, Trump, which is just as serious an accusation. It is similarly a coup like situation. Unless I misunderstand what you mean.

You’re implying the existence of an administrative or algorithmic bias that is somehow censoring right wing talking points while ignoring that several popular right wing talking points are of highly questionable veracity.

I'm not implying this that is already a proven reality. Both the bias censoring them and many being highly questionable. The tactic for censorship is pointing out what isn't true and ignoring the things being censored that are true. You could do the same thing for Democrat talking points, grabbing hold of the ones that are nonsense to justify censoring legitimate criticism.

It's like if someone says eating toothpaste cures COVID because their friend tried it and it worked but another person says vitamin D cures COVID here are several peer reviewed studies and you just lump all of that into a category called "COVID misinformation." That is the current situation. Meanwhile the people doing the categorizing are saying "this new experimental untested COVID vaccine will absolutely protect you and you 'WILL NOT DIE' if you take it and it's also the only way we can ever 'GO BACK TO NORMAL'" but we all know that was also utter garbage misinformation. So the problem is the censorship by those spreading misinformation who are using the toothpaste claim to suppress the vitamin D information. I don't see the problem as the toothpaste claim. People are supposed to be the most educated of any nation in the world in America they shouldn't need government backed protection from unsupported claims on the internet.

They absolutely do exist in similarly equal numbers. Just because you censor people it doesn't make them go away in the real world.

There is no shadow banning, no time locking comments based on karma, and all that?

Sensational nonsense and Republicans have similar sensational nonsense to say about Democrats. Both political parties are in favor of less rights for you and more money for themselves. That's about it. I even called this years ago when I told a friend that BOTH gun rights AND abortion would be successfully attacked in the near future and used as a wedge to further erode rights. One party wants you to have less of this right, the other wants you to have less of that right, no one is talking about expanding people's rights or reigning in government power. You just argue about which rights are more important than others and how the ones you don't care about should be gotten rid of or at least it's okay that your party wants to get rid of them because you don't care about "the other" who thinks it is important to them.

Because I'm right and they're wrong. Also even though Democrats are committing war crimes usually it is the Republicans.

There is one party from where I stand partner.

The law hasn't seemed to matter much lately. You could use illegal immigration as an example. The law says it's illegal but Democrats as a party have openly supported people who break this law and generally ignore that it is being broken. Sometimes even encouraging people to break the law in public forum. You could use drug laws as another example. Democrats openly supporting people who use or abuse drugs from a health, safety, social care perspective but ignoring that they're the ones supposedly writing the laws they claim to be protecting people against. Republicans, including Trump, have sort of rebranded into the "party of the law" because of this.

This is relevant because Republicans, as the party of the law, use the law to effect change. The Democrats, as a party that promotes caring for people over the letter of the law, often does not use the law explicitly to effect change. They use interpretation. Therefore your response is that Republicans are passing laws that hurt certain people so it can't be possible that Democrats are similarly bad. Except that ignores things like Biden even having the privilege to deploy troops in Ukraine. It ignores all the things that happen outside of the law and within interpretation of the law and how the courts work in the real world that isn't simply "passing a new law."

Your comment is childish.

Whole point is lost on you and has nothing to do with Trump.

Whole point is lost on you and has nothing to do with Trump.

There is a difference between "refusing others" and allowing people to illegally enter the country and participate in society getting identification, holdings jobs, etc. In fact I find Democrats support of this disgusting because it is exploitative. They love to have illegal immigrants come here and give them just enough so they can go work on a farm or in a factory but not actually make them citizens capable of obtaining labor protections and not just being fodder for corporations.

Just so you know that isn't particularly true. The media made COVID stuff political at first. A quick check shows 50% of Republicans and 70% of Democrats were vaccinated in 2021. A difference that could be explained by factors like rural vs urban availability. The least vaccinated group was black men.

What mainly became political was the response. Wearing a mask or getting vaccinated were widely done by people in both parties. The only difference was feelings about if the government should be forcing people to do those things. This was spun as "republicans are stupid and anti science" in order to talk past the actual points of contention which were entirely focused on being forced by the government to do things which frankly didn't have any scientific basis anyway.

Also most of the criticism of the vaccines and mandates was ultimately proven correct. It was, factually, the government that was spreading misinformation while coordinating with social media to ban anyone who ran counter to their narrative. That part is all proven history at this point. The government told everyone this was a safe and effective vaccine that was the only answer to "going back to normal." In reality it was not safe and several issues were noted with the vaccines after this campaign where anyone questioning safety or efficacy was banned from social media. It was not effective and the people making those statement knew it wasn't effective and hadn't been properly tested to support those statements. Also it clearly wasn't the "only way to go back to normal" since many people just didn't take it and everything went back to normal.

The whole "misinformation" nonsense being pushed now by the government is merely them being mad that people called their bluff and they would like that to not happen again in the future. The idea that people can't be trusted to discuss things amongst each other without the government being there to hit the brakes at any moment is scary. We have freedom of the press for the reason.

Any news source I found you would merely dismiss as not being legitimate. You don't seem to know that conspiracy is a word that means something. This is different from "conspiracy theories" the popular phrase. Trump is being charged with conspiracy... it's kind of hilarious to me you saying I'm a joke if I think the "Trump shit is a conspiracy" he's being charged with conspiracy! I think that makes you the joke because it's funny to me at least.

No, it's more like walking into a room and asking, "Hey, is this a place where we can have free open discussions or are you a biased group of people who rely on authoritarian control to promote your views?" then getting the door slammed in your face and told something like the commenter who said "There aren’t two sides to every issue, reasonable people can’t differ on everything." A sort of smarmy response implying that there is no bias, only the truth, and this group is just reasonable people who accept the truth and anyone who won't accept their truth isn't reasonable and therefore isn't welcome.

That's fine and it answers the question. It is a group of people who rely on authoritarian control to promote their views. They do not want free and open discussion. They are happy to suppress and censor speech they deem "unreasonable" or similar.

That is what worries me about this concept.

That now not only do you need a different community within social media but an entirely different site catering to your in group. It is further fracturing people into small groups that refuse to interact with each other and are becoming unhinged and paranoid as a result.

Is it really so hard to have a social media site with politics discussion that is moderated without bias? Everyone seems to just accept that the bias is a given and you just have to find your own little bubble to be happy in. No. I want to discuss with people different than me. Not circle jerk people who already think like me.

This means whereas you used to have a biased politics within a social media site you at least had political groups interacting outside of politics there but fracturing across sites will speed this up rather than reduce the group think. Hopefully social media just dies.

Democrats are trying to groom children into being gay by letting drag queens molest them Democrats are trying to start WW3 in Ukraine

You do remember that our Democrat administration is pushing for cluster bombs in Ukraine? How does that compare to transgender rights in America?

This is a common tactic to demonize your opponent and it was widely demonstrated during the BLM protests. It was repeated all over the nation at these protests whenever anyone criticized something like burning down buildings. "How can you care about burning down buildings when black bodies are being killed in the streets?"

This emotional appeal to DEATH. People are DYING. We can't be RATIONAL because people are DYING and THEY are the ones causing it! Meanwhile the people saying this turn a blind eye to the forever wars America is engaged in resulting in millions of death. Literally cluster bombs are being rolled out and you don't hear a beep suddenly about "people are dying."

If I point things out like this I become a Republican in the mind of the deranged Democrat biased poster. That's fine but it works the same for biased moderators and admins who start to thumb the scales. It also works the other way if you go point out legitimate criticism of Republicans in biased Republican forums.

This is a discussion of bias not political beliefs.

It's "a conspiracy"? That doesn't really mean anything. You didn't even say it's a conspiracy theory. Is Trump not being tried for a conspiracy at the moment? Not a conspiracy theory, the crime, it has conspiracy in the name. Your comment is just muddying the water. It's pretty obvious the Bidens are involved in bribery with the CCP to some degree and that is by the facts. No different than Ukraine and Burisma. Ukraine was branded the most corrupt country in the world and the Bidens just happened to be all mixed up in their energy sector and governance. This is before the latest events even.

Here is a simple example.

Biden said he never got involved with his sons business dealings. That was his cover when all the Burisma stuff came out. Well, we know factually that is a lie now. Where is the story about this specific example on the politics community here? It's a factual story illustrating Biden lied about business dealings with his son when he was questioned if these dealings could make him impartial. He lied in response to be asked if he could be impartial about Ukraine or if he might be involved financially in the situation. Where's the coverage here historically when this story broke?

It's just one of many examples of what is valid political news story about the current US President but where is it on Lemmy? Yet what I do see is 10 submissions on my front page about the same Trump story and he isn't even the current President. That is the bias and if you're not intentionally being a blind shill you can see it plainly. The question was not if Lemmy USERS are biased, obviously they are, the question is about the platform itself.

No my point is there is an absence of stories about Biden. At least that is it in a nutshell. Like I said elsewhere I'd prefer 0 stories about either one but at least equal representation of stories not just negative Trump stories endlessly. That isn't organic and it's obvious. There are many reasons it can happen but one is that the platform itself promotes bias and to me that is the most important factor on if I want to use a given platform. I don't even care if every story is about hating Trump as long as I can say Fuck Biden and not get banned for it by an admin. That's my only point. I don't care about either of them. If you're posting somewhere that saying Fuck Biden gets you banned but Fuck Trump is there every day all day then you're just participating in an echo chamber and taking party in a small community not the larger world community on the internet.

Which Lemmy instance is not biased? Also, algorithmically, how much is Lemmy going to produce bias? Like I said that is my primary concern. Reddit is designed to produce bias and suppress unpopular opinions. Is Lemmy modeled after this design or did it ditch the stuff like shadow banning and time locking commenting based on "karma"?

No. What I said is I don't like biased stories on my front page. If I see 7/20 stories hating on Trump I have to wonder, where are the Biden stories? I'd prefer to see 0/20 stories hating on Trump and 0/20 stories hating on Biden. I'd tolerate seeing 4/20 stories hating on Trump and 4/20 hating on Biden (or some ratio that isn't 100% biased in one way). I do not want one sided political propaganda being intermixed regularly into my feeds.

Yeah and that is what I'm talking about. It is frankly disgusting to have to read all this dehumanzing one sided garbage. The comments in this thread are perfect examples of dehumanizing people and using that as a justification for bias. "No reasonable person supports Republicans" and "Republicans have never done anything to garner support from rational people." It is the shift from "we disagree about things that impact our lives" to "you are completely crazy and wrong about everything so you deserve whatever I do to you."

erase people from existence and force women to make health choices

Biased Republicans would say similar things. That you shouldn't complain if Republicans are shitting on Democrats because they're the party that wants to let drag queens molest children and start WW3 in Ukraine or whatever. Normally when two people talk they can realize that the other person is in fact just a person like them and you can be empathic towards each other. This isn't happening though because the people working themselves into a frenzy about "the other" are kept isolated and encouraged to keep going down that path of irrational hatred.

We have social media platforms actively separating people and promoting their thinking that the other side are deranged lunatics who need to be exterminated or severely restricted using the power of the government. This is really wrong and I'm hoping Lemmy can offer an alternative similar to the origins of social media where people could share and talk, that's it, we didn't have heavy handed moderators, admins, and algorithms getting in the middle of everything and creating isolated bubbles of people dehumanizing each other.

There is nothing Republicans have done over the years to garner any support from rational humans.

This is the kind of over the top laughable bias I am talking about. That's fine if you're biased as a user because I'm talking about algorithmic and moderator/admin bias. This is a perfect example of the crazed bias I am referring to.

Honestly, it simply reads like paid political shilling. Who really says stuff like this? Who is so far down the political party rah rah that they couldn't even admit their opponent political party has done a single thing a rational person would support? It just reads like dehumanizing tripe.

I don't want to use a social media platform that exposes me to this kind of nonsense under the guise of being general political discussion and plasters the front page or my feed with it. Like I said, 7/20 stories attacking Trump on the front page. That amount of energy being expended to bias people in these extreme ways smells like paid advertisement not organic social media.

That's even fine to me. Feel free to pay people to shill your politics BUT I want a platform that isn't secretly biased in favor of this and putting their thumb on the scales anytime decisions get made. Not to mention invested in exposing me to this garbage in the hopes of vacuuming up political ad spend and working users into a hate frenzy because it increases page views.

I mean if it’s a contest about dehumanising groups of people I think the right-wing is doing a far superior job to the left…

Deflecting and politicizing the discussion. My point is people should stop being segmented and separated into echo chambers and I want to know if Lemmy can help with that or if it's merely copying the playbook from sites like Reddit. It doesn't matter who is doing it worse both "sides" are doing this and they say the EXACT same things about each other.

Thanks, I didn't want to point it out, but yes. The mass downvoting with no response is a hallmark of Reddit and makes me think that yes, Lemmy is modeled almost identically after Reddit, and it will function in the same way as a result.

I remember back when downvoting was considered bad behavior because it was only supposed to be reserved for people breaking rules, spam, etc it wasn't supposed to be used to bury people that said things you don't like. Now not only is burying people with downvote brigades considered the thing to do but the site owners and algorithm actively uses that as a signal to terminate further participation by those users.

This is exactly proving my point. Algorithmically Reddit was designed to produce a biased echo chamber. Not from the start but slowly over time. Lemmy is just copying that design and sure enough it already appears to be a biased echo chamber. What I wonder though is algorithmically how much will this impact a user? Will I be unable to post as freely and as often now that I've been targeted by the hive mind?

I think that without those censorship aspects built into the algorithm impacting individual users then the bias actually can be reversed. It's hard to call people biased and bury them if they can freely respond and defend their positions and cite sources. Reddit relies on burying people so they can not defend themselves or cite sources which is what results in the echo chamber building in intensity.

Those stories are occurring. See the Chinese bribery stuff or whatever. No, I'm not inviting a discussion about if this is equivalent or not. I am merely pointing out there you can go to a biased right wing social media site and it's the same thing in reverse. There is no absence of stories about corruption with Biden that are supported just as much as any stories about Trump but those stories are absent here.

That may be but I do know that many reasonable people are sick of hearing about him. This isn't really about Trump it's about how Lemmy functions algorithmically being too closely modeled on Reddit resulting in a biased platform. The destruction of Reddit's politics subreddit occurred many years after its' launch and with a lot of active interference from the site owners and moderators whereas on Lemmy it is starting in a biased state. It also doesn't have to be about politics, it can be any number of contentious topics. My concern is that Lemmy is just copying Reddit and therefore will end up in the same place. What is new here? Why is Lemmy not going to turn into bought and paid for shill posts and comments astroturfing everything like Reddit?