Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[NED funded]

Eeeeh I disagree. It doesnt take a lot to be funneled to one of the right wing influencers that are dominating now. If you are a wow fan it doesnt take a lot to be funneled to Asmongold. This is not a deep conspiracy or whatever, its just the reality of what it is. If you are into beauty products and fashion you would get funneled into more left leaning people.

[NineSpine]

Then stop downplaying what is happening he wasn't just deported he was put in a concentration camp at least 70% of the people put in said concentration camp had zero violent criminal records.

We don't make a stronger case for him by lying about the facts of the situation. He was accused of being in a gang, twice. These accusations were found by a court to be credible. Instead of pretending those things never happened, which ruins your credibility, you should be able to explain why it was all bullshit.

[Rasulis]

I mean it's not much of a leap. Trump's a thin skinned little shitbaby who's only gotten thinner skin as he's gotten older; even if punishing them wasn't part of the broader plan, he'll do so anyway because open defiance cannot be tolerated.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeh as someone who made a new account recently to post pretty princess FF14 pictures; unless you already know who you wanna follow, it takes a good goddamn while for your Discover Feed to actually align with what you want rather than just getting whatever's generally popular. Like that account got a shitload of left-leaning political posts even after I started following very specific creators and only somewhat recently died down.

It is part of broader call to take over US higher education which the Evangelical far-rights think is too liberal. A 3-minute interview with Leila Faden talked about it. The whole thing is straight out of Project 2025.

https://www.npr.org/2025/04/15/nx-s1...ejects-demands

[Mayhem]

Like I said, literally the same MAGA attack on Section 230, down to the details. You're just flipping who's the target for suppressing free speech on political grounds and with the same inevitable result of killing off any potential existence of any platform system, since any recommendations (including just a list of related videos) would trip your unreasonable standard. Even just searching for a video and getting multiple results would trigger this clause. You either haven't thought this through or you're copying off MAGA's homework because you like the malformed idea they had.

"The should be considered a publisher, not a platform" was literally the argument. We all made fun of it at the time. I don't know why you think it's a good idea now.

I am worried that you see no difference between getting results after actively looking for something and passively being shown stuff you didn't look for.

[Endus]

Those companies could all just stop using personalized algorithms and then they could enjoy Section 230 protection.

So no suggested videos, no "related videos", nothing coming up on the home page, unless you put in the exact video title or creator name, searches can't offer up anything. That's what you're arguing for, you understand, right? That if I search for, say, "Dungeons and Dragoms DM advice", that search should only respond with "no such content found." Because it wasn't specific to a particular video, didn't name a specific creator, and I even mis-spelled "Dragons" so even if the specific video I wanted had that exact title, but didn't misspell the word, my search must fail.

That's what you're arguing. And if you don't understand that's what you're arguing, that's on you. Search recommendations based on what it determines you're trying to find is a "personalized algorithm". Interpreting out likely typos is a "personalized algorithm".

Youtube (for example) would be a dead page and unless you know exactly what you're looking for by name, you could never find it.

[Xyonai]

It is part of broader call to take over US higher education which the Evangelical far-rights think is too liberal. A 3-minute interview with Leila Faden talked about it. The whole thing is straight out of Project 2025.

https://www.npr.org/2025/04/15/nx-s1...ejects-demands

Oh more to my point that: I don't think hoping these schools would give them an excuse to send in Goons was part of the plan, just the obvious follow-up to when Plan A fails.

I'm aware of everything else, just a lot of what this Admin has done, and continues to do, seems to be predicated on this assumption that everyone and everything will simply just roll over for them without actually putting up a fight (See: The shitfuckery going on with Tariffs and the market right now).

[Mayhem]

So you want to argue that the ICE agents aren't following orders? That just suddenly early in this year they collectively all got the exact same idea: let's deport some random "brown" people?

No, they've been doing that more or less for 22 years now. Expedited removal is 7 years older than ICE.

[Endus]

I am worried that you see no difference between getting results after actively looking for something and passively being shown stuff you didn't look for.

The "passively being shown stuff you didn't look for" is just a search for "more like this" that's auto-generated after viewing a video. It's fundamentally no different than an active search. It's the same issue of "the platform is recommending videos to the user" that an attack on section 230 is about.

I think their algorithms are generally awful, I just strongly disagree that treating hosting platforms as publishers is in any way a reasonable response. Just like with the MAGA attacks, the knock-on effects would just directly kill platforms as a concept.

[Rasulis]

Majority of Americans want more US factory jobs, as long as they don't have to do the work.

“America would be better off if more people worked in manufacturing.”

• 80% of Americans agree
• 20% disagree

“I would be better off if I worked in a factory.”

• 25% of Americans agree
• 73% disagree
• 2% currently work in a factory

We will likely get the same results if we replace "manufacturing" and "factory" with "agriculture" and "farm."

[MCMLXXXII]

No, they've been doing that more or less for 22 years now. Expedited removal is 7 years older than ICE.

And you didn't happen to notice a sudden increase?

[Edge-]

Majority of Americans want more US factory jobs, as long as they don't have to do the work.

“America would be better off if more people worked in manufacturing.”

• 80% of Americans agree
• 20% disagree

“I would be better off if I worked in a factory.”

• 25% of Americans agree
• 73% disagree
• 2% currently work in a factory

We will likely get the same results if we replace "manufacturing" with "agriculture."

This is a fantastic example of the myriad contradictions too many Americans believe.

[Xyonai]

That's kind've tracks with what we hear about immigration complaints.

"We need less foreign workers taking real american jobs!"

"So you'll pick up a sun-hat and overalls and start your shift helping to pick Tomatos on a farm?"

"Fuck no, that kind of work is for suckers."

[Mayhem]

The "passively being shown stuff you didn't look for" is just a search for "more like this" that's auto-generated after viewing a video. It's fundamentally no different than an active search. It's the same issue of "the platform is recommending videos to the user" that an attack on section 230 is about.

I think their algorithms are generally awful, I just strongly disagree that treating hosting platforms as publishers is in any way a reasonable response. Just like with the MAGA attacks, the knock-on effects would just directly kill platforms as a concept.

It's not just a search for more like this, it depends on what the platform wants you to see. They can either push or shadow ban creators, they can show you what's hot, or based on your viewing history, it's however vastly different from search results.

It's the difference between when opening Google, you're looking at a blank site with a search bar, or a search bar and the 20 hottest search results from the last hour.

- - - Updated - - -

And you didn't happen to notice a sudden increase?

Did you notice the record in deportations by ICE in 2024?

[NineSpine]

So no suggested videos, no "related videos", nothing coming up on the home page, unless you put in the exact video title or creator name, searches can't offer up anything. That's what you're arguing for, you understand, right? That if I search for, say, "Dungeons and Dragoms DM advice", that search should only respond with "no such content found." Because it wasn't specific to a particular video, didn't name a specific creator, and I even mis-spelled "Dragons" so even if the specific video I wanted had that exact title, but didn't misspell the word, my search must fail.

That's what you're arguing. And if you don't understand that's what you're arguing, that's on you. Search recommendations based on what it determines you're trying to find is a "personalized algorithm". Interpreting out likely typos is a "personalized algorithm".

Youtube (for example) would be a dead page and unless you know exactly what you're looking for by name, you could never find it.

I don't think you understand what a personalized algorithm is. As long as the results would be the same if any two users performed the same action, it is not personalized. "People who like this video also like..." is not personalized. Algorithms that spellcheck search criteria are not personalized.

- - - Updated - - -

The "passively being shown stuff you didn't look for" is just a search for "more like this" that's auto-generated after viewing a video. It's fundamentally no different than an active search. It's the same issue of "the platform is recommending videos to the user" that an attack on section 230 is about.

I think their algorithms are generally awful, I just strongly disagree that treating hosting platforms as publishers is in any way a reasonable response. Just like with the MAGA attacks, the knock-on effects would just directly kill platforms as a concept.

"More like this" is not personalized. There is no profile of the user.

- - - Updated - - -

The "passively being shown stuff you didn't look for" is just a search for "more like this" that's auto-generated after viewing a video. It's fundamentally no different than an active search. It's the same issue of "the platform is recommending videos to the user" that an attack on section 230 is about.

I think their algorithms are generally awful, I just strongly disagree that treating hosting platforms as publishers is in any way a reasonable response. Just like with the MAGA attacks, the knock-on effects would just directly kill platforms as a concept.

I don't think you hold the rigid standard for this that you portray. There are videos on TikTok that trick people into combining household chemicals in ways that can kill them. If TikTok set their site so that every user saw one of those videos when they log in, would Section 230 protect them?

[Tech614]

It doesn't funnel anything.

I see we are in the coping phase.

Within 1 week the shit basically knew the primary video games I like and my feed was nothing but an echo chamber of praising these games.

It's literally the same shit as tik tok. Not a fan of anything funneling me into echo chambers, not even talking about politically related ones either.

[Edge-]

If TikTok set their site so that every user saw one of those videos when they log in, would Section 230 protect them?

That's tiktok taking a specific action to highlight potentially unlawful/dangerous material which would open them up to legal liability and why don't you just make a thread about this since you seem to want to turn this thread into a discussion of algorithms and politics?

[Rasulis]

This is a fantastic example of the myriad contradictions too many Americans believe.

Link to the survey from Cato Institute.

https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/...urvey_2024.pdf

As you said, US voters are full of contradictions. Overall, their lives are too comfortable to make the sacrifices for what they think they need.

[NineSpine]

That's tiktok taking a specific action to highlight potentially unlawful/dangerous material which would open them up to legal liability and why don't you just make a thread about this since you seem to want to turn this thread into a discussion of algorithms and politics?

"Why are you making the Trump thread about politics" is certainly a take.

So if TikTok takes an action that delivers dangerous content to people, they should not get Section 230 protection?

[TACOshake]

I dunno how useful it is to post surveys from months or weeks ago.



Thats back when peopl ecould still find eggs.

[NED funded]

It looks like tax dollars are going to be spent bailing out farmers from Trumps disastrous policies. Are the doge savings even going to be enough to cover this lol