After many years of progressive hegemony in public discourse, we are witnessing the bursting of the woke left liberal bubble.
Across the West, the wave of support for the new patriotic right, which the left labels as the “far right,” is rising relentlessly.
The collapse of this house of cards, both in the streets and at the ballot box, is happening so rapidly that there is an entire generation of leftists who have never seen anything like it.
They grew up believing it was normal for everyone to be “good,” meaning left wing, and no one to be “bad,” meaning right wing.
They are incapable of self criticism and search for almost internal explanations for the consequences of their own mistakes.
The most recent idea was particularly amusing, to hold Elon Musk responsible for misleading X users, dressing this assumption in the cloak of scientific research supposedly supported by the journal Nature.
A funny study
The controversial study, “The political effects of X’s feed algorithm,” allows the Western establishment media to publish reports such as the one recently circulated by the Spanish newspaper El Mundo, with the striking headline: “Neither fake news nor account suppression, this is how Elon Musk’s social network X makes you right wing without you realizing it.”
The authors claim their position is based on a “test with thousands of Americans” confirming that X can “shift users toward more conservative views” through the “For you” tab.
However, this study may represent the century’s best example of how people are manipulated by convincing them they are being manipulated.
The report identifies a “conservative effect,” activating the algorithm increases exposure to conservative content by 2.9% and drastically reduces exposure to traditional media by 15.5%. Any attentive reader will spot the first trap, what leads researchers to assume that “exposure to traditional media” equates to political neutrality?
It is well documented that traditional media in the United States display a clear liberal progressive bias, something that also applies in Europe.
Presenting traditional media as the absolute benchmark of ideological neutrality should immediately invalidate the rest of the study.
The next finding borders on parody, the algorithm recommends conservative activists whom users begin following, yet even if the algorithm is disabled and one returns to chronological viewing, these accounts continue appearing in the feed, topped by their latest posts.
Apparently, none of the four researchers considered that this is the most basic function of all social networks, users freely follow accounts and then see their posts.
If such accounts disappeared when switching from “For You” to “Timeline,” X would be flooded with complaints about a ridiculous programming failure.
They deny freedom
One of the most striking aspects of the study is that it denies the fundamental characteristic of human beings, freedom of choice.
It assumes that users change political views based on what appears in their feed, even without realizing it.
In other words, the study treats the user as a passive entity, almost like a zombie clicking because the algorithm commands it.
It does not even examine the possibility that users actively seek alternative viewpoints in response to the uniform narrative of traditional media, arguably the most plausible scenario.
Moreover, what the study condemns as conservative persuasion by X is likely nothing more than a correction of the dominant left wing bias of establishment media, which, incidentally, were never the subject of a Nature study titled “how traditional media make you left wing without realizing it.”
Musk under fire
This study is not innocent, it is designed exclusively to be amplified by traditional media and weaponized once again against Elon Musk and his support for free discussion on Twitter, as well as against the Right in the ongoing cultural conflict.
There is, however, an even more serious issue. The researchers appear uninterested in noting that the study was conducted three weeks after the emblematic prison photograph of Donald Trump, following his surrender in Fulton.
Within that climate of extreme political tension, researchers decided it was the ideal time to analyze X’s neutrality, essentially the neutrality of its users.
They treat user opinion as something malleable by X’s algorithm, ignoring that by August 2023 the United States was already engaged in a national debate about the politicization of justice.
Thus, the study creates the impression that if one does not think like The New York Times, it is because the algorithm “manipulated” them.
Conducting research on algorithmic persuasion at the peak of Trump’s legal battles is like studying ocean calm during a tsunami.
The results are shaped by events, not by the code of Elon Musk’s platform.
It should also not be overlooked that while researchers cite a 2016 study indicating conservative bias, there is no rigorous comparison with the pre Musk era using identical methodology.
Desperate efforts
It is evident that part of the authors’ intention was to counter a major 2020 study conducted in collaboration with Meta, which showed that replacing a personalized feed with a control feed had no significant effect on polarization or political attitudes.
Finally, the study’s exclusive focus on views regarding Trump already undermines neutrality, given that no equivalent research was conducted, for instance, on attitudes toward Joe Biden during the legal controversy surrounding Hunter Biden.
Although the study provides ammunition to left leaning media, the reality is that Western elites will need to continue searching, more convincingly, if they genuinely wish to understand why the new Right is gaining ground.
A suggestion, they will find no algorithm, no magical filter, and no mysterious charm to blame.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών