- cross-posted to:
- climate_lm@slrpnk.net
- cross-posted to:
- climate_lm@slrpnk.net
You must log in or register to comment.
This may sound a little harsh, but with what we know now about climate change, and well, it already being known SINCE BEFORE THE 1900S, with what we know about all the pain and suffering that it will cause (and already is causing), I think that denying climate change should become a criminal offense.
You’re literally propagandizing a personal agenda of a tiny few for a few bucks and that agenda will likely result in more death and destruction than WWII.
Once food scarcity really starts kicking in, once climate refugees will try to go anywhere but will be rejected everywhere (you know they will), once the wars start over the reduced availability of resources, we may be looking at incredible death tolls.
This is not something hypothetical, this is pretty much where we’ll be headed in the next few decades. Yet we somehow allow people to lie about this for a few bucks?
It’s no different really than these right wing tools that are parroting Russian talking points for money from Russia (hello Tim pool, paid shills) that are destroying the country from within and when caught, nothing really happened.
As far as I’m concerned, You’re aiding in the deaths of countless people for some money. String them up from the highest tree for treason. These are not good people, these are not nice people, these are the effing horsemen of the apocalypse, so to speak, and they do it for money. Good ol greed.
String them up, leave them hanging. I’ve run through all my patience with these disgusting influencers.
Podcasts? What do you mean “online shows”?
Something tells me they’re not counting all shows, but just one platform.
Read the article. It’s pretty clear that they’re looking at both podcasts and video content and at multiple platforms.
The site’s analysis, titled “Hot Air,” looked at individual accounts on Twitter, TikTok, YouTube, and news or blog sites that frequently spread climate misinformation
Nah, it doesn’t say anything about podcasts. So they specifically looked at platforms whose algorithms boost climate disinformation.
They cherry-picked sources, so “top 10” is totally misleading. If they included podcasts, I’m not sure there would be more than 1 or 2 in the top 10.
“they looked at the thing that they wanted to look at” also rogan is still among the top podcasts including on spotify. the study if you read it, is looking at what 21% of adults get news from. 77% of the sources that 21% get some or most of their news from are spreading climate misinformation.
Yes, I concede rogan is one of the two.
You’re also unfortunately simply wrong
notably
We found substantial asymmetry in total following across platforms: Right-leaning online shows had at least 480.6 million total followers and subscribers — nearly five times as many as left-leaning.
- Across platforms — YouTube, Rumble, Twitch, Kick, Spotify, Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok — right-leaning online shows accounted for roughly 82% of the total following of the online shows we assessed.
- Comparatively, left-leaning online shows had nearly 104 million followers and subscribers across the eight platforms — nearly five times less.
- Nine out of the 10 online shows with the largest followings across platforms were right-leaning, with a total following of more than 197 million. The only left-leaning show among the top 10 was What Now? with Trevor Noah, which had 21.1 million total followers and subscribers across platforms.
I wonder how many people out there are like me and don’t follow influencers at all. If anything, I consider influencers a net negative on society.
Its unfortunate if you dont support good journalists.
Most corporate media is crap. Its important to follow and support the work of good journalists.
Journalists and influencers are two very different things, friend. Any jackass with a YouTube channel or Instagram account can be an influencer. Journalism requires education, investigative and literary skill, and vetting.
No, journalists are influencers. You can make a distinction between types and quality of influencers (people with platforms and followers who they influence with the content they publish), but dont condemn all influencers.
Perhaps this is an argument over semantics, rather than anything substantive.
When I say “influencer,” I’m referring to a class of people whose lives revolve around producing performative content on social media that does not meaningfully add to society.
Journalists are influencers.
We’ve had influencers for thousands of years. Jesus Christ was an influencer.
We’re using the word “influencer” differently here. You’re using it the literal way - “one who influences.” The version I’m using is narrower in scope.
But if you insist on using your terminology, then I’ll refer to them not as “influencers” but rather “social media attention whores.” Does that make you feel better?
Sure. Or you can say “bad influencers” or “the influencers who spread misinformation”
Bring the down votes.
Life long New Yorker. Used to work near Wall Street. All the top decision makers read the New York Times. They read it because it promises to give them the information they need.
Is it pro-capitalist? Yes. Does it give voice to right Wing folks? Yes.
It isn’t perfect, but it’s where I start when I need to know something.
Fortunately the US has much better news outlets that aren’t puppets for corporations
deleted by creator
“Fuck journalists and artists. We should just give all of their power to corporate media and record labels.”
fuck that’s a lame arse list.
gets some fucking taste for fuck sake.
This is a good advetisment for Theo Von and Trevor Noah. Never heard of them.
