‘Andrew Tate is a symptom, not the problem’: why young men are turning against feminism
‘Andrew Tate is a symptom, not the problem’: why young men are turning against feminism
Teachers describe a deterioration in behaviour and attitudes that has proved to be fertile terrain for misogynistic influencers
Teachers describe a deterioration in behaviour and attitudes that has proved to be fertile terrain for misogynistic influencers
“As soon as I mention feminism, you can feel the shift in the room; they’re shuffling in their seats.” Mike Nicholson holds workshops with teenage boys about the challenges of impending manhood. Standing up for the sisterhood, it seems, is the last thing on their minds.
When Nicholson says he is a feminist himself, “I can see them look at me, like, ‘I used to like you.’”
Once Nicholson, whose programme is called Progressive Masculinity, unpacks the fact that feminism means equal rights and opportunities for women, many of the boys with whom he works are won over.
“A lot of it is bred from misunderstanding and how the word is smeared,” he says.
But he is battling against what he calls a “dominance-based model” of masculinity. “These old-fashioned, regressive ideas are having a renaissance, through your masculinity influencers – your grifters, like Andrew Tate.”
You're viewing a single thread.
YouTube Algorithms, facebook Algorithms, etc. make them all publishers responsible for their content.
the algorithms just rewards "shocking" content; it generates conversation.
I forget who I heard it from, but some bigger YouTuber mentioned that when talking to someone at YouTube about "the algorithm" and the person who worked at YouTube suggested rather than always thinking about it being the algorithm that drives what's popular, that it's the users who engage with that content. In the "line goes up" capitalist mindset, the algorithms at these companies are really just designed around engagement, and keeping people hooked. The "algorithm" is just what it thinks the audience wants.
And while I think a lot of us would like to think better of ourselves, I think we all have a strong tendency to engage with ragebait, and "shocking" content. Which wouldn't necessarily be a bad trait in a pre-internet world. But in the world where the shareholders always need the line to go up infinitely, all of our media gets filled with the garbage that makes the line go up the most.
In the short term, we can all try more to engage less with the kind of content, showing the algorithms that we don't actually want that content.
In the long term, we should probably de-couple our media from the infinite-growth investor-first capitalism that has formerly-respected publications writing articles about what 5 random people said on Twitter that they can ragebait people into engaging with.
Yes people like stuff that's not good for them, violence focused "journalistic" shows were all the rage during the early millenium since they did get a big viewership, but nowadays they are mostly over with only a few left, we should demand change from those that have the power to do it.
People also need to be responsible in what they choose to believe though.
That's true but unregulated internet access at a young age exists
Yes but…I try ink media literacy is something that isn’t necessarily intuitive. It can and should be taught in elementary and secondary schools.
Engineering controls are always the most effective way to limit contact with harmful substances.
True, but imagine if we gave everyone an automatic weapon and told people they need to be responsible for what they choose to shoot. True, but we probably shouldn't have given out so many weapons.
It's a terrible metaphor, but there's an intersection between personal, collective, corporate, and technological responsibility that we need to consider, and it's hard to articulate in a few sentences. IMHO we're all in an ouroboros of thought and action, internally and externally.
The thing is it's really not hard to fact check things you see.
If you do that, kiss the Fediverse goodbye.
Not necessarily. If it only applies to sites with algorithmic feeds (i.e. specifically ones that serve individualized streams to each user based on what they specifically have liked in the past), companies who choose to be in control of what content they show are held to account and smaller platforms are safe.
Or do what the EU did with the DMA.
Write a law specifically for megacorps and only megacorps. It's possible and it works.
If it only applies to sites with algorithmic feeds
arent up- and downvotes pretty much just that?
i think so, even if it isn't stuff like "hot" or "active" definitely are
Not if algorithmic feeds are defined as ones that show individualized feeds to each user, like I said in my comment
I think you'd have to dig into the definition of an algorithm.
Defined in the law, doofus
Yeah, the definition in the law would have to be based on what constitutes an algorithm. That's what I meant, doofus
What specific algorithms the law applies to does not have to be all pieces of code that could be conceivably classed as an "algorithm". The law can use a different word if it makes you feel better
Gotcha. Forgot the legal system doesn't like logical speech lol