Excellent article explaining the process. Bravo California for making voting easy by mail. Smart people who are busy and engaged vote by mail. Thus, democrats!
The antivax example does so much work here—70% real approval, near-total online hostility, much of it from people nowhere near California. The feed didn't just amplify the loudest nodes; it hid the agreement that was already there.
That's what I'd add to the hopeful side: More in Common's Perception Gap research keeps finding that the most partisan, most news-saturated people are the least accurate about what the other side actually believes—they imagine roughly twice as many opponents hold "extreme" views as really do. Strip away the engagement layer and our baseline commonality is consistently underestimated. The real disagreements don't vanish—but they're smaller and fewer than the architecture makes them look. And that distortion isn't neutral. It's what you get from systems optimized for engagement over accuracy.
Ooooof this is really bad as trust in democracy sinks to record lows… something has to give and doesn’t seem like it’s going to be good. So wildly irresponsible of folks to sling baseless claims of election fraud. Anywho thanks for doing what you do
As I understand it, Bass would much rather face Pratt in the November election than Raman. So the supposed cheating does not eliminate Hilton and does not give the incumbent LA mayor their preferred opponent. But conspiracy theories don't need to make sense.
The Republicans work very hard to sow distrust in elections, then claim that reforms are necessary to restore trust. But trust is not what they want. What they seek is advantage. Raise barriers so that the vote will be tilted toward voters of privilege and wealth.
Everything you say about MAGA’s online cope is structurally true. The tell is that you never apply the same lens to your own side’s Russiagate fantasies, suppression narratives, or blue‑check bubbles. This isn’t an analysis of a human failing; it’s a diagnosis reserved for people you already hate.
FWIW I’ve written/posted about left wing election rumors and BlueAnon; it’s not the same degree of reach or given legitimacy in the same way by the party itself at this point, it’s more diffuse. The claims about 2024 were baseless and I said they were baseless on Election Day. I’m not sure what “Russiagate” covers at this point but I wrote in 2018 that there was no evidence interference swung the election. 🤷🏻♀️
Ok, that’s useful; I may have mistaken you for the usual genre: people who treat MAGA delusion as a medical condition and their own side’s apocalyptic storylines as responsible stewardship of the public mind. The standard move is to call one “cope” and the other “precaution.” If you’re genuinely trying to put all the tribes under the same structural microscope, then I’ll happily admit I slotted you into the wrong bucket.
Excellent article explaining the process. Bravo California for making voting easy by mail. Smart people who are busy and engaged vote by mail. Thus, democrats!
The antivax example does so much work here—70% real approval, near-total online hostility, much of it from people nowhere near California. The feed didn't just amplify the loudest nodes; it hid the agreement that was already there.
That's what I'd add to the hopeful side: More in Common's Perception Gap research keeps finding that the most partisan, most news-saturated people are the least accurate about what the other side actually believes—they imagine roughly twice as many opponents hold "extreme" views as really do. Strip away the engagement layer and our baseline commonality is consistently underestimated. The real disagreements don't vanish—but they're smaller and fewer than the architecture makes them look. And that distortion isn't neutral. It's what you get from systems optimized for engagement over accuracy.
Ooooof this is really bad as trust in democracy sinks to record lows… something has to give and doesn’t seem like it’s going to be good. So wildly irresponsible of folks to sling baseless claims of election fraud. Anywho thanks for doing what you do
As I understand it, Bass would much rather face Pratt in the November election than Raman. So the supposed cheating does not eliminate Hilton and does not give the incumbent LA mayor their preferred opponent. But conspiracy theories don't need to make sense.
The Republicans work very hard to sow distrust in elections, then claim that reforms are necessary to restore trust. But trust is not what they want. What they seek is advantage. Raise barriers so that the vote will be tilted toward voters of privilege and wealth.
Everything you say about MAGA’s online cope is structurally true. The tell is that you never apply the same lens to your own side’s Russiagate fantasies, suppression narratives, or blue‑check bubbles. This isn’t an analysis of a human failing; it’s a diagnosis reserved for people you already hate.
FWIW I’ve written/posted about left wing election rumors and BlueAnon; it’s not the same degree of reach or given legitimacy in the same way by the party itself at this point, it’s more diffuse. The claims about 2024 were baseless and I said they were baseless on Election Day. I’m not sure what “Russiagate” covers at this point but I wrote in 2018 that there was no evidence interference swung the election. 🤷🏻♀️
Ok, that’s useful; I may have mistaken you for the usual genre: people who treat MAGA delusion as a medical condition and their own side’s apocalyptic storylines as responsible stewardship of the public mind. The standard move is to call one “cope” and the other “precaution.” If you’re genuinely trying to put all the tribes under the same structural microscope, then I’ll happily admit I slotted you into the wrong bucket.
I’m not on any social media besides Substack and I’ve never heard of dude.