It's not different, that's my concern. I want something different and better and fragmented instances of biased social media sites isn't it. I want a politics discussion to be diverse and varied not "politics" on the republican lemmy instance, "politics" on the democrat lemmy instance, and so on. It seems to be impossible these days for moderators or admins to promote an unbiased forum even if they themselves are biased. Everyone just kind of accepts and admits the bias and stays in their little bubble thinking this is how it should be. It didn't used to be this way.

Oh no, Lemmy supports images like this? Garbage.

Also reductionist garbage anyway. How about the freedom of religion and being censored for protesting government mandated closure of places of worship while alcohol stores were allowed to remain open? Is that conservative? It's just one example.

I have Twitter blocked at the network level. Whenever I see a screenshot of a Twitter post I know it's literally the stupidest thing you could imagine. You didn't let me down. Also the whole screen shotted Twitted posts making a claim about conservatives that is easily refuted if conservatives were actually allowed to talk is peak Reddit.

Feel good, makes you laugh, hate your neighbor content. Just be sure you don't show it to your neighbor they might say some things that confuse you. Believe me this isn't unique to Democrats the same Twitter screen shot psy ops are run against conservatives. Look, some random person said this, let's talk about it like that is what all X's say and believe. Look, some random person said this, let's talk about it and how it's so true.

Screen shots of comments on Twitter being reposted is.. very disturbing. For reasons that go far beyond the stupidity of American politics.

Not at all, that's why it is a platform question. Obviously the users are biased that isn't my question.

The whole "they're a fringe minority" claim is bizarre when Trump won the election and last election set records. Republicans and Democrats are roughly equivalent in numbers and so are their fringe crazies, who are increasing in number. Eventually the much larger majority of Americans who isn't affiliated with a party and doesn't vote will weigh in on this nonsense.

I'll let you in on a secret. No one likes Trump or Biden.

Actually I'm asking what I asked and interacting with Lemmy for the first time. Did I know it would be contentious? Yes, but that is part of the point. I wanted to see how contentious content is treated so you're somewhat right.

It looks pretty good actually. I was able to post and comment with a new account without being restricted 100 different ways even while posting something that might upset some people. I don't want platform level restrictions being driven by stupid group think and brigade activity. That's about it.

Well, that isn't at all what happened, but okay. This was a platform discussion and probably beyond most users here even understanding. Not because they're stupid but because they don't really understand how social media algorithms and rules work to curate content in certain ways.

The scale and severity of the accusations against Trump and those against Biden are on completely different levels.

No, they're not. You said accusations. Remember Trump Russia? Well now this is Biden China. If you think Jan 6th was an attempted coup and that is why this is so serious then you can also acknowledge that Biden China is using the legal system to attack his political opponent, Trump, which is just as serious an accusation. It is similarly a coup like situation. Unless I misunderstand what you mean.

You’re implying the existence of an administrative or algorithmic bias that is somehow censoring right wing talking points while ignoring that several popular right wing talking points are of highly questionable veracity.

I'm not implying this that is already a proven reality. Both the bias censoring them and many being highly questionable. The tactic for censorship is pointing out what isn't true and ignoring the things being censored that are true. You could do the same thing for Democrat talking points, grabbing hold of the ones that are nonsense to justify censoring legitimate criticism.

It's like if someone says eating toothpaste cures COVID because their friend tried it and it worked but another person says vitamin D cures COVID here are several peer reviewed studies and you just lump all of that into a category called "COVID misinformation." That is the current situation. Meanwhile the people doing the categorizing are saying "this new experimental untested COVID vaccine will absolutely protect you and you 'WILL NOT DIE' if you take it and it's also the only way we can ever 'GO BACK TO NORMAL'" but we all know that was also utter garbage misinformation. So the problem is the censorship by those spreading misinformation who are using the toothpaste claim to suppress the vitamin D information. I don't see the problem as the toothpaste claim. People are supposed to be the most educated of any nation in the world in America they shouldn't need government backed protection from unsupported claims on the internet.

Sensational nonsense and Republicans have similar sensational nonsense to say about Democrats. Both political parties are in favor of less rights for you and more money for themselves. That's about it. I even called this years ago when I told a friend that BOTH gun rights AND abortion would be successfully attacked in the near future and used as a wedge to further erode rights. One party wants you to have less of this right, the other wants you to have less of that right, no one is talking about expanding people's rights or reigning in government power. You just argue about which rights are more important than others and how the ones you don't care about should be gotten rid of or at least it's okay that your party wants to get rid of them because you don't care about "the other" who thinks it is important to them.

Awesome thanks for answering. I knew this would turn into a political hate fest but hoped someone like you would understand the true question.

There is no shadow banning, no time locking comments based on karma, and all that?

That's just your bias. Everyone is biased but social media platforms don't have to be designed to kettle people and feed their biases as correct. Let me put it this way using your own words..

current state of american politics manifested in a discussion platform

If that is true, can you show me the people talking about banning books because they were written by minorities and taking kids away from their parents for providing them healthcare? Even further, can you show me them talking about it in the POLITICS community?

I'm willing to bet that you can't because this isn't representative of the current state of American politics. It's a one sided biased discussion absent this "other side" you're referring to yet that "other side" is equal in numbers so where are they? Why are they so completely absent?

If I do post anti-Biden stories in politics or make anti-Biden comments in politics how long until I'm limited in some way compared to anti-Trump users? That is what I'm getting at. Does the platform support functionality to bias communities or does it actually rely on the users like old social media? Will my comments be time restricted? Will I be shadow banned? Will people have to click to expand my comment? How much will the platform itself interfere in these ways that create echo chambers?