The right-wing side of web revival

[mrwillhorlen]

I'm not referring to the classical right diversion here although they do have the similar premise. I'm talking about the general right wing attitude towards the modern internet, more specifically the alt-right pocket. they are actually the hardest hit victim of corpo-federal censorship that rule the internet nowadays.
Speaking as someone who have lurked through 4chan back when I was a dumb kid researching conspiracy theories, I notice that many people there shared the same views espoused by the cliques we are familiar with (such as this one we are in irght now), particularly on security, privacy, and internet history. In fact they seem to be more harsh when it comes to dealing with the good old "big tech". Many of the old ones i've seen often reminisces about the days before increased surveillance and commodification. And on the bigger picture, this is actually more known to the mainstream media. indeed the first time i get such impression was when i browsed through news sites looking into their opinions.

[AuzzieJay]

This is something that the Yesterweb actively pushes against. We share the admiration for a web free from corporate influence and surveillance. What we don't share is who the enemy is and what the goal of the web should be.

The days of yore were not some great bastion of creativity- in-fact back in the Wild West days of the Web, bigotry and slurs ran rampant. This was less of a problem than it is today though because websites were much more siloed off from each other than they are now.

A bigot could run a website about white supremacy at his website and nobody may even see it. With search engines it is very easy to find like-minded bigots and to have an audience.

They admire the Old Web for being free from censorship- but no censorship being taken to the extreme leads to repression of other less-dominant voices (LGBTQ+, etc.) thus the need for inclusive spaces free from bigotry. That's one of the main goals of the Yesterweb.

We don't want to go back to the days of rampant bigotry, we want to take the most positive aspects of a less corporate and more creative internet. This inadvertently does mean less censorship because censorship of ideas and topics is definitely a real thing. On the left you can definitely see censorship play out in huge ways, such as the Tumblr censorship.

While we may be able to see common ground with right-wing web revivalists, their vision is actually reactionary and while we may agree on some things, the enemy isn't clearly defined on either side. We know commercialism of the internet is what has led to the current state of the web, the right usually says big tech is to blame. Both of these answers are correct but big tech itself didn't get us here.

The true enemy of the people's web is the broader system of exploitation that has turned consumers into producers/consumers; that has turned us all into content machines to feed to others while capitalists skim the profits and advertise the free labor. We are being exploited just for using their services- I haven't heard or seen any kind of materialistic concern like this from the right-wing of the Web Revival and we probably won't because their main concerns aren't with exploitation but with censorship and surveillance.

While those are very real concerns, they also sprinkle their concerns with racism, anti-semitism and homophobia. That somehow big tech is injecting propaganda into their platforms, when really what big tech is doing is ensuring they are profitable and able to garner investors. If Facebook allowed anti-semitic groups to rise on their platform then advertisers would pull out and even more people would leave. It is in Facebook's best interest to maintain the status-quo, not push any agenda- except for that by the capitalist elite and the bulk of the masses.

They are more harsh to big tech because they can only see big tech- they don't see the seeds that grew big tech into what it is today.

[Cobra!]

And on the bigger picture, this is actually more known to the mainstream media.

The true enemy of the people's web is the broader system of exploitation that has turned consumers into producers/consumers; that has turned us all into content machines to feed to others while capitalists skim the profits and advertise the free labor. We are being exploited just for using their services- I haven't heard or seen any kind of materialistic concern like this from the right-wing of the Web Revival and we probably won't because their main concerns aren't with exploitation but with censorship and surveillance.

Honestly, I think the reason the right winged revival is more mainstream is because ultimately, if businesses had to choose between us and them, they'd pick them, as we're inherently anti-business, the right are not. Big businesses and advertisers don't really care who their product is being sold to, they just care for the bottom line, and in an ideal world to the alt-right where bigotry is the norm, they would have nothing to worry about.

It's probably also who in real life, corporations lobby and fund more right-winged politicians, and the policies they push push countries further to the right.

[GaryStu]

The right wing have always co-opted leftist talking points. But they are wrong, because their rhetoric shifts targets from the source of the issue to their scapegoats.

They're not mad at corperations, they're mad at (((corperations))).

The corperatisation of the web is deeply neoliberal. Its full of neoliberal nonsense. Fascists also hates neoliberalism - but their alternative is fascism.

anyway three points
1. Be careful who you share posts from on social media. Basic 101 stuff.
2. Be careful not to mythologise a perfect prelapsarian past on the internet. Don't treat old fads like a tradcath treats a 1960s advertisement.
3. Queer people have been online since we were calling ourselves the gay-lesbian alliance (precursor to the modern LGBTQIA+ acronym). The internet has been a profound boon for marginalised communities, and right wingers absolutely hate the web for doing so.

(SJWs, Liberals, or whatever insult they're currently using)

We need to call it political correctness again. PC culture could have a nice double meaning in modern lingo I think.

"PC gone mad" yeah #kin #same #literallyme

[Blog47177]

The right wing have always co-opted leftist talking points. But they are wrong, because their rhetoric shifts targets from the source of the issue to their scapegoats.

They're not mad at corporations, they're mad at (((corporations))).

The corperatisation of the web is deeply neoliberal. Its full of neoliberal nonsense. Fascists also hates neoliberalism - but their alternative is fascism.

anyway three points
1. Be careful who you share posts from on social media. Basic 101 stuff.
2. Be careful not to mythologise a perfect prelapsarian past on the internet. Don't treat old fads like a tradcath treats a 1960s advertisement.
3. Queer people have been online since we were calling ourselves the gay-lesbian alliance (precursor to the modern LGBTQIA+ acronym). The internet has been a profound boon for marginalised communities, and right wingers absolutely hate the web for doing so.

(SJWs, Liberals, or whatever insult they're currently using)

We need to call it political correctness again. PC culture could have a nice double meaning in modern lingo I think.

"PC gone mad" yeah #kin #same #literallyme

Don't forget a 4th point Anybody that are quitting from the Republican Party or blowing the whistle on Trump + allies are called a "Woke Mob". Yes that includes censures and harassment by Trump Supporters and calling non-Trump related speech as "Indoctrination" never mind that the Right Wing are indoctrinated with Fox News, Newsmax and OAN on their TV apps + people who go to Trump rallies.

You can have Republicans like Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger and Bill Gates say the truth but then again its all about the cult leader. But these Far Right People listen to Marjorie Taylor Greene as their leader.

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/04/10783165 ... ee-capitol

https://kjzz.org/content/1827199/marico ... er-threats



https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3541 ... n-taliban/


Then I notice some of the conspiracy theories I hear about are in my Neighborhood.
https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news ... acramento/

[yequari]

---

[nightwolf334]

Political horse-shoe theory. It does not matter which side you are on, but if both sides feel strongly enough about something they eventually come around to representing each other. This topic is no different. Both sides need to be aware of exactly what they are standing for.

[rina]

nah, rigties only miss the old web cos they cant spew fashist shit and phobic shit anymore lol

[Grafo]

they are actually the hardest hit victim of corpo-federal censorship that rule the internet nowadays.

I think this is just false (and a false notion propagated by the far right itself). Far right messages spread like wildfire on the big platforms, they live and thrive on them. Big Tech itself it's really far right so it's no surprise at all this is the way it is

[Blog47177]

nah, rigties only miss the old web cos they cant spew fashist shit and phobic shit anymore lol

I used to be Right Wing myself in the 2000's but don't believe in this garbage for the past 13 years. The right wing wants their own version of Jonestown.



https://www.newsweek.com/kari-lake-cour ... na-1769644

If you fight against that the threat is directed at you.

https://www.newsweek.com/maricopa-count ... nt-1758830




It's all about accusing the other guy for being a snowflake while they themselves are committing censorship at those who are leaving the right wing.

[rina]

It's all about accusing the other guy for being a snowflake while they themselves are committing censorship at those who are leaving the right wing.

literally tho. righties cry censorship and how their free speech is being limited, and than proceed to spew hatespeech. ceosnorship is not inherantly bad, if used in a proper manner. you (rhetorically) getting your death threats, phobic slurs, insults, etc isn't free speech, as it can hurt other people. at one point free speech, which is important, becomes hatespeech.

i personally never understood rightwing, those people are (usually) so full of hate towards people who aren't trads, yet represent themselves as literal angels and god's son. i like throwing the

And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

at rightwing. they often go against their own principles. the very book they swear by tells them to love everyone, yet they're seemingly so full of hate for people that are different than them

[Leitolar]

I feel like ultimately a lot of modern of retro type "go back" stuff comes as an symptom of the culture war in social media rather that it being an active belief, its less "i want to go back to the time where being a dipshit was normal" and more "i want to go back when i wasnt forced to care"

Something i have noticed while browsing 4chan's /v/ its how anons were less bigoted or more positive against older, trans characters, it maybe similar with web stuff, where some people that reacting to it not because its queer, but because its "Modern" and/or they relate it to stuff that upsets them like smug "im better that you" personalities (despite no real correlation)

Sidenote: i always disliked how american attached people separate stuff exclusively into right wing or left wing, i always thought of it was a bit reductionistic.

[GaryStu]

The presence of Fascism on the old web is a wee bit exaugurated here, I feel. I feel fascism is more present on the web now than it was in the past. This is hard to quantify of course, but.

A few corporate web spaces have started to fascism more seriously as a threat, but just barely. And that's about it. 4chan is as present and influential as ever. Reddit seems to have lost its bad reputation somehow, and I don't know how because it sounds like they've just done Advertiser Appeasement. And you know the neonazi messaging board Stormfront, unfortunately going strong all these years.

Being an open fascist was never acceptable and always mocked, but that never stopped them. During the web's new atheist phase, before new atheists switched to SJWs or whatever, christofascists were targets of scorn. In the middle of making fun of teenagers or whatever, Something Awful's The Weekend Web series also featured fascist message boards to point and laugh at. The web used to love Barack Obama, and his conservative detractors were widely mocked, including the weirdo fascist birther conspiracy theorists (tbf Obama's conservative detractors were Very Funny, there's so many criticisms to be made of Obama and they universally chose the most frivolous yet funniest ones).

Ironic fascism is down, but ironic fascism was almost never fascism. Some of it certainly was and that was a problem - which is why ironic fascism had to go! And its good it did! But idk, just because "you couldn't make We Drink Ritalin today" or whatever just means that. I feel like the fall of ironic fascism was relatively painless, because of how much it wasn't actually fascist. When non-fascists saw their ironic and satirical art was empowering to those it intended to mock, they decided to stop.

Making fascism sound more acceptable in the past also gives room and space to fascists, to lay claim on old web nostalgia. "This is our history" they could say, "us fascists are the ones who have truly always pioneered web culture". But they haven't been! We've always hated fascists on the online!

This post sucks to make. I don't want it to be true that fascism's gotten worse. But its just what I observe to be true.

[Cobra!]

i personally never understood rightwing, those people are (usually) so full of hate towards people who aren't trads, yet represent themselves as literal angels and god's son. i like throwing the

And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

at rightwing. they often go against their own principles. the very book they swear by tells them to love everyone, yet they're seemingly so full of hate for people that are different than them

How do they typically react to that?

The presence of Fascism on the old web is a wee bit exaugurated here, I feel. I feel fascism is more present on the web now than it was in the past. This is hard to quantify of course, but.

I can see that being true. Fascism probably existed, but the decentralised nature of the web back then meant they were probably isolated in their own space. Assuming they knew how to spread their message back then, where were they going to do it? There was no centralised social media to spread it to, and it was difficult to find forums unless you were looking specifically for what they’re about. (Well, still is, I suppose, but they don’t need to bother with them)

[GaryStu]

The presence of Fascism on the old web is a wee bit exaugurated here, I feel. I feel fascism is more present on the web now than it was in the past. This is hard to quantify of course, but.

I can see that being true. Fascism probably existed, but the decentralised nature of the web back then meant they were probably isolated in their own space. Assuming they knew how to spread their message back then, where were they going to do it? There was no centralised social media to spread it to, and it was difficult to find forums unless you were looking specifically for what they’re about. (Well, still is, I suppose, but they don’t need to bother with them)

'The old web was less centralized' is true, but it wasn't so decentralized. There were still ubiquitously popular and well-trafficked sites.

While there weren't algorithm-driven platforms for normies, there was GameFAQs, 4Chan, Newgrounds, Deviantart, YTMND, Livejournal, a small selection of some that are still around. And there were copypastas written by nazis to spam on forums and chan boards. They'd organize isolated to their own space, but intentionally go raid and recruit elsewhere! As history would tell us, chan boards are where it was most effective, but all the other sites I mentioned here were and still are dangerously inept with moderation in this regard.

So that's just actually nazism. Let's change gears to the ironic stuff.

Ironic nazism was extremely easy to stumble on (although as I also said, I believe a lot of ironic nazism wasn't actually fascistic). Ironic nazism was mundane lol.

And I'm saying all this while still saying the internet is more fascist nowadays. Because these spaces I've mentioned haven't gone away or changed their moderation policies in this regard. Then, yeah, algorithm-driven platforms for normies made things so much worse, whoops.

[rina]

How do they typically react to that?

usually just argue back how that doesn't include everyone.. or send me some random verses that sound cult-y as fuck

[Blog47177]

It's all about accusing the other guy for being a snowflake while they themselves are committing censorship at those who are leaving the right wing.

literally tho. righties cry censorship and how their free speech is being limited, and than proceed to spew hatespeech. ceosnorship is not inherantly bad, if used in a proper manner. you (rhetorically) getting your death threats, phobic slurs, insults, etc isn't free speech, as it can hurt other people. at one point free speech, which is important, becomes hatespeech.

i personally never understood rightwing, those people are (usually) so full of hate towards people who aren't trads, yet represent themselves as literal angels and god's son. i like throwing the

And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

at rightwing. they often go against their own principles. the very book they swear by tells them to love everyone, yet they're seemingly so full of hate for people that are different than them

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... an-taliban


https://www.businessinsider.com/rep-kin ... 022-7?op=1





https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/arti ... -holy-war/

I remember Adam Kinzinger came forward with allegations of some members of Congress like Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene for creating a Christian version of the Taliban. This was while he was investigating Trump allies for setting of January 6th attacks.

However in Adam Kinzingers case he didn't think that former General Michael Flynn is a cult leader of Reawaken America which is a Qanon related cult. In his case he was under the impression that Washington DC would get attacked again given the impressions he saw from this group.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/inte ... kinzinger/

[yequari]

---

[Blog47177]

Check the education system it's more crazier than that. If your Governor, State Legislature and Department of Education rants like a cult leader like Ron Desantis you know Right Wing Speech goes beyond social media and into your state Capitals and courtrooms.

[NULLinvis]

Political horse-shoe theory. It does not matter which side you are on, but if both sides feel strongly enough about something they eventually come around to representing each other. This topic is no different. Both sides need to be aware of exactly what they are standing for.

horse shoe theory is ahistorical, reddit tier centrism. The Italian Liberal party under Giolitti aligned with the Italian Fascists facilitating Mussolini's rise to power, the Weimar Center Party Zentrum cast their decisive votes in favour of the Enabling Act in pre Nazi Germany, and now we see the Republicans giving into populism and allowing the party far right to drag it closer to a brain-rotted QAnon circus, resulting in Jan 6, whilst the Democrats suppress the only people powered mass movement they have had in nearly all their party history.

[nightwolf334]

Political horse-shoe theory. It does not matter which side you are on, but if both sides feel strongly enough about something they eventually come around to representing each other. This topic is no different. Both sides need to be aware of exactly what they are standing for.

horse shoe theory is ahistorical, reddit tier centrism. The Italian Liberal party under Giolitti aligned with the Italian Fascists facilitating Mussolini's rise to power, the Weimar Center Party Zentrum cast their decisive votes in favour of the Enabling Act in pre Hitler Germany, and now we see the Republicans giving into populism and allowing the party far right to drag it closer to a brain-rotted QAnon circus, resulting in Jan 6, whilst the Democrats suppress the only people powered mass movement they have had in nearly all their party history.

This is pretty unfair. Politics has never been a zero sum game that looks for a means an end. Of course, there is a lack of historical context of a far-right and far-left opposition doing the same atrocities to different ends - I agree that far. Calling horseshoe theory centrist dribble is wrong within the confines of political structures as democracies operate on a two party system that requires either side to be obstructive to the other, deliberately making radical change impossible and changes gradual. Horseshoe theory is more applicable on an individual level to keep individuals in check. Horseshoe is even more relevant in contemporary times given how widespread activism is, and how decentralised the organisation of that activism is. It only takes one grassroots planned peaceful event to turn and invalidate the entire movement due to individuals not being able to see the forest from the trees in regards to their actions in thinking they are instilling change.

[NULLinvis]

Horseshoe is even more relevant in contemporary times given how widespread activism is, and how decentralised the organisation of that activism is. It only takes one grassroots planned peaceful event to turn and invalidate the entire movement due to individuals not being able to see the forest from the trees in regards to their actions in thinking they are instilling change.

Respectfully I very much disagree, your arguments lack material context and evidence and it seems you are misconstruing my argument. My argument is that political horseshoe theory is bunk as a framework for understanding the current divide in the bodypolitik, as it is mostly a vapid talking point utilised by radical centrists to lump together the opposing poles of the political spectrum. This is an act of smoke and mirrors, and as I mentioned in the last post ahistorical - we see throughout history the "based radical centre" continuously aligning themselves with the far right for the own political longevity, and very rarely with the far left. As such, horse shoe theory is incredibly disingenuous (even though fish hook theory is a dumb meme it is far more accurate).

We aren't even getting into the moral argument behind why horse shoe theory is bad either - I wanted to refrain from grandstanding but for completeness I'll do it here anyway. One side of the radical political spectrum advocates for social emancipation of class, gender, race and sexuality and the other wants to create a rigid, hierarchical society segregated upon those very characteristics. Surely it is disingenuous to lump them both together as being bad?

To me it just sounds like you are annoyed that the general populace, particularly the young, are becoming more politically radicalised and fighting for a better future for themselves and us and are trying to pull the "both sides are bad as each other" trick in using horse shoe theory to implicitly compare them to you know, actual Nazis and Fascists.

PS
Violent (using violence broadly to mean traditional violence and violence against property) political protests are based and usually the only effective means of achieving radical change in a short space of time - see France right now. Also the Suffragetes, Stonewall, the Black Panthers, the struggle for the 8 hour work day and the struggle for the weekend too. Even (somehow ? ) centrist icons of peace MLK and Gandhi both advocated for riots and direct action as effective tools for political change

[nightwolf334]

Respectfully I very much disagree, your arguments lack material context and evidence and it seems you are misconstruing my argument. My argument is that political horseshoe theory is bunk as a framework for understanding the current divide in the bodypolitik, as it is mostly a vapid talking point utilised by radical centrists to lump together the opposing poles of the political spectrum. This is an act of smoke and mirrors, and as I mentioned in the last post ahistorical - we see throughout history the "based radical centre" continuously aligning themselves with the far right for the own political longevity, and very rarely with the far left. As such, horse shoe theory is incredibly disingenuous (even though fish hook theory is a dumb meme it is far more accurate).

We aren't even getting into the moral argument behind why horse shoe theory is bad either - I wanted to refrain from grandstanding but for completeness I'll do it here anyway. One side of the radical political spectrum advocates for social emancipation of class, gender, race and sexuality and the other wants to create a rigid, hierarchical society segregated upon those very characteristics. Surely it is disingenuous to lump them both together as being bad?

To me it just sounds like you are annoyed that the general populace, particularly the young, are becoming more politically radicalised and fighting for a better future for themselves and us and are trying to pull the "both sides are bad as each other" trick in using horse shoe theory to implicitly compare them to you know, actual Nazis and Fascists.

PS
Violent (using violence broadly to mean traditional violence and violence against property) political protests are based and usually the only effective means of achieving radical change in a short space of time - see France right now. Also the Suffragetes, Stonewall, the Black Panthers, the struggle for the 8 hour work day and the struggle for the weekend too. Even (somehow ? ) centrist icons of peace MLK and Gandhi both advocated for riots and direct action as effective tools for political change

Your response seems to rely on my political proclivities to lean a particular way, which I will note my country voted to recgonise same-sex marriage with a conservative government in power. I completely understand your sentiment, and believe it applies much broadly to apolitical types who believe there is merit in both sides. This is true in the positive that both sides of the political spectrum have merit, but in the negative they do not - this is what horseshoe theory looks to examine. What politics ultimately wants to achieve is control over the narrative of oppression. If I am to take your example of current social political struggles, which I will assume you are alluding to LGBT and racial tensions in United States (and more widely the West in general), its all a battle for narrative control about what type of oppressions ought to be acceptable. At the end of the day someone will be oppressed as long as there is government. The fact the struggle is over the narrative of that oppression is a sign to me that government is way too overreaching. In your example regarding the moral side of horseshoe theory, you are trying to imply that inaction is violence. This is simply not compatible with modern views of politics as this can very quickly be extrapolated by the other side and lead to the exact same actions you accuse the other radical side of already enacting. Young people getting involved in politics is very positive, and I have no problem with it at all. Civics is something that I believe the youth greatly lacked through the 90s, and early 2000s. People being more aware of the institutions around them, and their inherit biases within those institutions can never be a bad thing.

[Twilight Fallen]

They admire the Old Web for being free from censorship- but no censorship being taken to the extreme leads to repression of other less-dominant voices (LGBTQ+, etc.) thus the need for inclusive spaces free from bigotry.

Censorship is a real nightmare to USA, because the meaning they gave to it is terrifying, which is not being able to talk about what you want. But I like to see censorship as "preventing someone from seeing a kind of content". Censorship is not bad as a whole. For example, I don't think we would call censorship preventing kids from seeing +18 content, I think we see this type of censorship as "protecting". Sometimes, censorship means protect people from seeing things. I want to be protected of violence, and a lot of people that worship freedom (aka right-wing people) thinks that being able to be violent is a form of freedom, when it's not.

One thing that I've read somewhere but don't remember exactly where is "ideas don't die". It doesn't matter how unknown, how terrifying, how violent or even the opposite of negative, they don't die. There will be people like this always, it is just a matter of how much of them will be able to do atrocious things and be influent, like Hitler and etc.

[Blog47177]

It's all about what looks good for the MAGA cult.

[Blog47177]

It's all about what looks good for the MAGA cult.



All you have to do is look at Florida and where they are going because Desantis wants to be president.

[Ray]

A few corporate web spaces have started to fascism more seriously as a threat, but just barely. And that's about it. 4chan is as present and influential as ever. Reddit seems to have lost its bad reputation somehow, and I don't know how because it sounds like they've just done Advertiser Appeasement.

Genuine curiousity - what's up with Reddit? I've always heard of it as 4chan's little, but still evil, brother, and avoided it religiously for most of my internet history just as I avoided 4chan. Then some years ago I stumbled on it while searching for some info and?? It's not that bad? it's been one of the two social media I ended up using until the very end, honestly.
I do agree that the userbase tends to be more right-wing than elsewhere - but it felt to me that it was mostly just regular old conservativism, not fascism. I mean, yeah, they are pretty much selling NFTs as avatars or some bullshit equivalent - and reddit is FULL of those nft bros types - but I've never stumbled on communities or threads that focused on being actively *hateful* and that were not closed eventually. While a lot of very/far left, progressive, LGBTQ-aligned, etc, communities are plentiful and thriving.
(And in subs dedicated to hobbies, which I frequented, most people were at least *decent*, not unlike a random batch of people I might find IRL).

Is it that Reddit is really good at giving you an echo chamber? Are they just more hidden? Is it a thing of the past? I'm genuinely curious, since I've heard of Reddit being infested by fascs since... Always, really, but didn't really find anything bad, myself.

[Silbermöwe]

The true enemy of the people's web is the broader system of exploitation that has turned consumers into producers/consumers; that has turned us all into content machines to feed to others while capitalists skim the profits and advertise the free labor. We are being exploited just for using their services- I haven't heard or seen any kind of materialistic concern like this from the right-wing of the Web Revival and we probably won't because their main concerns aren't with exploitation but with censorship and surveillance.

I disagree. I've come to know a bunch of right-wing/conservative people who are very critical of "consooming" and contributing to social media sites, especially Youtube. This seems to be given even more weight than censorship.
There are a lot of different branches of "the right", and I would be wary of putting them all in the same box.
Many of them are just regular people, and it makes sense that we share a bunch of common goals.

[Cobra!]

I've come to know a bunch of right-wing/conservative people who are very critical of "consooming" and contributing to social media sites, especially Youtube. This seems to be given even more weight than censorship.
There are a lot of different branches of "the right", and I would be wary of putting them all in the same box.
Many of them are just regular people, and it makes sense that we share a bunch of common goals.

Well regardless, Capitalism is inherily a right winged ideology, it relies on hierarchy. I imagine hierarchy works best when there is a specific group you can target, because that way you don't need to put the work in yourself to maintain said hierarchy. People lower than you will do it for you.

Most right wingers I've seen and met aren't really anti-consumerism, but rather anti-consuming-from-the-wrong-people. Have you asked the "consoom" people you know what they think of Capitalism as a whole and what they would think if we made the world more Socialist?

Corporations as we know them today can only exist under Capitalism. Their main goal is to keep things exactly as they are, and I think if it gets down to it, they're going to side with right-wingers, because the idea of coporations and the people behind said corps, align with them more.

[GaryStu]

Reddit

Reddit was infamous for its willingness to host openly misogynist communities. Men's rights activists, SJW Cringe, new atheists, and later Gamergators all gathered on reddit. There was this entire subreddit about fat hate or something, which was just posting pictures of fat people to insult them. Some of the worst subreddits for these groups have been banned since, but the sentiments they expressed never went away.

Reddit also had this big Donald Trump fan reddit on the lead up to his election. Trump himself did an AMA for his fan reddit before his election.

The noteable leftist communities on reddit are a fairly new development, and tend to be very milquetoast. Honestly, they're all like at least a decade behind still. r/antiwork I mean come on, anti-work is like leftism 101.

Also, there's not this huge difference between regular old conservativism and fascists is also lol. Look at how many regular conservatives lined up behind Trump.

Before Twitter cornered the niche of outrage content, Reddit was the site doing it. "X In Action" was the "X taking L's" of its era and it sucked! These cringe/outrage pages suck! Its interesting (sucks) how a lot of the worst parts of reddit pivoted to twitter

edit: sniped by Valeria22 and the post was better than mine too lol (good post @Valeria22)

[Silbermöwe]

Most right wingers I've seen and met aren't really anti-consumerism, but rather anti-consuming-from-the-wrong-people. Have you asked the "consoom" people you know what they think of Capitalism as a whole and what they would think if we made the world more Socialist?

I'm sure they wouldn't think favourably of socialism, especially because it's a bit of a loaded term, but I haven't asked.
The reason they are against "consoom" is more that it is a waste of time and negatively affects the way you think. For example, if I watch Youtube, I have less time to work on my hobbies or contribute to my local community. It may also have negative effects on my brain if I become addicted to it.
The evil part is that these companies design their products in such a way that the consumer needs more and more of it. The idea is that you must resist these temptations, and there is definitely something like asceticism involved.
(Of course, this does not apply to all right-wingers. There are many, many reasons to dislike social media, so there will be many different groups of people who do.)
I wouldn't say it's targeted at specific companies, but is rather a more general aversion to consuming certain things.

I agree with this mindset, but it's not so easy to put in practice.

[yequari]

---

[Silbermöwe]

I don't like this line of reasoning because it's an extension of the capitalist ideal that not being productive 100% of the time is a failure of character. What makes YouTube entertainment a waste of time as opposed to reading a fiction book, for example? Both aren't "productive" in the sense that it's not generating money or contributing to the local community, but there is a common perception that reading is "better" than watching YouTube. There are a lot of problems with Internet and social media companies, but their products/platforms being "unproductive" would be the lowest priority issue imo.

Also, what does "negatively affect the way you think" mean? There is something to be said about the attention economy and its effect on one's attention span, but most of the discussion I've seen boils down to the old "TV will rot your brain" hysteria repurposed.

It's less about being productive all the time and more about doing things that will make you feel happy and accomplished in the long-term. Youtube is something like the fast-food of entertainment in my opinion. Most of the time I use it, I skip between videos/songs for hours because I'm so bored and need a little boost.
The "negative effect" is exactly what you mentioned: a shortened attention span and a craving for more quick entertainment.
My happiest memory of 2020 were the 3 days where I didn't have internet. I studied more, I spent time with my family and I did things I used to find fun.
My brain definitely reacts positively to being truly bored for a while, and I've heard the same from other people.
Obviously it won't kill you to watch youtube once in a while. There are many good things to be found on there, but as an everyday time-sink it seems very destructive. It's hard to limit the time you spend on there.

If books make someone feel the same way, I would also discourage them from reading if they don't have to.

[Blog47177]

The true enemy of the people's web is the broader system of exploitation that has turned consumers into producers/consumers; that has turned us all into content machines to feed to others while capitalists skim the profits and advertise the free labor. We are being exploited just for using their services- I haven't heard or seen any kind of materialistic concern like this from the right-wing of the Web Revival and we probably won't because their main concerns aren't with exploitation but with censorship and surveillance.

I disagree. I've come to know a bunch of right-wing/conservative people who are very critical of "consooming" and contributing to social media sites, especially Youtube. This seems to be given even more weight than censorship.
There are a lot of different branches of "the right", and I would be wary of putting them all in the same box.
Many of them are just regular people, and it makes sense that we share a bunch of common goals.

The right wing used to make sense to me in the 2000's but that's no longer the case given the Jim Jones type rantings out there.

[Silbermöwe]

The right wing used to make sense to me in the 2000's but that's no longer the case given the Jim Jones type rantings out there.

Man, I really dislike American politics. It makes you see the world in two camps, where everybody is deemed as crazy as their worst outliers. It's really polarizing.
I'm glad that, although it is not perfect, it is much more fine-grained in my country, so you can't just write off half of the population for being in "the bad camp".

[Rynn]

The reason they are against "consoom" is more that it is a waste of time and negatively affects the way you think. For example, if I watch Youtube, I have less time to work on my hobbies or contribute to my local community. It may also have negative effects on my brain if I become addicted to it.
The evil part is that these companies design their products in such a way that the consumer needs more and more of it. The idea is that you must resist these temptations, and there is definitely something like asceticism involved.

I don't like this line of reasoning because it's an extension of the capitalist ideal that not being productive 100% of the time is a failure of character.

I would be careful about generalizing too much. I would argue this idea stems from the less from capitalism and more from the boomer generation. It's firmly ingrained in my parent's generation, but definitely not in my more right-inclined, capitalist leaning friends in following generations.

[yequari]

---

[Rynn]

I would be careful about generalizing too much. I would argue this idea stems from the less from capitalism and more from the boomer generation. It's firmly ingrained in my parent's generation, but definitely not in my more right-inclined, capitalist leaning friends in following generations.

How am I generalizing too much, and how is blaming boomers instead of capitalists not generalizing?

Fair point, not really the correct phrasing above. I meant that I felt that blame for it was mis-attributed rather than over-generalized.

[sixeyes]

The reason they are against "consoom" is more that it is a waste of time and negatively affects the way you think. For example, if I watch Youtube, I have less time to work on my hobbies or contribute to my local community. It may also have negative effects on my brain if I become addicted to it.

I see some ideas like this in my peers (just about 30 y.o.) and in these people it seems to coincide with like ecofascism and that kind of thing. Like, they want to conquer nature as self-realization, but this idea of nature is a conservative romantic one, a made-up pristine past. So why isn't it here today? Must've been killed by consumerism, modernity, all that. (Which i suppose they hold separate to capitalism somehow.) And so "we must go back", which on a personal level includes leaving social media and so on.