Sanding our assholes with 150 grit. Slowly. Lovingly.

Can someone start a right-wing alternative to reddit?

reddit's starting to get pretty sickening.
Permalink Michael B 
July 11th, 2007 9:32pm
God damned left-biased reality.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
July 11th, 2007 9:32pm
Please go on.
Permalink Michael B 
July 11th, 2007 9:35pm
+1 muppet, heh.
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
July 11th, 2007 9:38pm
I guess "right wing" guys just don't go online wrting blog comments that much.

Only losers do that...
Permalink Rick Zeng 
July 11th, 2007 9:49pm
Does mean that right wing guys are winners?

Right wing guys like this one? http://tinyurl.com/2xk4dj
Permalink s 
July 11th, 2007 9:54pm
The left-wing garbage on reddit is just stupid.

But the right-wing garbage on rwreddit would be *infuriating* and I wouldn't feel bad at all about selling that audience out for profit.
Permalink Michael B 
July 11th, 2007 10:05pm
The right wing don't tend to be so keen on "democratic" sources of information. They like to be told what to think.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 11th, 2007 10:19pm
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

Let's invent our own faith-based encyclopedia!
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
July 11th, 2007 10:25pm
>God damned left-biased reality.

The opposite seems to be more accurate.

My guess from the content and tone of Reddit is that a good bulk of its membership are fairly young -- early 20s, many still in University. There's a sort of realistic, *dishonest* leftism at that stage in life for many people.

With maturity and experience it's a position that overwhelmingly is abandoned as they become old fuckers.
Permalink DF 
July 11th, 2007 10:56pm
That's a load of shit.  All young people are naive, and being uber conservative is NOT simply "more mature".
Permalink Send private email muppet 
July 11th, 2007 10:58pm
That's only because they become wealthy, cranky, and scared.
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
July 11th, 2007 10:58pm
>All young people are naive, and being uber conservative is NOT simply "more mature".

We aren't talking about "uber" conservatism. We're talking about practical conservatism.

And yes, the same people who are avowed anti-cop, anti-capitalism, anti-globalization, feel gooders in university (so long as at most it requires them to press some up arrows and post some enraged comments) will overwhelmingly hold opposing positions just a decade down the road.
Permalink DF 
July 11th, 2007 11:02pm
And to touch on a joking comment earlier -- yes, conservatives often *do* have something better to do with their time than put down the man on Reddit.

Like being "the man".
Permalink DF 
July 11th, 2007 11:03pm
"reddit's starting to get pretty sickening"

Way ahead of you.

Sure, it is called botlist.  You dont need a right-wing, but a little something more centered than reddit.

http://www.botspiritcompany.com/botlist/spring/botverse/botverse.html

...in development.
Permalink Bot Berlin 
July 12th, 2007 12:14am
"My guess from the content and tone of Reddit is that a good bulk of its membership are fairly young -- early 20s, many still in University. There's a sort of realistic, *dishonest* leftism at that stage in life for many people"

you are being nice, I would say average age =  12 - 22
Permalink Bot Berlin 
July 12th, 2007 12:16am
> Can someone start a right-wing alternative to reddit?

It's called CNN and the rest of the media.
Permalink son of parnas 
July 12th, 2007 12:19am
"reddit's starting to get pretty sickening"

I don't mind if you support only one party or ideas coming from one-party.  But if your ideas always hover around Michael Moore, Arriana Huffington and Jon Stewart; I am very scared, very afraid, like "Hmm, I can't wait to hear what they say so I can agree with them"

I love the fact that recently they that people aren't associating with the democrats or the republicans.
Permalink Bot Berlin 
July 12th, 2007 12:24am
CNN is more like centrist.  By American standards, anyway.
Permalink Michael B 
July 12th, 2007 12:24am
> CNN is more like centrist. 

Only in a world defined by the right wind.
Permalink son of parnas 
July 12th, 2007 12:26am
"Only in a world defined by the right wind."

I forgot, Michael Moore CNN is a right wing news organization, so it must be so.
Permalink Bot Berlin 
July 12th, 2007 12:27am
said
Permalink Bot Berlin 
July 12th, 2007 12:27am
Does Lou Dobbs strike you as right-wing?
Permalink Michael B 
July 12th, 2007 12:28am
No no no, you're confusing some concepts.

All U.S. media, if it's going to stay in business has to be subservient to government, advertisers, and must at all costs avoid seeming anti-American.  It's how the business works here.
Permalink Michael B 
July 12th, 2007 12:31am
"All U.S. media, if it's going to stay in business has to be subservient to government, advertisers, and must at all costs avoid seeming anti-American"

Interesting.  Which is why

The internet is anarchist at its core and god only knows where the source of information comes one.  Not controlled by advertisers.  A free for all to dump on anyone.  Could mostly come from North Korea, Iran or how about Europeans who would love to get a chance to mock the dumb-witted Americans (but secretly love our approach to doing things).

Certainly, the TV and Radio media are more conservative than print or internet because sure they run off of advertising dollars.  It probably doesn't come off too well  for the advertising folks if in one segment you are like, "I believe that the trans gendered, Bondage Fetish junkies need much much more in terms of federal spending, we really need to get rid of this weed, cocaine, meth prohibition and then serve it in schools in vending machines.  Need to tax the rich at 80%, Bill Gates I see you over there...  Now, cut to commercial for these "Disney" products"

Doesn't quite work.  And if companies, advertisers are ok with wanting to target traditional, normal, law-abiding people in-between some News or Radio medium.  Is that News or Radio medium really that bad?
Permalink Bot Berlin 
July 12th, 2007 12:44am
> Is that News or Radio medium really that bad?

1 == 2, is that bad?
Permalink son of parnas 
July 12th, 2007 12:46am
"1 == 2, is that bad?"

Ok, I am not totally following you.  Are you saying that 100% of all the information on TV News or Radio is 100% wrong.

See, that is my point.
Permalink Bot Berlin 
July 12th, 2007 12:49am
http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/chart.shtml
Permalink Bot Berlin 
July 12th, 2007 12:53am
Lets quote it one more time:

"All U.S. media, if it's going to stay in business has to be subservient to government, advertisers, and must at all costs avoid seeming anti-American"

And you're basically saying that's a good thing?
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
July 12th, 2007 12:54am
"All U.S. media, if it's going to stay in business has to be subservient to government, advertisers, and must at all costs avoid seeming anti-American"

I would change the word "all", "subervient", and anti.

Some U.S. media, if it's going to stay in business can be understanding of government, advertisers, and must at times be pro-American"
Permalink Bot Berlin 
July 12th, 2007 12:58am
"and must at times be pro-American"

can at times be pro-American
Permalink Bot Berlin 
July 12th, 2007 12:59am
In other news.  This is kind of funny, pulled from reddit.

http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070711/CAPITOLNEWS/70711023
Permalink Bot Berlin 
July 12th, 2007 1:29am
"All U.S. media, if it's going to stay in business has to be subservient to government, advertisers, and must at all costs avoid seeming anti-American"

Is it a good thing?

Probably not. Reddit is much better, you know, where people can be SO independent and rational that they can say anything they want because EVERYONE else are as clever, unlike those stupid rednecks.
Permalink Rick Zeng 
July 12th, 2007 1:48am
"The internet is anarchist at its core"

Not for long, if the FCC gets its way and eliminates net neutrality, giving corporations preferred status and more access to bandwidth, etc., than small entities.

This will be a very effective way of stifling protest, dissent and free dissemination of alternative points of view.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
July 12th, 2007 6:59am
>This will be a very effective way of stifling protest,
>dissent and free dissemination of alternative points of
>view.

This is bullshit. All a lack of net neutrality will do is slow some forms of traffic - it won't prevent access to websites.

You've been a little too credulous, I'm afraid.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 12th, 2007 7:51am
>>God damned left-biased reality.
>The opposite seems to be more accurate.

Here we go again...

>My guess from the content and tone of Reddit

You make a lot of judgments from tone. My guess is this is why you are so impressionable

>is that a good bulk of its membership are fairly young --
>early 20s, many still in University.

My guess would be not. My guess would be more accurate, it seems:

http://quantcast.com/reddit.com

>There's a sort of realistic, *dishonest* leftism at
>that stage in life for many people.

You mean between 18-65, and mostly 35-44? Well, sure, some people start off left wing and others grow in to it.

>With maturity and experience it's a position that
>overwhelmingly is abandoned as they become old fuckers.

Honestly, just becuase you started off impressionable and became more so that doesn't mean that everybody else did.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 12th, 2007 8:47am
>This is bullshit. All a lack of net neutrality will do is slow some forms of traffic - it won't prevent access to websites.

What do you do NOW when you click on a website and it takes longer than 5 seconds to load?
Permalink Send private email muppet 
July 12th, 2007 8:50am
>What do you do NOW when you click on a website and it
>takes longer than 5 seconds to load?

That depends upon how much I want to see the page.

Lack of net neutrality will *not* be used to stifle protest (there are other more effective ways of doing it). It will be abused for commercial reasons.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 12th, 2007 9:29am
>My guess would be not. My guess would be more accurate, it seems:

>http://quantcast.com/reddit.com

Oh god....gut busting up.

It's a good thing I'm in a country with universal healthcare you say stupid shit like this. And YOU have the nerve to call other people impressionable.

Too god damn funny.

The Quantcast metrics on Reddit are *nothing but an estimate* (to give themselves credibility they add averaged out estimates, based upon nothing, for the top {X} thousand sites).
Permalink DF 
July 12th, 2007 9:32am
>The Quantcast metrics on Reddit are *nothing but an estimate*

I know. However, it's probably *slightly* more accurate than your gut feeling.

And by slightly I mean many, many times more accurate.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 12th, 2007 9:40am
>And YOU have the nerve to call other people impressionable.

Not other people - you specifically. Your admission alone that you make judgments about tone, and that you all but ignored the facts (and based your conclusions upon the *impression* you got from them) when you made the diatribe about Michael Moore/CNN.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 12th, 2007 9:42am
>However, it's probably *slightly* more accurate than your gut feeling.

Yeah, some company running a randomizer against 100s of thousands of sites to imply that they have data that they actually don't is sure to be highly accurate.

Not surprized that some impressionable minds saturate such misinformation.
Permalink DF 
July 12th, 2007 9:42am
>Not other people - you specifically.

Sorry, Colm, but I don't feel you've been faithful to me on this matter.

>Your admission alone that you make judgments about tone

Uh.... Are you a robot, or just stupid? I don't have *real* demographic data for Reddit (and I'm not going to use some surrogate fictitious data as a substitute) so yes, I go based upon the fact that the most popular stories, and the most common comments, imply a very young and naive audience.

>and that you all but ignored the facts (and based your conclusions upon the *impression* you got from them) when you made the diatribe about Michael Moore/CNN.

Sorry, it wasn't a diatribe. Secondly, I didn't "ignore the facts", I thought the presentation of them was impotent and irrelevant.

Again, this is too hilarious given that CNN was just listed as a "left" media organization above.
Permalink DF 
July 12th, 2007 9:47am
BTW- There's a quote commonly attributed to Churchill (but never actually verified, so it's more likely that someone made it up) that seems pertinent--

"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."

(Probably falsely) attributed to Churchill
Permalink DF 
July 12th, 2007 9:53am
You should submit the quote to reddit. Preferably with a pic of a cute kitten. It's the kind of thing they (i.e. people more your age group than mine) adore.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 12th, 2007 10:21am
>Uh.... Are you a robot, or just stupid? I don't have *real*
>demographic data for Reddit (and I'm not going to use some
>surrogate fictitious data as a substitute) so yes, I go
>based upon the fact that the most popular stories, and the
>most common comments, imply a very young and naive audience.

*shrug*>.. I would have guessed about a decade older, and the (however) inaccurate demographic data does suggest a bias in that direction.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 12th, 2007 10:22am
>Again, this is too hilarious given that CNN was just
>listed as a "left" media organization above.

CNN is first and foremost an incompetent news gathering organisation. Secondly, it is one that tries too hard to maintain a "balanced" outlook (that is, a balance between the Republican and Democratic outlooks, not that of the country as a whole). These two things are what led to its incompetent diatribe against Moore...
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 12th, 2007 10:24am
>Uh.... Are you a robot, or just stupid? I don't have
>*real* demographic data for Reddit

What does that have to do with your judgments about tone?
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 12th, 2007 10:26am
> Any man who is under 30, ...

also attributed to Mark Twain and Seneca too I think.
Permalink Send private email strawdog sobriquet 
July 12th, 2007 11:24am
"CNN is first and foremost an incompetent news gathering organisation"

That is why I get all of my news from the Daily Show and South Park.
Permalink Bot Berlin 
July 12th, 2007 11:30am
http://quantcast.com/digg.com

Awesome! Digg is mostly African American, and is dominated by the 45-54 crowd.

Hilarious.
Permalink DF 
July 12th, 2007 11:38am
http://quantcast.com/rbc.com

Big Canadian business bank...

...largely visited by Hispanic (ha ha ha!) 55-64 year olds.

Oh man. Thanks for the laugh, Colm.
Permalink DF 
July 12th, 2007 11:40am
>> "All U.S. media, if it's going to stay in business has to be subservient to government, advertisers, and must at all costs avoid seeming anti-American"

> And you're basically saying that's a good thing?

No.
Permalink Michael B 
July 12th, 2007 1:22pm
>> Again, this is too hilarious given that CNN was just listed as a "left" media organization above. <<

Where?
Permalink Michael B 
July 12th, 2007 1:24pm
>Big Canadian business bank...

An *international* Canadian bank, apparently with a fairly sizable presence in Latin America that caters to an older audience (as it says on the website)...

>...largely visited by Hispanic (ha ha ha!) 55-64 year olds.

Quite possible, yes.

You sound desperate.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 12th, 2007 3:56pm
>Awesome! Digg is mostly African American, and is
>dominated by the 45-54 crowd.

The graphs show how much it deviates from the Internet average, so it would not have to be dominated by African Americans (just have a higher proportion than is usual) for the grpahs to appear that way...
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 12th, 2007 4:06pm
RBC has no Latin America presence. Canada has an absurdly small percentage of Hispanics.

Secondly, the fact that a Quantcast lackey took a quick look at the bank website and then made up some numbers to fool you doesn't make it factual.

You are impressionable though.
Permalink DF 
July 12th, 2007 4:19pm
>RBC has no Latin America presence. Canada has an absurdly
>small percentage of Hispanics.

RBC has carved out a name for itself as a leader in the Caribbean region. RBC Royal Bank maintains a profitable base from its Caribbean operations, and has retained high brand recognition among its other top competitors. RBC is especially known in the anglophone Caribbean for its various personal and business banking services in retailing, loans, and credit offerings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Bank_of_Canada#International_timeline

I guess you're going to explain why that's wrong too.

Remember, that even if the majority of the users are white - a disproportionately high number of latino users will make the graphs appear the way they are.

>Secondly, the fact that a Quantcast lackey took a quick
>look at the bank website and then made up some numbers to
>fool you doesn't make it factual.

haha... yes, that's funny. Maybe the Quantcast opened the RBC branches in San Juan to make the numbers look right too.

>You are impressionable though.

Boy, I sure got to you didn't I?
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 12th, 2007 4:25pm
While I don't trust its data...

comparing

http://quantcast.com/royalbank.com (Canadians mostly)
http://quantcast.com/www.rbccentura.com (From USA mostly)

You'll see the stats on asian and african population seem quite reasonable.
Permalink Rick Zeng 
July 12th, 2007 5:14pm
The Carribean is Latin America now?
Permalink DF 
July 12th, 2007 10:22pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LocationWHLatinAmerica.png

Just admit you were wrong.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 13th, 2007 6:34am

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: July, 2007 Other topics: July, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics