Summary
Meta’s recent shift to right-leaning policies, including ending fact-checking in the U.S., scaling back content moderation, and allowing anti-LGBTQ rhetoric, has sparked boycotts and a user exodus.
The company also disbanded its diversity, equity, and inclusion team, drawing criticism.
Prominent users like director Cord Jefferson and nonprofits like Equal Access Public Media have left or reduced activity on Meta platforms.
Many are migrating to alternatives such as Bluesky, Amigahood, and Tumblr, while some remain trapped due to Meta’s dominance in communication and business.
Right wing ideologies tend to be simpler and thus appeal to those that tend to dislike nuance.
You are likely correct that the views here are not the norm though as this is a very fringe form of social media started by leftists so unsurprisingly there are lots of fringe views.
As for the killing of health care CEO’s that’s something that you might not be seeing people agree with because if you aren’t in America you might not get that the murdered executive made millions denying access to health care to those that were paying for insurance. Do you get mad when serial killers are killed? The victim made his money off of letting people die so he could have more money that he did not need.
There’s no reason for the US health insurance industry to exist except to take money from the working class and hand it to the investor class. US health insurers do not make health care more available, more efficient, cheaper or safer. The only thing it does is make everything more expensive.
I don’t agree with this - at least not in the sense that there’s a significant difference between the left and the right here. Both sides tend to oversimplify and misrepresent each other’s views in online discussions. However, when you dig deeper into why someone holds a certain stance, it’s very rare to find it entirely lacking in nuance, regardless of which political side they’re coming from.
But the issue is that right-wing positions aren’t logically coherent. There’s always at least a couple of points where they don’t logically work, because the positions aren’t derived from axioms or first principles. They only make sense if you ignore lots of counterarguments.
Even if left-wing positions are held without nuance, the positions themselves can still be complex. This simply isn’t the case with right-wing positions.
So while the reasons for holding a right-wing position might have nuance, the positions themselves don’t.
That’s quite a broad generalization. While this applies to some positions, sure, you seem to be implying it’s true of right-wing views as a whole which simply isn’t true.
I would honestly say that the number of logically coherent and purely right-wing positions is vanishingly small. There are a bunch of right-wing positions that, individually, are logically coherent - but most of them are also part of some left-wing frameworks, so not purely right-wing. Do you have some examples in mind? I’d be happy to be proven wrong!