> The US does not have a "far left" in any significant numbers, and never has.

Bluesky does, however. Clearly they've made that their target market, but that's also why growing beyond that base seems to be difficult for them,

▲

swed420 7 hours ago | parent [-]

No. Pre-Musk twitter was a liberal cesspool (and now it's a conservative one). Most of those liberals jumped ship to Bluesky.

Again, that's not to say lefists don't exist, but they are a tiny fraction, and always were a tiny fraction no matter what platform.

Don't rule out bots that exist in numbers to make the actual left appear like a deranged spectacle as a form of controlled opposition. Both parties of capital interests have a role in and benefit from these.

▲

frumplestlatz 5 hours ago | parent [-]

The issue isn’t whether “the far left” exists in large numbers in the abstract; it’s how platform design, moderation norms, and social incentives shape which views are amplified -- and which are penalized. On Bluesky, the boundaries of acceptable discourse are unusually narrow and strongly enforced, which predictably produces ideological clustering.

As for bots or “controlled opposition”: you don’t need conspiracy theories to explain why a heavily moderated platform with explicit cultural norms converges on a particular worldview. I’m disinclined to apply anything beyond Occam’s razor when accounting for “deranged spectacle” behavior; ordinary selection effects are sufficient.

▲

swed420 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> On Bluesky, the boundaries of acceptable discourse are unusually narrow and strongly enforced, which predictably produces ideological clustering.

This isn't in conflict with my original comment.

> As for bots or “controlled opposition”: you don’t need conspiracy theories to explain why a heavily moderated platform with explicit cultural norms converges on a particular worldview. I’m disinclined to apply anything beyond Occam’s razor when accounting for “deranged spectacle” behavior; ordinary selection effects are sufficient.

These aren't conspiracy theories, and they pre-date and extend beyond Bluesky. They are easily observable patterns in most modern news media and social media. For one, silos are much easier to advertise to. Follow the money, like everything else.

▲

frumplestlatz 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I’ve encountered the same rhetoric, tactics, and moral framing in offline activist spaces for years, long before Bluesky or current platform dynamics. Online platforms don’t invent this; they surface and concentrate it. The underlying attitudes -- maximalism, moral absolutism, tolerance for disruption, and readiness to analogize opponents to historical evil -- are not artifacts of bots or manipulation. They’re characteristic features of a political subculture.

If anything, the mistake is treating the "reasonable", aspirational version as more real than the people who consistently show up, organize, and speak — and then assuming the most visible expressions must be "controlled opposition."

	▲	swed420 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I’ve encountered the same rhetoric, tactics, and moral framing in offline activist spaces for years, long before Bluesky or current platform dynamics. Online platforms don’t invent this; they surface and concentrate it. Once again, we seem to be in agreement on this. > The underlying attitudes -- maximalism, moral absolutism, tolerance for disruption, and readiness to analogize opponents to historical evil -- are not artifacts of bots or manipulation. They’re characteristic features of a political subculture. These things are not mutually exclusive. It's both, and people (and their bots) across the entire political spectrum are guilty of involvement.