I would like to know a little more about the internals of the model though. For example, agreement with
"Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation."
should push one not only leftward on the x-axis, but also upward on the y-axis.
Iām about as left as expected, though less liberal:
https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=-9.0&soc=-8.0
Given the existence of active markets for āfollowersā, built to order by bot herders and available for purchase to bulk up your apparent popularity, Iām guessing that this has āDoS for hireā written all over it.
It definitely would hit some some bad actors, who good and deserve it; but unless the bot prices have increased markedly since last I checked, this would make knocking anyone who isnāt a specially-vetted-in-person-VIP-account at least temporarily off pretty cheap.
I also think there are a few questions that had loaded meanings, like:
The freer the market, the freer the people.
Reading the question very literally I feel like itās hard to say itās anything but true. On the other hand, rephrase the question as āThe sort of politicians who support what they call āfree marketsā are the sorts of politicians who will have policies that make people freerā and I have to click, āstrongly disagreeā. Anyway, I think, based on my results, that I largely guessed right on what they meant (since somehow strongly disagreeing with that statement left me as an extreme anti-authoritarian).
It reminds me of when I took another vote compass designed for a Canadian federal election and it asked me to rate the importance of different issues. Even though I would actually rate taxation as one of the most important issues, I had to put it at the bottom of the list, because I knew that by saying taxation was important on their quiz I was saying that lowering taxes was important to me, when Iād rather see taxes higher than they are right now (and the reason I would rate it as an important issue is actually separate from them being higher or lower but has more to do with taxation not being a jumbled stupid mess).
Yeah, it gets fuzzy ā what if corporations basically control the government? What does āauthoritarianā mean then?
Ha, hello comrade, thatās just about where I ended up!
The ugly trick(not original to twitter, I learned this one good and hard in school, grades 1-8) is that while threats are an option for ruining someoneās day, sufficiently dogged petty harassment works pretty well and involves few, if any, acts that rise to the level of ātrue threatā or similar standards.
There certainly are people on the internet who are making threats that have never been protected speech and have always been legally problematic, and that presents an option for dealing with them; but you neednāt break the law to be a baying pack of insufferable assholes.
Of course, āprotected speechā is largely irrelevant in the context of privately operated messaging platforms; and it is substantially on them to do something about the fact that enough of their users are terrible people that their services are functionally unusable for many potential customers.
Did some checking. It appears questions are left-right or authoritarian-libertarian - at least I couldnāt find one that was both. That question a strongly agree vs. strongly disagree with -1 left. My question of interest (the freer the market the freer the people) was -0.46 libertarian for agreeing.
I had time to watch a bit of this talk and it is quite good, I recommend watching it if you are interested in the topic (50 mins, roughly)
https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/luncheon/2015/10/Jeong
Essentially she is drawing broad parallels between harassment and spam, which I think is mostly correct.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
