this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

Comradeship // Freechat

2158 readers
3 users here now

Talk about whatever, respecting the rules established by Lemmygrad. Failing to comply with the rules will grant you a few warnings, insisting on breaking them will grant you a beautiful shiny banwall.

A community for comrades to chat and talk about whatever doesn't fit other communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
0
"Research" by US university says lemmygrad is the 4th most popular "tankie" website (twitter.com)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
119 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The whole article is quite funny, especially the lists of most used tankie words, or the branding of foreignpolicy as a left-wing news source.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

A review of the paper. I'll try and update this as I go.

Abstract

Social media’s role in the spread and evolution of extremism is a focus of intense study. Online extremists have been involved in the spread of online hate, mis/disinformation, and real-world violence. However, the overwhelming majority of existing work has focused on right-wing extremism. In this paper, we perform a first of its kind large-scale, data-driven study exploring left-wing extremism.

Perhaps there is a reason that most of the research on extremism finds itself looking at right-wing examples.

Finally, we show that tankies exhibit some of the same worrying behaviors as right-wing extremists, e.g., relatively high toxicity and an organized response to deplatforming events.

"Relatively high toxicity" screams horseshoe theory. What and/or who the extremists are "being toxic" about matters, not merely that they "are toxic." (Spoiler alert: far-left "extremists" score very high on being "toxic" about fascists and fascism; not exactly a novel observation)

Introduction

The use of social media by extremists is well documented in the press [ 4, 23, 108 ] and has been a heavy focus of the research community [7 , 46, 75 ]. However, almost all recent work has studied right- wing extremists. This concentration can be attributed to several factors. The growing popularity of research on populism, as a result of the increasing prevalence of populist parties and leaders globally [ 106 ], has led to a greater abundance of identifiable right-wing extremists online and their substantial impact on society. At the same time, there has been a steady rise in political rhetoric characterizing mainstream political parties as far-left extremists, scapegoating the far-left for violent activities (e.g., claiming Antifa orchestrated the January 6th Insurrection [ 15], accusing far-left extremists of planning and organizing violence during protests after George Floyd’s death [ 31], and blaming left-wing extremists for setting forest fires in Oregon [51]).

Comparing "increasing prevalence of populist parties and leaders" to "a steady rise in political rhetoric charcterizing mainstream political parties as far-left extremists" is not the comparison the authors think it is. "Actually existing far-right parties and leaders" aren't in the same ballpark as "some people say that some other people are far-left." Further, this doesn't state where that political rhetoric is coming from. So I checked the sources:

Lo and behold, the "other side" of the far-right extremism coin is... the far-right complaining about the far-left.

many of the characteristics and behavior we associate with right-wing extremism online have historically applied to hardline left-wing extremists as well. For example, spreading mis- and disinformation from unreputable or overtly biased sources [ 122 ].

That "or" is doing some heavy leg work to try and equivocate between "unreputable" and "overtly biased" sources. Let's see what source 122 is about:

And some choice quotes from the article:

Yes, disinformation comes from both the right and the left, but research shows that highly partisan conservatives are far more likely to share disinformation than partisan liberals.

...

China has now entered the disinformation game in a big way, aggressively seeking to fix blame for the epidemic on the U.S. and it has been regularly highlighting American missteps in coping with the virus.

...

The Super Bowl of disinformation will undoubtedly be the 2020 election. All of the malign actors, the Russians, white extremists, China and Iran will get in on the game.

...

Disinformation created by American fringe groups—white nationalists, hate groups, antigovernment movements, left-wing extremists—is growing.

These are the only quotes in the source that could conceivably have some way of bolstering the claim that "many of the characteristics and behavior we associate with right-wing extremism online have historically applied to hardline left-wing extremists as well." The first is the closest that comes to support. Alas, it doesn't apply because "partisan liberals" aren't far-left. The next two could only conceivably "apply" in a very hand-wavy "China = far-left" sense (which, as we'll see later, the authors make liberal use of). The last is merely a re-stating of of the claim without supporting evidence.

Not a good start.

Despite the impact of right-wing online extremists, political rhetoric, and a history of violence and chaos attributed to far-left extremists, there are essentially no studies of the far-left on social media, let alone far-left extremists.

I think this might be a misprint? As in, it was supposed to read "despite the impact of left-wing online extremists." Because structurally the sentence doesn't make sense otherwise. And also, there is no citation given for "a history of violence and chaos attributed to far-left extremists" either. Which is odd, because there are examples you can dig for and cite within the United States, a la the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front.

We focus primarily on a large left-wing community known as tankies. Historically, tankies were supporters of hardline Soviet actions [43 ]; more Stalinist than Leninist. The name originates from Soviets using tanks to put down rebellions in eastern Europe [ 34, 50 , 94 , 100 , 105 , 107].

The definition is crude but in the ballpark, excluding the "Stalinist" jab, given that Stalin died in 1953, the Hungarian uprising was in 1956, and Khrushchev was not at all a fan of his predecessor Stalin. Curiously, the authors already are aware of this distinction (Appendix C Misalignment Analysis):

Nonetheless, in cases where keywords possess polarized or disparate meanings, we partition them for specific interpretations within certain communities (e.g., when validating the Stalinist leaning of tankies, we do not put “Khrushchev” and “Stalin” in the same keyword list).

Perhaps different parts of this paper were written in isolation by each of the authors. In any event...

Examining the sources:

  • 43 is (libgen link): "Marion Glastonbury. 1998. Children of the Revolution: matters arising. Changing English 5, 1 (1998), 7–16."
  • 34 is (libgen link): "Angela Dimitrakaki and Harry Weeks. 2019. Anti-fascism/Art/Theory: An introduction to what hurts us. , 271–292 pages."
  • 50 is (online source): "John Harris. 2015. Marxism today: the forgotten visionaries whose ideas could save Labour. The Guardian 29 (2015)"
  • 94 is (libgen link): "Christina Petterson. 2020. Apostles of Revolution? Marxism and Biblical Studies. Brill research perspectives in biblical interpretation 4, 1 (2020), 1–80."
  • 100 is (libgen link): "Neil Redfern. 2014. No Friends to the Left: The British Communist Party’s Surveillance of the Far Left, c. 1932–1980. Contemporary British History 28, 3 (2014), 341–360."
  • 105 is (libgen link): "Emily Robinson. 2011. New times, new politics: History and memory during the final years of the CPGB. British Politics 6, 4 (2011), 453–478."
  • 107 is (libgen link): "Raphael Samuel. 1987. Class Politics: The Lost World of British Communism, Part (III). New Left Review 1 (1987), 165."

That is actually a healthy listing of sources. I may or may not come back to review each of them in turn. I've been at this for several hours now :) (TODO)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

More recently, tankies have grown to support the actions of the CCP in China, a currently operational actually existing socialist (AES) country.

Using "CCP" instead of "CPC" is a telling choice of terminology. One that they consistently use throughout the paper until they have to examine "tankie subreddits" specifically later, and find themselves needing to use the correct "CPC" version for misalignment analysis (Tables 4, 10), as well as:

The first indication this is true from our misaligmment analysis is tankies’ use of the Chinese government’s preferred nomenclature of Communist Party of China (CPC) [ 22, 73 , 93] instead of the more commonly used western term CCP.

Moving on...

Notably, their support can extend beyond just AES countries, often siding with or excusing anti-NATO, non-socialist, autocratic regimes, including Putin-controlled Russia’s actions [ 24 , 35].

I mean, at least the authors recognize that Russia is "non-socialist." And it is true that socialists of varying stripes are against NATO, not just "tankies."

Examining the sources:

These sources faithfully recount the fact that Marxist-Leninists ("tankies") are not uncritically accepting NATO's framing of the war. Using the Foreign Policy article as an example:

Meanwhile, many on the progressive left—including members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and the politicians they support, left-wing academics and essayists, and swaths of self-proclaimed online “anti-imperialists”—have tended to side with the aggressor, Russia (or at least not side with the victim, Ukraine) in one of the clearest examples of colonial aggression in recent memory. Their primary arguments mirror those of the right—NATO expansion and Russia’s legitimate security concerns as a trigger for the war as well as the misuse of funds that could be used to solve domestic problems—but they also express opposition to war full stop and, sometimes, espouse outright support for Russia, all wrapped in language of opposition to U.S. intervention abroad, often construed as “U.S. imperialism.”

There has always been a fringe minority of voices on the far left that have been pejoratively labeled “tankies.” Often self-identified as Marxist-Leninists, they have been apologists for the repressive actions of authoritarian communist governments, such as those of the Soviet Union or China. The insult was originally hurled by fellow leftists at the Western communists who cheered as the Soviet Union rolled tanks into Budapest to repress a popular anti-Soviet uprising in Hungary in 1956. Today, the term is mostly tossed around in online circles, referring to supporters of repressive regimes and applying primarily to the opinions held by fringe journalists working for opaquely funded alternative news sources who praise dictators, such as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The article stretches hard to say that horseshoe theory is real and its basis is a yearning for populism, but it is a decent read at least for getting inside the mind of someone who considers themselves not on either end of an extreme. If nothing else, it does support the authors' contention that "tankies" -- though of course, other socialists as well -- are anti-NATO. A contention that I don't think anyone here would object to.

Regardless of their historical tactics, tankies have recently shown behavior similar to the right-wing extremists (e.g., denying the Uyghur genocide [104]).

  • 104 is (libgen link): "Sean R Roberts. 2020. The war on the Uyghurs. In The war on the Uyghurs. Princeton University Press."

The "Uyghur genocide" narrative has been debunked ad naseum. Denying the "Uyghur genocide" is in no way comparable to denying actual genocide. But for the sake of completeness, user /u/ComradePubIvy has already taken a peek at the source:

Second their citation for the Uyghur genocide, while I cannot read the book to find its sources, is written by someone who worked for 7 years is USAID for the former USSR “managing democracy, governance, and human rights programs” he is known for his “… comments on current events in the media related both to the situation of the Uyghur people in China …” and is an open critic of the belt and road initive in his open seminars,

And in the "NOTES" section of this book, here are the sources given for its preface:

1 Mamatjan Juma and Alim Seytoff, ‘Xinjiang Authorities Sending Uyghurs to Work in China’s Factories, Despite Coronavirus Risks,’ Radio Free Asia (27 February 2020).

2 SCMP Reporters, ‘China Plans to Send Uygur Muslims from Xinjiang Re-Education Camps to Work in Other Parts of Country,’ South China Morning Post (2 May 2020).

3 Keegan Elmer, ‘China says it will ‘Normalise’ Xinjiang Camps as Beijing Continues Drive to Defend Policies in Mainly Muslim Region,’ South China Morning Post (9 December 2019).

4 Erkin, ‘Boarding Preschools For Uyghur Children “Clearly a Step Towards a Policy of Assimilation”: Expert,’ Radio Free Asia (6 May 2020).

5 Gulchehre Hoja, ‘Subsidies For Han Settlers “Engineering Demographics” in Uyghur-Majority Southern Xinjiang,’ Radio Free Asia (13 April 2020).

And here are the first ten sources for its introduction:

1 Emily Feng, ‘China Targets Muslim Uyghurs Studying Abroad,’ Financial Times (1 August 2017).

2 See Adrian Zenz and James Leibold, ‘Xinjiang’s Rapidly Evolving Security State,’ Jamestown Foundation China Brief (14 March 2017); Magha Rajagopalan, ‘This is What a 21st Century Police State Really Looks Like,’ Buzzfeed News (17 October 2017).

3 Adrian Zenz and James Leibold, ‘Chen Quanguo: The Strongman Behind Beijing’s Securitization Strategy in Tibet and Xinjiang,’ Jamestown Foundation China Brief (21 September 2017).

4 Nathan VanderKlippe, ‘Frontier Injustice: Inside China’s Campaign to “Re-educate” Uyghurs,’ The Globe and Mail (9 September 2017); HRW, ‘China: Free Xinjiang “Political Education” Detainees’ (10 September 2017); Eset Sulaiman, ‘China Runs Region-wide Re-education Camps in Xinjiang for Uyghurs and Other Muslims,’ RFA (11 September 2017).

5 Alexia Fernandez Campbell, ‘China’s Reeducation Camps are Beginning to Look Like Concentration Camps,’ Vox (24 October 2018).

6 See ‘Inside the Camps Where China Tries to Brainwash Muslims Until They Love the Party and Hate Their Own Culture,’ Associated Press (17 May 2018); David Stavrou, ‘A Million People Are Jailed at China’s Gulags. I Managed to Escape. Here’s What Really Goes on Inside,’ Haaretz (17 October 2019).

7 See Amie Ferris-Rotman, ‘Abortions, IUDs and Sexual Humiliation: Muslim Women who Fled China for Kazakhstan Recount Ordeals,’ Washington Post (5 October 2019); Eli Meixler, ‘“I Begged Them to Kill Me.” Uighur Woman Tells Congress of Torture in Chinese Internment Camps,’ TIME (30 November 2018); Ben Mauk, ‘Untold Stories from China’s Gulag State,’ The Believer (1 October 2019).

8 Shoret Hoshur ‘Nearly Half of Uyghurs in Xinjiang’s Hotan Targetted for Re-education Camps,’ RFA (9 October 2017).

9 Sean R. Roberts, ‘Fear and Loathing in Xinjiang: Ethnic Cleansing in the 21st Century,’ Fair Observer (17 December 2018).

10 See Zenz and Leibold, ‘Xinjiang’s Rapidly Evolving Security State.’

RFA, SCMP, Zenz, et. al. Not exactly reliable sources.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Informed by the scant literature that exists on tankies, we first construct a set of tankie subreddits. We then measure the over 1M posts from 50K authors in our dataset across a variety of axes, giving us a unique view of how tankies are positioned within the larger left-wing community."

Not sure what they mean by "scant literature that exists on tankies" when they just cited seven sources concerning the term's etymology and history. Perhaps they mean scant literature on the evolved definition which they get into in section two (Background and Related Work). But regardless, this does sound like an interesting way to approach analyzing political communities within Reddit.

"We perform a set of quantitative analyses that reveal the relationship between tankies, other far-left communities, leftists, feminists, and capitalists. By constructing a graph where nodes are subreddits and an edge exists from one subreddit to another if the first subreddit links to the second in its sidebar, we identify 6 tankie subreddits and examined their prominence and connectivity within a reference network of over 21 K subreddits.

(emphasis added)

Hoo boy that's not a good methodology. You'll want to examine links made by users within one subreddit to another subreddit and weigh the edges accordingly. Otherwise, the only sampling you're getting is from moderators and admins of the subreddits -- seeing as they are the only ones with the ability to update the sidebar -- and the only weight you're getting is binary yes/no on links existing. That's a start, I suppose, but you're gonna have some heavy bias and skew in there.

We then compare the user overlap between our identified set of ideological subreddits.

This might be interesting, depending on how they measure engagement within individual subreddits to ascertain overlap.

We also look at how tankies compare to the rest of the far-left with respect to their vocabulary, the topics they discuss, who they discuss, and the toxicity of their discussions.

And this is where the sentiment analysis will come in. These tools are notoriously flakey, but we'll take a look at how they've been deployed, and how their limitations have been accounted for.

Finally, we measure user migrations between left-wing communities

This could actually be interesting! Do specific users migrate over time in identifiable paths? E.g., "I was a liberal, then a Bernie supporter, then a Democratic Socialist, then a Marxist-Leninist."

as well as tankies’ response to a deplatforming event.

I'm guessing this is where Lemmy.ml and LemmyGrad.ml come in.

Background and Related Work

TODO

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For $500k USD, you can get the low quality ArXiv article; for free, you can have this high quality teardown of said article.

Thank you for the amount of effort this took to put together. I've done only a quick skim but I'm going to give it a full read. Some stuff that definitely stood out to me is: the horseshoe theory nonsense; and the "rude words mean evil person" nonsense. Use of charged words or negative sentiment don't make you bad or wrong; arguably, negative sentiment is the only rational response to a lot of the topics at hand.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

But they used AI, and the Free one used Human Power

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)