292
Podcasts? What do you mean "online shows"?
Something tells me they're not counting all shows, but just one platform.
Read the article. It's pretty clear that they're looking at both podcasts and video content and at multiple platforms.
The site’s analysis, titled “Hot Air,” looked at individual accounts on Twitter, TikTok, YouTube, and news or blog sites that frequently spread climate misinformation
Nah, it doesn't say anything about podcasts. So they specifically looked at platforms whose algorithms boost climate disinformation.
They cherry-picked sources, so "top 10" is totally misleading. If they included podcasts, I'm not sure there would be more than 1 or 2 in the top 10.
"they looked at the thing that they wanted to look at" also rogan is still among the top podcasts including on spotify. the study if you read it, is looking at what 21% of adults get news from. 77% of the sources that 21% get some or most of their news from are spreading climate misinformation.
Yes, I concede rogan is one of the two.
You're also unfortunately simply wrong
notably
We found substantial asymmetry in total following across platforms: Right-leaning online shows had at least 480.6 million total followers and subscribers — nearly five times as many as left-leaning.
- Across platforms — YouTube, Rumble, Twitch, Kick, Spotify, Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok — right-leaning online shows accounted for roughly 82% of the total following of the online shows we assessed.
- Comparatively, left-leaning online shows had nearly 104 million followers and subscribers across the eight platforms — nearly five times less.
- Nine out of the 10 online shows with the largest followings across platforms were right-leaning, with a total following of more than 197 million. The only left-leaning show among the top 10 was What Now? with Trevor Noah, which had 21.1 million total followers and subscribers across platforms.
fuck that's a lame arse list.
gets some fucking taste for fuck sake.
I wonder how many people out there are like me and don't follow influencers at all. If anything, I consider influencers a net negative on society.
Its unfortunate if you dont support good journalists.
Most corporate media is crap. Its important to follow and support the work of good journalists.
Journalists and influencers are two very different things, friend. Any jackass with a YouTube channel or Instagram account can be an influencer. Journalism requires education, investigative and literary skill, and vetting.
No, journalists are influencers. You can make a distinction between types and quality of influencers (people with platforms and followers who they influence with the content they publish), but dont condemn all influencers.
No, journalists are not influencers. Influencers are just advertisers in human form. They'll do and say anything if it pays them money. They share more in common with prostitutes than they do journalists.
Journalists are influencers.
We've had influencers for thousands of years. Jesus Christ was an influencer.
Journalists are truth tellers. Influencers are false-tellers. Yellow journalism is written by influencers, not journalists. See the distinction?
I'm learning a new language right now and I find myself reflecting more and more about the strengths and weaknesses of English.
English is really good at a lot of things including humour and poetry. But it transforms overtime depending on region, culture, demographics, economics, marketing, and politics... which makes miscommunication happen ALL THE TIME.
I say this because you're both right, and it's frustrating because it limits our ability to have a meaningful conversation.
If you want to look at a fun language that relies far more heavily on context than English, search for Toki Pona. It's a neat "toy" language!
Perhaps this is an argument over semantics, rather than anything substantive.
When I say "influencer," I'm referring to a class of people whose lives revolve around producing performative content on social media that does not meaningfully add to society.
Journalists are influencers.
We've had influencers for thousands of years. Jesus Christ was an influencer.
We're using the word "influencer" differently here. You're using it the literal way - "one who influences." The version I'm using is narrower in scope.
But if you insist on using your terminology, then I'll refer to them not as "influencers" but rather "social media attention whores." Does that make you feel better?
Sure. Or you can say "bad influencers" or "the influencers who spread misinformation"
There are also influencers who care only about themselves, like those who like to stomp around in other people's gardens without permission in order to get a "good photo" for their followers.
OK, so "asshole influencers"
But I dont understand how that would influence anyone.
The concept of an influencer should, ideally, be made illegal. I'm convinced the primary reason they are popular, is people are too lazy to want to have to read news/information of whatever topic and assemble it into something resembling their own opinion. They'd much rather have some other person read, parse, watch the goings-on and then deliver it as the influencer's opinion. That way, people can subscribe to people that have similar opinions as themselves, and not be spooked by information that is "scary" or challenges their worldview.
It is like influencer was the next progression after social media echo chambers came into existence. A role inserted between old/traditional methods of information delivery, that parses it and delivers it in a format appealing to a particular audience. A role that has never had any certification or vetting process. Just some dude with a microphone in his mom's bathroom.
So many people (in America at least) legitimately want to get into this as a "career" too, which is disturbing. Rather than doing real work of any kind to benefit society. If everyone is an influencer, who's maintaining the codebase that makes their streams possible? Designing the hardware the software runs on? The power plants that run the datacenters? etc.
That being said, traditional media definitely hasn't adapted well to the changing methods of information delivery, so maybe this is our 21st century media transition happening organically, and standards will eventually follow, hopefully.
" I’m convinced the primary reason they are popular, is people are too lazy to want to have to read news/information of whatever topic and assemble it into something resembling their own opinion. They’d much rather have some other person read, parse, watch the goings-on and then deliver it as the influencer’s opinion."
You've essentially described why idiots like Joe Rogan are so powerful
"Fuck journalists and artists. We should just give all of their power to corporate media and record labels."
I do not idolize a single person. I find that when folks follow someone endlessly for years, they become incapable of recognizing the flaws and issues with anything they say. They’ve allowed themselves to be compromised and their judgment clouded by obsessing over a figure.
I wonder how many people out there are like me and don't follow influencers at all.
Yo.
I fear for the future
For the future of humanity? Yeah.
For the future of the planet? Time and nature heals everything.
On a cosmic scale, the survival even of this entire star system doesn't matter in the slightest.
But to me, personally, I am rather unnerved by current events.
Context is everything. We do not experience life as the cosmos, we experience it as individuals.
Learning that Life survived Snowball Earth gave me a huge sense of comfort.
It doesn’t matter. Within our lifetime the fun will be over for humanity and if Im alive then I’ll be cheering for the catastrophes.
I have young nieces who did nothing to deserve a life in the world these oligarchs are crafting. I owe it them to do whatever I can to fight these assholes.
This is a good advetisment for Theo Von and Trevor Noah. Never heard of them.
this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2025
292 points (100.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
6449 readers
261 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS