Just presented my findings from an overly convoluted research thing that looks at social media systems, language, community behavior, and the rhetoric of platforms. My findings echo previous research. A thread.

1. Facebook is a platform that promotes traditional conservative social values and exploitative capitalism, highlights divisive rhetoric and posts, and sometimes will do token initiatives to "fight hate" that ultimately do nothing to change the platform. This radicalizes users.

2. Youtube is more subtle as it takes its users from Zizek (left philosophy) to Peterson (conservative philosophy) to Rubin (right leaning interviews) to Lauren and Sargon (anti socjus conservativism) to Molyneux (eugenics), or from MatPat to Pewds to E;R and Quartering to Sargon

and some of its users are radicalized, but others find a road-stop in the form of Peter Coffin and Destiny who stop the radicalization.

3. TikTok is a system that doesn't promote white supremacy, but does not promote black creators as readily as white creators. It likely has to do with how many already popular Tokers are white and being popular begets more popularity rather than with an explicit "favoritism" code

(unlike Facebook and its mods)

and although users are not radicalized by this system itself (TikTok seems to want most of its users in "straighttok" - dancing, magic, lip syncing, etc) it is easier for users to find "extremisttok" than "blacktok", "nativetok", etc.

4. Twitter is both garbage and the best. It works great for consistent organizing and activism for social justice, freedom, and sharing information. It's amazing in building connections and for activism.
It's also the easiest platform to harass, bully, and humiliate someone in.

I got the feedback, and now all I need is to take 100+ pages of data, analysis, and interviews and turn it into a 10 - 20 page article.

The question is, do I possess the constitution and depth of faith to do it.