How accurate is the idea of an "Alt-Right pipeline" and can it exist for the opposite side?

How accurate is the idea of an "Alt-Right pipeline" and can it exist for the opposite side?


Welcome to /r/ask_politics. Our goal here is to provide educated, informed, and serious answers to questions about the world of politics. Our full [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Politics/wiki/rules) can be found here, but are summarized below. * Address the question (and its replies) in a professional manner * Avoid personal attacks and partisan "point scoring" * Avoid the use of partisan slang and [fallacies](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_fallacies) * Provide sources if possible at the time of commenting. **If asked, you must provide sources.** * Help avoid the echo chamber - downvote bad/poorly sourced responses, not responses you disagree with. **Do not downvote just because you disagree with the response**. * Report any comments that do not meet our standards and rules. If you have any questions, please contact the mods at any time. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ask_Politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*


It's not so much that YouTube is purposely trying to create little nazis, it's that their (and other social media sites) are designed to get the most clicks per person possible. (Clicks = money in social media.) And if the algorithm "knows" you like a certain video (cause you watched the whole thing.) Then it'll spit out a similar video as the next suggested one. Cause, well, there's a good chance that'll interest you. Of course with the alt right pipeline this is problematic cause some person watches one alt right video out of curiosity, sees another similar one. Clicks it, watches it. Repeat repeat repeat and all the "huu. They made a good point here" moments add up and that person becomes a true believer. Because they've watched dozens or 100s of these types of videos. Which society almost invetitably then makes the problem 10x worse because these folks will express their new views somewhere and get called a nazi. And see calls for them and their ideas to be suppressed. Which puts the new convert on the defensive. Being put on the defensive is a well known way to make someone become an even stronger believer of the attacked views. And before you know it this person is trying to murder congress. Now social media giants have been trying to break the start point of this cycle recently. But problems persist because A) humans aren't idiots and can use a Google search even without recommendations. B) these companies sole reason to exist is to make money. So their commitment to backing away from a proven money making idea is, er, questionable. This of course also exists on the left. For a number of reasons radical left wing voices aren't as popular on social media (one of which is honestly just the luck of the draw) but they do exist. You don't have to search all that hard to find radicalized left wing individuals online who earnestly believe in killing political opponents or overruling democracy. A common theme in these circles is that voting is a tool of the oppressive upper classes and democracy is a chain that the workers need to break. (Read: they want to install a communist dictatorship.) While at the moment most political violence is from right wing individuals, its certainly not always been that way. A radical left wing group quite literally bombed the US capital in the 1970s. (Fortunately only causing property damage. No one was hurt.) So attempting to murder congress has never been the sole domain of one political faction.


> While at the moment most political violence is from right wing individuals, its certainly not always been that way. I don't feel this is accurate even today. It's true right wing groups seem to plan big, media attention grabbing attacks but the amount of doxing and the motivations of doxing imply the left wing are also causing violence. I don't think they'd continue to make lists of people with their place of residence and their place of employment unless they were causing harm. These kind of attacks are too small scale for the media and it's likely the media themselves can't quite empathise enough with the victims to care. Instead, groups like certain antifa cells are labelled as a [street gang](https://www.wsj.com/articles/to-deal-with-antifa-designate-it-a-street-gang-1505672746) since their tactics of intimidation mimic that. That being said, this in itself is a false equivalence. We're talking about an extreme minority of extreme right wing people who are already on some law enforcement radar for googling how to make bombs against enough people to form an actual counter protest of people dressed in all black, wearing masks and brandishing weapons. This answers OP's question. These YouTubers, some of them are actually left wing like Tim Pool or Andy Ngo, document this and someone immature might notice this false equivalence and what looks like deception from the media and then believe it's appropriate to become the resistant reaction to this. When Sargon of Akkad noted that a group [usually supported by the media](https://thehill.com/homenews/media/513902-cnn-ridiculed-for-fiery-but-mostly-peaceful-caption-with-video-of-burning) were chanting to kill cops days before a [terrorist attack](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers) that did exactly that. It could seem like Sargon doesn't support equal protections for different races if you were severely immature or refused to understand the context. Refusing the context opens the door to many incorrect, but useful, misinterpretations. Basically, that the facts are so openly and blatantly misconstrued is enough to radicalise immature people. This isn't click bait, people have been [killed because of recent left wing ideas](https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-ap-top-news-race-and-ethnicity-id-state-wire-or-state-wire-b57315d97dd2146c4a89b4636faa7b70).


> some of them are actually left wing like Tim Pool or Andy Ngo Am I misunderstanding this or are you seriously claiming Tim Pool and Andy Ngo are left wing?


Yeah I made the Jim Halpert face when I read that. Not even close to accurate


[https://twitter.com/KevinlyFather/status/1398059785895911424?s=19](https://twitter.com/KevinlyFather/status/1398059785895911424?s=19) It also doesnt help the right that they have politicians saying stuff like this during their rallies. Leaders outright advocating for violence (and this ignoring Trump's jan 6 insurrection attempt)




Degree of accuracy about the pipeline is subjective but I agree alt-right is in the process of sophisticating a pipeline for radicalization that depends on people who are susceptible to believing conspiracy theories, deception, inaccuracy etc. whereas your typical lefty tends to be pragmatic. In other words, libs tend to be fact-oriented ... cons tend to be cynical and opinionated. How else could trump have gained so much right wing popularity and left wing opposition as fact checkers documented over 20,000 cases of his misinformation and lies? There's no limit on amount of conspiracy theories. Anyone w/ an imagination can devise one good enough to press an adequate amount of buttons. It's the people who are susceptible because they don't need any/much of fact who get targeted. Their opinion drives their convictions. The racetrack is full of people w/ losing tickets who thought their opinion could predict the future. At least they had access to a racing form that gave them facts to process from.


I'm sure loads of centre-left youth have been radicalised into communism. It just doesn't get any attention because communism is on the "allowed" list of beliefs.