> This isn’t inherent to social networks though. It is a choice by the biggest social media companies and to make society worse in order to increase profits.

going beyond social media it's IMHO the side effect of a initially innocent looking but dangerous and toxic monetization model which we find today not just in social media but even more so in news, apps and most digital markets

Before there was social media there was click bait headlines from supposedly reputable news agencies.

Social media gave people easy ways to engage and share. And it turns out what people engage with and share is click bait/rage bait.

So maybe not technically inherent but a natural consequence of creating networks for viral sharing of content.

The existence of "yellow journalism" in the 19th century would disagree with that statement. That outrage and emotionalism trigger human's attention more so than other feelings is a biological fact that has been exploited for centuries and centuries. The same way gambling has been around for the entirety of recorded human history. It's a default behavior pattern installed in every humans, some can override, most don't.

I think it's easy to blame the evil profit maximizing social media companies. But IMO even the most simple 'engagement' algorithm will produce negative externalities. Regardless of who's running it.

``` show_me_posts_people_like_me_have_liked()

- John saw 20 posts today and liked 9 of them.

- Cliff saw 20 posts today and liked 9 of them

- Jeff and Cliff had 6 overlapping likes

- Show Jeff the 2 extra posts Cliff liked; show Cliff the 2 extra posts Jeff liked

```

This seems like a simple / logical recommendation system. BUT the end result is that you make Jeff and Cliff closer to the same person over time. And times millions, you build echo chambers. And the biggest echo chambers (often those aligned with some identity politics) see they have a huge community and want to expand it. Making the whole platform worse as a byproduct.

  >> Social media itself is a grand experiment. What happens if you start connecting people from disparate communities, and then prioritize for outrage and emotionalism?  
  > It is a choice by the biggest social media companies to make society worse in order to increase profits.

US as it is has no cultural industrial base to produce social media contents. East Asian contents, if not East Asian indigenous social media, easily win the Internet leveraging universally strong public education, without even being intentional. That's what happened, and that must be the intent of shift into rage political shows which the US/EU can at least produce, even if it weren't useful.

Yeah its crazy it hasnt been around long yet I yearn for the old days of even 10 years ago when my feed was still mostly things my friends are doing.

The problem with social media is that it has gone off book.

It sure seems inherent to me. You get outrage and emotionalism even in small Internet forums. Moderation is necessary to damp it down.

Your post needs to be absorbed and spread by everyone.

The public debate has given us a false choice between censorship and no censorship. It's the wrong dimension.

How do you know the casuality isn't reversed? Maybe the social media prioritizing outrage became the biggest. Don't hate the player, change the game.

bigMedia has been doing this longer than the socials. The socials just took the knob and turned it to 11.

> Social media and the world were better places before algorithmic feeds took over everything

Some times I feel like I'm the only one who remembers how toxic places like Usenet, IRC, and internet forums were before Facebook. Either that, or people only remember the past of the internet through rose colored glasses.

Complain about algorithmic feeds all you want, but internet toxicity was rampant long before modern social media platforms came along. Some of the crazy conspiracy theories and hate-filled vitriol that filled usenet groups back in the day makes the modern Facebook news feed seem tame by comparison.