#social-media

Although this is just an anecdote, I think it happens very widely. Maybe not always as sinister, but certainly far from innocent. Basically we see that these online companies are now paid by engagements (i.e. views, clicks, comments, shares). So they create algorithms that show content to people who are estimated to have higher engagement with content. Why not? People engage with content they like right? And we didn't tell the algorithm to prioritize anything bad - in fact we may even bias the algorithm away from obviously bad content.

Even simple statistical algorithms are very good at predicting what someone is likely to engage with given a modest set of examples from their past online engagements. The more advanced machine learning and AI-based algorithms we have today are unbelievably good at it. The reality is that us humans cannot actually understand how or why these algorithms are prioritizing content, we just know that it generates more engagement. We also don't know what content it will see and how it will react to new types of content.

The companies also tell "creators" that create posts/videos that generate engagement they can make money. People have realized what types of posts and videos get more engagement and they've found that things that make people angry or envious generates more engagement and more money. They figure, it it was against the rules, content moderation or the algorithm won't show it (exactly what the person in this article said). Yet, none of that happens and hate spreads.

Politicians are using the same tactics. They've realized that content that makes people angry or envious will generate engagement with them - and that leads to them being "popular" and ultimately winning elections.

So what can we do? Most of all we should make sure that we're aware that the content online and spoken by politicians is at least in part if not mostly to "engage" us. Remember that what we read and what they say is often meant to provoke us into some response. The wise old saying from my grandmother of Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see, seems more appropriate than ever.

Why not boycott social media? I think it's harder than it seems. Public companies that we are all invested in share key information on twitter. News sites that are the foundation of an "informed electorate", link to twitter in most articles. Governmental leaders around the world share policy updates on twitter - and twitter requires you to sign-in and share information about yourself in order to see it - so even remaining anonymous isn't an option. Are you going to stop going to YouTube - is there any other video site left? What about Linkedin - who also has a content algorithm that the most popular people work hard to understand and get noticed. So while it sounds nice to just obstain, I think it's less realistic than it seems.

Last summer, the man says, he found himself sitting in his car, analysing trends on TikTok. His day job was conducting viewings for an estate agency but he was trying to come up with an idea for a viral video account that could be run as a money-making side-hustle.

“I was thinking of unique videos I can do for people,” he says on the tape.

That’s when he had a brainwave: “Hate brings views.”

At that time protests outside asylum hotels were spreading across the country. The man says he noticed “far-right people” were among the most engaged on TikTok. They were easy to rile up: “They hate such videos of illegal migrants. I was like, why not?”

He added an AI-generated voiceover about asylum seekers, rapists, and illegal immigrants then pressed upload. The audience response was instant and enormous, and TikTok’s algorithm responded by pushing it into the feeds of hundreds of thousands of people. Irate Londoners drove up engagement by complaining they couldn’t afford such properties while illegal immigrants were supposedly getting them for free.

“It wasn’t racist,” the man says of his account. He argues that if the videos had really been racist, TikTok’s algorithm would have downgraded the content. Instead, he was rewarded with millions of views. He was just an entrepreneur following a simple content strategy: “Every single video I would basically copy paste the same thing. I wrote down ‘illegal migrants’.”

Despite fostering online hatred, the man recorded by Wasserstrum insists he doesn’t personally share the views expressed on his TikTok account. Instead, he suggests his fake anti-migrant house tour videos were just a way to game the algorithm, build an audience, and hopefully make money.

”I didn’t do anything because of hate,” he says on the tape. “I didn’t care. It’s just I wanted the clicks.”

Lobsters was created by joshua stein with careful design touches to encourage a healthy community:

a tagging system to categorize and filter submissions, a user invitation tree to combat spam, flag explanations to curb punishing disagreement, a strong commitment to transparency, and many more features that have been added over the years.

In an experiment using the tool with about 1,200 participants over 10 days during the 2024 election, those who had antidemocratic content downranked showed more positive views of the opposing party. The effect was also bipartisan, holding true for people who identified as liberals or conservatives.

“Social media algorithms directly impact our lives, but until now, only the platforms had the ability to understand and shape them,” said Michael Bernstein, a professor of computer science in Stanford’s School of Engineering and the study’s senior author. “We have demonstrated an approach that lets researchers and end users have that power.”

The tool could also open ways to create interventions that not only mitigate partisan animosity, but also promote greater social trust and healthier democratic discourse across party lines, added Bernstein, who is also a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence.

The impact on polarization was clear, said Piccardi, who is now an assistant professor of computer science at Johns Hopkins University.

“When the participants were exposed to less of this content, they felt warmer toward the people of the opposing party,” he said. “When they were exposed to more, they felt colder.”