Are a few people ruining the internet for the rest of us?
www.theguardian.com
Why does the online world seem so toxic compared with normal life? Our research shows that a small number of divisive accounts could be responsible – and offers a way out

I can’t abide an unnecessary question hed.

When I scroll through social media, I often leave demoralized, with the sense that the entire world is on fire and people are inflamed with hatred towards one another. Yet, when I step outside into the streets of New York City to grab a coffee or meet a friend for lunch, it feels downright tranquil. The contrast between the online world and my daily reality has only gotten more jarring.

Since my own work is focused on topics such as intergroup conflict, misinformation, technology and climate change, I’m aware of the many challenges facing humanity. Yet, it seems striking that people online seem to be just as furious about the finale of The White Lotus or the latest scandal involving a YouTuber. Everything is either the best thing ever or the absolute worst, no matter how trivial. Is that really what most of us are feeling? No, as it turns out. Our latest research suggests that what we’re seeing online is a warped image created by a very small group of highly active users.

  • reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net
    24·
    1 day ago

    In a recent series of experiments, we paid people a few dollars to unfollow the most divisive political accounts on X. After a month, they reported feeling 23% less animosity towards other political groups. In fact, their experience was so positive that nearly half the people declined to refollow those hostile accounts after the study was over. And those who maintain their healthier newsfeed reported less animosity a full 11 months after the study.

    Found this bit interesting

    • P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      7·
      20 hours ago

      After a month, they reported feeling 23% less animosity towards other political groups.

      This sounds like a call to be willfully ignorant of the serious political shit going down around them. That’s how you get the average idiot who doesn’t understand why voting for a guy like Trump is a bad idea.

      You should be fucking angry and have more animosity towards other political groups, or you aren’t paying attention. Nazis should be called out.

      • memfree@piefed.socialEnglish
        1·
        3 hours ago

        No, not in context. They are talking about disimformation like, “using YOUR tax dollars, funded bioweapon research, including Covid-19” from Musk. They say:

        A mere 0.1% of users share 80% of fake news. Twelve accounts – known as the “disinformation dozen” – created most of the vaccine misinformation on Facebook during the pandemic. These few hyperactive users produced enough content to create the false perceptions that many people were vaccine hesitant.

        So if you cut out the the most divisive political accounts, you will not miss ANY actual news, but are likely to miss a huge pile of disinformation.

        • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
          1·
          1 hour ago

          Mis/disinformation is not the same as “divisive political content”. Political content can be both true, and divisive (e.g. Trump being a pedophile). Conversely, something that is accepted by the majority may still be misinformation, while not be divisive.

          Truthfulness determines whether something is misinformation. How much something matches a group’s beliefs determines whether it is divisive: if everyone agreed that the world was flat, that would not be divisive to state, but it would be misinformation.

          Conflating them entrenches the perception that the most widely-held, non-“divisive” viewpoint must not be misinformation.

          Go check out Truth Social if you want to see what a space where only “non-divisive” (to them) but near-total misinformation looks like.

          • memfree@piefed.socialEnglish
            1·
            33 minutes ago

            I agree that as categories, the are different things, just as ‘tools’ are not the same as ‘weapons’, but ignoring the perncious overlap borders on criminal. If you follow actual news sites and reporters but omit the likes of Musk, you will still see Musk quoted, but it is more likely to be properly discredited where needed. At no point does the article suggest you avoid all partisan content, it simply says the most divisive is likely to hurt us all. You know the platforms profit from engagement, so they’ll promote the worst offenders’ content upward, but we don’t have to take that bait.

            The accounts with the MOST divisive political content are unlikely to be your best source of information. You might hate Rachel Maddow or Charlie Kirk, but you’'ll be better off getting news from a generic MSNBC or FOX feed than either personality. Better still, pick BBC, Reuters, and AlJazeera to see a variety of views.

            A reverse example of context: Project 2025 never explicitly says anything about IVF, but it repeatedly talks about human life “from conception to natural death”, which would mean IVF would be problematic. If you try quoting just the last sentence in this chunk, ‘day one’ might be interpreted as birth, but in context, ‘day one’ is obviously conception:

            From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth, and our humanity does not depend on our age, stage of development, race, or abilities. The Secretary must ensure that all HHS programs and activities are rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural death: Abortion and euthanasia are not health care.

            P.S. Do we agree that Bernie Sanders is NOT divisive? That the majority of actual people agree with most of what Bernie says, and it is only a few rich interests that object?

      • reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net
        5·
        20 hours ago

        Yeah it’s kind of like the psychological advice to let go of things you can’t control. That’s fine when it’s your annoying boss (within limits) but not fine when it’s mass kidnappings.

    • tangentism@beehaw.org
      3·
      1 day ago

      Spoon found in kitchen. More from Tom at 7

      SM is designed to react to clicks and content that riles people up and consequently creates more clicks. Consciously disengaging from the shit gibbons will make every ones life better but it goes against the base ‘more clicks = more ad revenue’

    • DragonSidedD@monero.town
      3·
      1 day ago

      I delete all my social media periodically for similar reasons.

      Even communities of people who are really level headed and supportive, like academics and engineers. Eventually there is groupthink, tribalism, and generally people who I am over (and I’m sure it’s mutual)