The creation of micro-segmented online communities filled ever more extreme and provocative content is not an intended goal of the social media companies, but rather an *emergent effect* of social media algorithms optimized to capture as much user attention as possible.
-
-
The differences in content are important: if one group seems to use the words "yarn" and "needles" a lot, it will tend to be offered content with those words. The high correlation between some groupings of words are used to drive the content feed.
-
why does this tend to produce "ever more extreme and provocative content"?
-
Because those key terms are what makes it extreme. I'm sure there are also hardcore knitting groups and hardcore groups devoted to polydactyl tabbies, but they generally don't kill people so you never hear about them.
-
Im not sure if that's what the OP refers to. imo its generally the case that online communities are becoming more extreme, partisan, enclosed, etc, not just communities that were extreme or predisposed to extremity in the first place.
-
it also seems that there was a prior state in which less extreme content was also satisfying on some level, why isn't this content being selected by the recommendation engines?
-
there are probably numerous optima satisfying the maximsation problem, why is it that we end up stuck in the most socially destructive one?
-
That's confirmation bias and the law of large numbers. You just haven't noticed all of the other non-socially destructive, yet still frothy, communities of Deaf Veteran Philatelists for Christ or whatever.
-
but that's my point - why are we stuck at these optima *across the board*?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.