You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Who'd have thought that if people could choose their own news, they'd choose the stories that made them angry? We take it for granted now, but it really is surprising. Cynical editors used to think "if it bleeds, it leads" was as low as you could go. But people like anger more.
Hypothesis: Maybe news has become a business (like alcohol and virtual goods) where revenue is disproportionately driven by heavy consumers (aka "whales"), and they are driving this. Maybe 5% of the population is insatiably angry. Talk radio suggests this is plausible.
Further hypothesis: A publication or news show can't simultaneously induce anger on the right and the left. So the high-minded, politically neutral news outlet like e.g. the NYT or WaPo used to be, is a thing of the past. Now they have to pick sides. Certainly the NYT has.
To the extent this is what the news is becoming, it's something to avoid. When I was a kid, it was impressive to consume a lot of news. Someone who subscribed to 5 newspapers would brag about that. But it's not impressive to consume a lot of Fox News. It's not even neutral.
Anger is a great shortcut to community and belonging
And purpose.
Dopamine addiction is a thing, maybe anger works similarly too.
I think this can be interpreted more charitably though -- people get angry over things they care very much about and think are important.
Interesting! We did a machine learning study on this and found out that emotions do influence how users perceive and would like their news to be curated and organized.
Sounds like someone listened to a podcast recently
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
