zlacker

With seeing more letters like this recently, I wonder if they can really have much of an effect. They seem to just ask kindly that people act more kind, which often doesn't do a whole ton. What is needed is to change the way communication is occurring away from viral algorithms promoting the most viral content (outragebait), which only certain companies and people can do.

>>ve55+(OP)
> What is needed is to change the way communication is occurring away from viral algorithms promoting the most viral content (outragebait), which only certain companies and people can do.

Exactly. Articles like this are fine and all, but they're generally preaching to the choir; the audience they really need to reach is indifferent to the arguments, and like it or not, calling for someone to be cancelled is also an exercise of their free speech rights.

Social networks don't want to change anything, because culture wars drive engagement (even if they slowly make the platforms uninhabitable).

I don't know what's to be done except to move away from social networks into smaller communities (Slack groups, etc.) that have their own norms of discourse.

>>ve55+(OP)
I really like the term "outragebait", I think it fits perfectly.

One tactic i think is pretty clever is changing neutral to mean against. You can be vehemently for a topic or vehemently against a topic or you can just keep your mouth shut and live your life as you see fit.

I guess too many people were doing that because now those people are being positioned as part of the opposition. Now, not only are you suppose to be outraged at the other side you're suppose to be outraged at everyone not outraged or on the other side.

>>paulgb+n5
> Social networks don't want to change anything, because culture wars drive engagement

Is there any public evidence that outrage-driven engagement is profitable? It's a statement that is frequently repeated, but I haven't seen any evidence for it.

>>rmrfst+79
Admittedly, there's no smoking gun here, just inferential evidence from the fact that they don't tweak their algorithms to curb it. Which, admittedly, could be that they don't have the resources to do it -- but in either case, my point is that the solution probably will not come from the social networks on their own accord.