Moj komentar na komentar Roberta Wrighta (spodaj) je, da so množični družbeni mediji (enako kot forumi) odraz naše kulture komuniciranja. Kadarkoli daste ljudem možnost, da prosto komentirajo, dobite pač cel spekter njihovih komentarjev na osnovi mnenj in osebne kulture celotne družbene palete posameznikov. In ta “plebejska” raven komuniciranja “plebsa” pač izobraženi eliti ni in ne more biti všeč. V času tradicionalnih tiskanih in digitalnih medijev je bilo mnenje “plebsa” strogo moderirano in tega širokega spektra njegovih mnenj ni bilo mogoče videti ali prebrati. Na odprtih družbenih medijih, dostopnih vsem, jih pač vidimo v vsej njihovi širini (ali bedi). Zato Blueskyju sledi ista usoda kot je Twitterju (X). Razen seveda, če ga bodo “zaprli” samo za “elito” oziroma filtrirali (cenzurirali). Ampak potem ne bo dosegel množičnosti in ne bo postal donosen za lastnike. Zakaj bi vlagali v nedonosne projekte? Torej…

Princeton psychologist Molly Crockett, who studies the dynamics of social media, took to Bluesky this week to argue that the recent exodus of liberals from X (aka Twitter) could be good for American democracy.

Crockett’s case focuses on what she views as X’s bread and butter: spreading outrage. “Twitter makes money by keeping you online, and a reliable way to do that is to make you outraged and train you to create content that makes others outraged,” she wrote.

But will Bluesky really wind up being much less, or any less, tribalizing than Twitter? A cursory glance at our own feeds suggests that anger-inducing content on Bluesky is alive and well.

And that shouldn’t be surprising. Though X’s AI-powered algorithm, designed to maximize engagement, may be especially inclined to foster outrage, that basic tendency is part of social media more generally. Even the “pre-algorithmic” Twitter of a decade ago—which just showed you the tweets and retweets of everyone you follow in chronological order—had a kind of algorithm: If people retweeted your tweet, it was shown to all their followers. This dynamic alone encouraged outrage, because people tend to share content that they and their comrades find outrageous. What’s more, people—yes, even your followers—suffer from confirmation bias and all the other cognitive biases that reinforce our self-righteousness and thus fan the flames of tribalism.

Crockett says it’s “too soon to tell” whether Bluesky will embrace the same algorithmic incentives as its competitors. But are we sure Bluesky isn’t already moving in that direction? Like Twitter, it offers multiple feeds. One is called “Following” on both sites and works the same way on both sites: it’s “pre-algorithmic” in the sense described above. Twitter also offers a “For you” feed, and Bluesky also offers a “Popular with friends” feed and a “Discover” feed. Hmmm….

A perusal of both of those Bluesky feeds suggest that they’re not exactly tribalism-proof. And the “Discover” feed seems to share one quality with Twitter’s “For you” feed: You see posts that are from people you’re not following and that may not be especially popular among people you’re following. Presumably these posts are popular among people who have been deemed to have something in common with you. And that road, as they say in the algorithm business, leads to “tiktokization”—the property that is said by some to be making Twitter even more toxic than it used to be.

But again, even without these algorithmic embellishments, generic features of social media seem to help people rev themselves up. As Crockett notes, a 2021 study she co-authored showed “that ‘likes’ and ‘shares’ teach people to express more outrage over time.” And, for that matter, mobs of various kinds were good at revving themselves up long before social media.

Maybe Shakespeare was right when he wrote, “The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our algorithms, but in ourselves.” That’s not exactly what he wrote, but one of Crockett’s studies shows that certain kinds of misinformation spread more effectively than accurate information, so we’re sticking with that version.

And even that phenomenon—the virality of untruth—predates social media by so long that it must have deep roots in human nature. As Mark Twain famously said, “A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.” By the way, it’s not clear that Twain actually said that.

Vir: Robert Wright, Nonzero