Elon Musk’s Twitter algorithm changes are ‘amplifying anger’, say researchers
standard.co.uk
standard.co.uk
1. I've noticed that Twitter shows me more "opposite side" stuff than I'd expect. Is that part of amplifying anger? Could it be good in the long run to see other viewpoints. (I'd rather see examples of people I normally vilify saying stuff that's neutral or agreeable, but anyway)
2. Twitter's business model is monetized outrage anyway. Amplifying anger has pretty much always been it's product market fit, so notwithstanding the above, it wouldn't be surprising to see this continue or escalate.
Broader perspectives requires lower temperature, and moderation, but I don't mean the kind that mass shadowbans accounts on social media. I mean the kind where intelligent people come together based on shared interests and have a conference, a club, form a discussion group and so on. And they have the ability to protect their whisper from the noise of millions screaming trolls outside. Twitter isn't built for this. It never was, but now it's even less built for it.
Twitter is currently seemingly 90% hot takes and hustling marketers doing those cringe "AI is crushing your industry, see 20 reasons why" type of threads.
People will never learn to get along, if they refuse to listen to each other.
This is a cultural, emotional, informational bubble, and when you're inside it there's only one correct way to act, and that is to virtue signal that you hate the other bubble.
In other words, it's not that simple.
I had no interest in following "celebrities" and I sucked at responding to posts because I'd always run into the character limit, which works great for snarky comments, but pretty much sucks for real conversations.
A new study by computer scientists at Cornell University and University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley) published on Friday (May 26) looked at tweets being shown to 806 users in February, comparing the content shown on Twitter’s “For You” personalised timelines, as well as the chronological newsfeed.