Social media algorithms have produced the worst results recently. But some outlets like tabloids and AM radio have long embraced outraged hyperbole and blatant

Social media algorithms have produced the worst results recently. But some outlets like tabloids and AM radio have long embraced outraged hyperbole and blatant falsehood to attract audiences. Possibly any motivation beyond a desire to inform damages the message at least a little. And sometimes annihilates factuality completely. I would conjecture this is because facts are often subtle, ambiguous, complex or contradict preconceived notions. So choosing between reality vs entertainment/outrage portrayed as reality, people tend to prefer the latter. So anyone maximizing for numbers will be drawn into the latter too. Maybe this is the human bug referred to in the article. So current algorithms that maximize engagement are obviously catastrophically bad and any curation has to be better. But there may yet be undiscovered (likely non trivial) algorithms that promote calm reality. They just might be less profitable. As newspapers are less profitable.