7 ms·

I really think social media companies are deliberately promoting stupid and blatantly wrong beliefs. It's good for engagement. If you've ever watched someone b

I really think social media companies are deliberately promoting stupid and blatantly wrong beliefs. It's good for engagement. If you've ever watched someone be completely wrong about something you know a lot about, you know how strong the urge to correct them is. On social media, promoting clearly wrong beliefs and ideas (Flat Earth, for instance) is good for business because people will similarly jump in to correct the wrong belief. And if you tie that belief to a political ideology, the believers will defend their ideology, further increasing engagement.

pdonis 6y ago
> I really think social media companies are deliberately promoting stupid and blatantly wrong beliefs. It's good for engagement. I don't think it even has to be deliberate; the algorithms social media uses, by their very nature, are going to promote stupid and blatantly wrong beliefs, since so many people will enjoy mocking them and there will always be some believers willing to argue back and keep the discussion going indefinitely.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  You could make a case that optimising for engagement - and getting stupidity - is a predictable outcome and therefore itself stupid. Imagine what would happen if social media algorithms started promoting the opposite. Engagement would drop, but there might be some interesting second and third effects.
  - selestify 6y ago
    Unless these second and third order effects are more profitable than the first order ones, I don't see any incentive for social media companies to promote them.
  - mandelbrotwurst 6y ago
    It's only stupid if you're trying to optimize for social good, makes perfect sense as a short sighted, profit maximizing corporation.
onecommentman 6y ago
Maybe social media are just tapping into the human need to have “fools” on the stage. It’s a pretty universal archetype. Silly fools, wise fools, serendipitous fools. Only the Jester can speak truth to the King sort of thing. Been around so long in so many places that it has to be useful for human culture...
- dgb23 6y ago
  Interesting take, although It can be the other way around as well. Both the fool and this social media behavior come from a motivation to distract from our own weaknesses, by pointing fingers at something else.
geomark 6y ago
"...people will similarly jump in to correct the wrong belief." This works really well when you have a question about something. If you post a question asking for answers or ideas you often get crickets. But if you post an idea that is clearly wrong you usually get lots of people jumping in to correct you.
- pksebben 6y ago
  That's called Cunningham's Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Cunningham https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Cunningham
  - geomark 6y ago
    +1. I have heard this idea a number of times and seen it in action but did not know that there was actually a "law" and a person credited with stating it.
WalterBright 6y ago
> I really think social media companies are deliberately promoting stupid and blatantly wrong beliefs. I don't find them particularly worse than the major mainstream media. > If you've ever watched someone be completely wrong about something you know a lot about This happens whenever I read a mainstream media article about something like airplanes.
- scns 6y ago
  “Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.” – Michael Crichton (1942-2008) (edit: added link below) taken from: https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/ https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    I, for one, don't forget. I suspect most stories in the paper are bullshit. It isn't even because the paper is agenda-driven, it's because the journalist is either lazy or simply has no idea what he's writing about and mangles what he was told about it, or he asked the wrong questions, etc. Sort of like me being assigned to write an article about culinary arts :-) P.S. For more decent articles about airplanes, Aviation Week is far better.
    - scns 6y ago
      I was quite sure that you'd do so, as do i. Just wanted to to point out this effect, which i find quite funny.
scns 6y ago
There was a xkcd about it: https://xkcd.com/386/ https://xkcd.com/386/
TwoNineFive 6y ago
I can't believe the word "advertising" isn't in this thread yet. It's simple. The dumber you are, the easier it is to sell something to you. Susceptibility to "influence" is a highly profitable trait, so it's selected. That's why the idiot networks need to aggregate as many fools together in one big writhing swarm of stupidity. Their revenue comes from advertising, and as long as that continues you should not expect it to get any better. This realization may also lead to the solution: Don't regulate the content. Regulate the advertising.

pdonis 6y ago

> I really think social media companies are deliberately promoting stupid and blatantly wrong beliefs. It's good for engagement. I don't think it even has to be deliberate; the algorithms social media uses, by their very nature, are going to promote stupid and blatantly wrong beliefs, since so many people will enjoy mocking them and there will always be some believers willing to argue back and keep the discussion going indefinitely.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
You could make a case that optimising for engagement - and getting stupidity - is a predictable outcome and therefore itself stupid. Imagine what would happen if social media algorithms started promoting the opposite. Engagement would drop, but there might be some interesting second and third effects.
- selestify 6y ago
  Unless these second and third order effects are more profitable than the first order ones, I don't see any incentive for social media companies to promote them.
- mandelbrotwurst 6y ago
  It's only stupid if you're trying to optimize for social good, makes perfect sense as a short sighted, profit maximizing corporation.

onecommentman 6y ago

Maybe social media are just tapping into the human need to have “fools” on the stage. It’s a pretty universal archetype. Silly fools, wise fools, serendipitous fools. Only the Jester can speak truth to the King sort of thing. Been around so long in so many places that it has to be useful for human culture...

dgb23 6y ago
Interesting take, although It can be the other way around as well. Both the fool and this social media behavior come from a motivation to distract from our own weaknesses, by pointing fingers at something else.

geomark 6y ago

"...people will similarly jump in to correct the wrong belief." This works really well when you have a question about something. If you post a question asking for answers or ideas you often get crickets. But if you post an idea that is clearly wrong you usually get lots of people jumping in to correct you.

pksebben 6y ago
That's called Cunningham's Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Cunningham https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Cunningham
- geomark 6y ago
  +1. I have heard this idea a number of times and seen it in action but did not know that there was actually a "law" and a person credited with stating it.

WalterBright 6y ago

> I really think social media companies are deliberately promoting stupid and blatantly wrong beliefs. I don't find them particularly worse than the major mainstream media. > If you've ever watched someone be completely wrong about something you know a lot about This happens whenever I read a mainstream media article about something like airplanes.

scns 6y ago
“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.” – Michael Crichton (1942-2008) (edit: added link below) taken from: https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/ https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/
- WalterBright 6y ago
  I, for one, don't forget. I suspect most stories in the paper are bullshit. It isn't even because the paper is agenda-driven, it's because the journalist is either lazy or simply has no idea what he's writing about and mangles what he was told about it, or he asked the wrong questions, etc. Sort of like me being assigned to write an article about culinary arts :-) P.S. For more decent articles about airplanes, Aviation Week is far better.
  - scns 6y ago
    I was quite sure that you'd do so, as do i. Just wanted to to point out this effect, which i find quite funny.

scns 6y ago

There was a xkcd about it: https://xkcd.com/386/ https://xkcd.com/386/

TwoNineFive 6y ago

I can't believe the word "advertising" isn't in this thread yet. It's simple. The dumber you are, the easier it is to sell something to you. Susceptibility to "influence" is a highly profitable trait, so it's selected. That's why the idiot networks need to aggregate as many fools together in one big writhing swarm of stupidity. Their revenue comes from advertising, and as long as that continues you should not expect it to get any better. This realization may also lead to the solution: Don't regulate the content. Regulate the advertising.