9 ms·

Slamming political rivals may be the most effective way to go viral

111 points by hhs 5y ago

dukeofdoom 5y ago
People just regurgitate their sides last night narrative presented to them on their favourite news network. the commitment to truth has been lost. Its all about framing now.
- username90 5y ago
  "How can not everyone know the obvious truth I just learned about 5 minutes ago reading an opinion piece!?"
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > People just regurgitate their sides last night narrative In my experience, this is one of those tropes. Yes, people will harmonize on their explanations and positions on certain debates. That's human nature. Watch a family describe one of its members and you'll see the same phenomenon. If you go out and talk to voters about what matters to them, however, one tends to find a diversity of topics.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    It's hard to believe that the voters I talk to face-to-face are the same human being, the same society and community, posting online. We perhaps need to bring offline behavior norms into the online world.
- Layke1123 5y ago
  Lol, there never was a commitment to the truth on the right. Only what keeps us in power.
- rhino369 5y ago
  IMO, framing things as "truth" or "falsehood" is part of the problem. Each side dismisses the other side as just not knowing the right facts (or denying the facts), as if everyone would agree if they just knew the right facts. The media dug in on this very hard after the 2016 with the "fake news" and "fact-checking" crusades. Reality is a lot more complicated. Even if we agreed on the facts, we don't agree on conclusions based on those facts. Or even what the right result should be. For example, there is a big factual dispute over whether the border is having a "crisis." But the earnest dispute is really just whether the US should allow illegal immigrants to come here or not. I think the biggest problem is we avoid grappling with our fundamental disagreements and we don't honestly engage with what the other side is arguing. Both sides have basically labeled opinions they disagree with as, at best uniformed/ignorant, and at worst, evil (racist, communist, bigoted, depraved). Nobody is really trying to convince the other side. They are just trying to whip up a frenzy on their side and shame the other side into shutting up. I've voted for both parties in the past (W Bush & Obama), but I don't think I could have a real political discussion with someone I meet at party without being attacked personally and viciously. And I know I can't post political views on social media without some psychopath trying to get me fired. Everyone is addicted to anger.
  - s5300 5y ago
    >Everyone is addicted to anger. Is exactly what a person addicted to anger would say. No, believe it or not, everybody is not addicted to anger - but those who are sure as hell like to perpetuate the idea of it and spread their toxicity
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
programmarchy 5y ago
Yeah, feels we're screwed at the moment. I subscribe to both DNC and RNC mailing lists and it's typical to see things like "Trump Rally BACKFIRES" and "The Radical Left is trying to destroy America". I try to laugh it off thinking people can't be dumb enough to buy into this, but then I'm gripped by the terrifying reality that actually yes, they are. Dunking on opponents really wouldn't be all that bad if there was some actual debate progressing, where ideas could be tested and improved, but that seems to have stagnated to a large degree.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  The use of slang like dunking, slamming, murdering, and so on by adults in a professional arena is embarrassing.
  - nemo44x 5y ago
    We are not a serious country any more.
    - vkou 5y ago
      I don't think you would be able to find a single time period in the history of this country where yellow political journalism was not wildly popular.
  - mizzack 5y ago
    Unless it's a literal arena.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
      I just had a vision of a dystopian(?) future where politicians unable to reach a compromise are forced to fight in the thunderdome, but they were still a bunch of old pasty white guys.
- mistrial9 5y ago
  I suspect that there are varying amounts of return on effort, and that their strategists have learned that in a two party ONLY system, with low voter turnout regularly, that just agitating those already on your side to do something, in any way that happens, is more return on effort than convincing people or other variations. There are feedback effects within their decision making that dampen and then eliminate new ideas, which reinforces "return to the party line" and opposite of "take our group in a new direction with this idea" ; anti-evolution basically..
hndirect 5y ago
> Unless social media companies start penalising polarising content and rewarding more constructive posts, Twitter and Facebook are not shy about having a hand in the conversation. If anything they reward polarizing content, and they've shown interest in censoring wrongthink, but do they have any interest in turning down the temperature? > these platforms will continue to be swamped by political animosity that risks spilling into real-world turmoil. It's more than a risk, it's been spilling into real-world turmoil for years.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  I think it is interesting that high temperature plus censoring wrongthink makes two minute's hate. Calling things Orwellian is something of a cliche, but it is occasionally appropriate.
- ruined 5y ago
  a subset of journalists seem to continually forget that media is still real, social media perhaps even more so nobody else seems to have this delusion, except cops responsible for investigating threats and harassment campaigns against individuals.
anm89 5y ago
I've noticed this hilarious thing where within the left leaning media sphere, the only verbs that Ocasio-Cortez and to a lesser degree Bernie ever engage in is "slamming". They don't eat, sleep, debate, propose, or discuss. They just slam 24/7. I googled her to verify the spelling on her name and the first headline was: "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez slams the lack of diversity in an all-white group of lawmakers who drafted a bipartisan infrastructure deal"
- handrous 5y ago
  Not to "both sides" it, but... well, both sides do this in their reporting. Sometimes they also "own" or "destroy" someone. I don't think it's partisan. That kind of language gets clicks, so everyone's optimized for it.
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    I'm not so sure about it not being partisan. When I think of "own" in this context, it's mostly in relation to "owning the libs." I'm not sure if this particular usage is used mostly by left-leaning pols ironically, or right-leaning pols unironically, however.
    - GeekyBear 5y ago
      At least as far back as the Jon Stewart era of the Daily Show, there was nothing ironic about it. I believe "destroy" was the preferred nomenclature back then.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - handrous 5y ago
      It started out used seriously on right-wing YouTube and forums, but it probably is the case that right-wing use of it is now self-consciously imitating the parodic use of it by the left, so by now it's irony all the way down. [EDIT] downvoters: is this wrong? My perception was that "own" was originally (in a political context—its roots are in gaming, of course) used as a fairly ordinary headline/title intensifier to get more clicks, mostly on the right (for that particular word—everyone plays with language to get more clicks, of course), that parodic use on the left followed, and I'm guessing that its continued use on the right is with some awareness of the way it's been mocked on the left, so has likely changed the intent with which it's employed.
Spooky23 5y ago
Of course. Virality is a mob action… you always get a visceral reaction from the mob being against something. If you’re running for local office, what gets more attention when you troll social media? Talking about policy to improve storm sewers or claiming that your opponent is a communist who wants to kill children? What gets more attention? In my hometown, a guy got on the non-partisan school board on a platform of being pro-gun, and against his “woke” opponent, who was accused of hating veterans.
dinkleberg 5y ago
On mobile that is the most intense cookie consent I’ve ever seen.
tengbretson 5y ago
Alternative title: Political pr firms appear to be the most effective at astroturfing online virality.
kache_ 5y ago
The democratic system shows its true nature when the media becomes democratic as well.
the_laka 5y ago
Shocking discovery. Really. What's next? Sarcasm is the most effective way to be funny? You heard it here first!
trentnix 5y ago
Well yes, because all political reporting is basically TMZ for boring, ugly people. It molds politics into some fantasy world of rap battles and gang fights rather than a productive discussion about making good policy. And if your first impulse is to think well yeah because the other side blah blah, you're part of the problem too.
- lifeisstillgood 5y ago
  >>> political reporting is basically TMZ for boring, ugly people. Can I get that on a TShirt please ? (And yes, was it Nietscheze who says politicians are just sales people for their manifestos?)
  - im_down_w_otp 5y ago
    Are they even that anymore? That seems like it would be an improvement. Now it seems like they're just cast members doing product placement for someone else's manifesto.
    - azinman2 5y ago
      Not even a manifesto. If you look at people like Marjorie Taylor Greene, their rise is basic upon mutual dislike, and nothing more. Just a willingness to “own” the other side. There is no manifesto (unless you consider god, guns and glory a manifesto), just hatred. And it’s extremely engaging for their respective base. I don’t blame the politicians per se, in some ways it’s democracy at work if that’s what the people want. We need to change what people fundamentally want to not be based upon us vs them mentality.
      - smaddox 5y ago
        Or perhaps we need to change our democracy to stop enforcing a duopoly. I firmly believe that widely implementing STAR Voting (https://www.starvoting.us/ https://www.starvoting.us/) would fix a large swath of problems in politics and public policy.
3grdlurker 5y ago
There’s a lot of commentary here on news reporting and social media but I really don’t think that this is a problem unique to our time. The end effect of virality is herd mentality, which then creates populism past a certain threshold, and we’ve certainly had populist leaders in history before.
- jahewson 5y ago
  > populism I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
hackeraccount 5y ago
Eh, the easiest most effective arguments are also the most toxic. The people who disagree with me aren't just wrong but they're disingenuous liars with an agenda so terrible even they won't admit to it. The people who disagree with me don't even understand what they're saying because they're just mindlessly repeating things they have been indoctrinated to believe. Neither of those will convince anyone of anything but it makes people who already agree really happy and it drives those people who disagree up a wall.
- vkou 5y ago
  There's a reason for this. The reason for it is that you don't win elections by convincing the other side that they are wrong, and they should vote for you. You win elections by convincing your side to show up. And the best way to do it is by telling your side that giving the victory to your opponent is voting for a Trump.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > The reason for it is that you don't win elections by convincing the other side that they are wrong, and they should vote for you. > You win elections by convincing your side to show up. And the other side not to, either voluntarily or by targeted voter suppression and disenfranchisement. At least, that’s all true in the US, but its mostly artifacts of a strongly-structurally-reinforced two-party system. In multiparty democracy, positive turnout tactics over persuasion is less effective because the activation energy to move to another party is smaller because you don’t just have polar opposites, and negative turnout tactics are less effective because you’ve got more targets to suppress. So persuasion is more important.
    - belorn 5y ago
      We see the same patterns in multiparty democracy. It could simply be behavior drawn from US influence, but I doubt it. What the article did not mention (but maybe the study did?) is that under brain scanners, few things trigger pleasure as much as imagining justified violence. It is also very addictive in term of neurochemistry. In multiparty democracies, the one thing that can however temporary reduce the problem is the consequences of minority government. If enough parties refuses to talk to each other, and always vote against the others, you end up with a situation where the majority will votes no to everything. This does not work, so people then start to prioritize cooperation for a while.
kingsuper20 5y ago
It doesn't strike me as particularly new, politicians in days of yore were pretty durned hard on each other. and usually better read than the current crop. My favorite variation of all this is the micro variety. . Find a social media maven with a zillion followers . Say something horrid to them . Get them to respond . Huzzah! Instant fame or at least a few followers for yourself. . Wash rinse repeat.
chobytes 5y ago
When I was younger I got a bit notable online by doing just this. You can pick up thousands of followers on twitter in a couple weeks by just picking hot topics and big targets, and publicly dunking on them. Ive grown out of the behavior but its definitely left me very cynical about politics.
hhs 5y ago
The paper is also worth reading. Here's part of the conclusion: "Understanding the factors that make social media posts go “viral” online can help to create better social media environments. While social media platforms are not fully transparent about how their algorithmic ranking system works, Facebook announced in a post titled “Bringing People Closer Together” that it was changing its algorithm ranking system to value “deeper” forms of engagement, such as reactions and comments (68). Ironically, posts about the political out-group were particularly effective at generating comments and reactions (particularly the “angry” reaction, the most popular reaction across our studies). In other words, these algorithmic changes made under the guise of bringing people closer together may have helped prioritize posts including out-group animosity." [0] [0]: https://www.pnas.org/content/118/26/e2024292118 https://www.pnas.org/content/118/26/e2024292118
- zekrioca 5y ago
  Remains to be seen what "deeper" means for them. I'd say they reached deep enough.
cinntaile 5y ago
Where was this trend started? In my mind it was Nigel Farage in Europe that successfully exploited this strategy first, but most of these trends tend to come from the US. Who started this in the US?
platz 5y ago
The Toxoplasma Of Rage https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23972391 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23972391 X can get everyone to agree in principle that Q is bad, but no one will pay any attention to it. And Y can get everyone to pay attention to Q, but a lot of people who would otherwise oppose it will switch to supporting it just because they’re so mad at the way it’s being publicized. At least Y got them to pay attention! They’re traveling up an incentive gradient that rewards them for doing so, even if it destroys their credibility.
klyrs 5y ago
This story is so meta. Most of the comments here are slamming the press and social media users for slamming politicians for slamming eachother. Slam slam slam. And here I am, slamming the lot of you. Serious question though. Is this merely a neologism used to describe a phenomenon that was old before Cicero lost his head?
- CyanBird 5y ago
  > Is this merely a neologism used to describe a phenomenon that was old before Cicero lost his head? Yep it is Only now there's reduced geographic friction from it, so the waves can get larger quicker, "social media deterritorializes politics" if you'd like to get pedantic about it
- kansface 5y ago
  > Serious question though. Is this merely a neologism used to describe a phenomenon that was old before Cicero lost his head? While there may be nothing new under the sun, there is still plenty of room for the relative prevalence of slamming vs engaging to change in American political communiques, and for the press' coverage of slamming to change as well.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  You haven't noticed some changes in politics in the West in the last 10 years? The rise of polarization and conspiracy theories is very well documented.
techbio 5y ago
Just like ESPN highlight reels raise the visibility of athletes. Bread and circus alive and well.
jonnycomputer 5y ago
Sometimes I wish they just disabled the share button.
williesleg 5y ago
Hacker news!
spaetzleesser 5y ago
Foxnews are experts at this language. Their front page is full of “slams”, “rips”, “fires back”, “scold” or “hits”. If this is your main news source it will make you think that the world is just one big conflict.
aliasEli 5y ago
It seems a nice piece of research with a not very surprising result

111 points by hhs 5y ago

People just regurgitate their sides last night narrative presented to them on their favourite news network. the commitment to truth has been lost. Its all about framing now.

username90 5y ago
"How can not everyone know the obvious truth I just learned about 5 minutes ago reading an opinion piece!?"
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> People just regurgitate their sides last night narrative In my experience, this is one of those tropes. Yes, people will harmonize on their explanations and positions on certain debates. That's human nature. Watch a family describe one of its members and you'll see the same phenomenon. If you go out and talk to voters about what matters to them, however, one tends to find a diversity of topics.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  It's hard to believe that the voters I talk to face-to-face are the same human being, the same society and community, posting online. We perhaps need to bring offline behavior norms into the online world.
Layke1123 5y ago
Lol, there never was a commitment to the truth on the right. Only what keeps us in power.
rhino369 5y ago
IMO, framing things as "truth" or "falsehood" is part of the problem. Each side dismisses the other side as just not knowing the right facts (or denying the facts), as if everyone would agree if they just knew the right facts. The media dug in on this very hard after the 2016 with the "fake news" and "fact-checking" crusades. Reality is a lot more complicated. Even if we agreed on the facts, we don't agree on conclusions based on those facts. Or even what the right result should be. For example, there is a big factual dispute over whether the border is having a "crisis." But the earnest dispute is really just whether the US should allow illegal immigrants to come here or not. I think the biggest problem is we avoid grappling with our fundamental disagreements and we don't honestly engage with what the other side is arguing. Both sides have basically labeled opinions they disagree with as, at best uniformed/ignorant, and at worst, evil (racist, communist, bigoted, depraved). Nobody is really trying to convince the other side. They are just trying to whip up a frenzy on their side and shame the other side into shutting up. I've voted for both parties in the past (W Bush & Obama), but I don't think I could have a real political discussion with someone I meet at party without being attacked personally and viciously. And I know I can't post political views on social media without some psychopath trying to get me fired. Everyone is addicted to anger.
- s5300 5y ago
  >Everyone is addicted to anger. Is exactly what a person addicted to anger would say. No, believe it or not, everybody is not addicted to anger - but those who are sure as hell like to perpetuate the idea of it and spread their toxicity
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

programmarchy 5y ago

Yeah, feels we're screwed at the moment. I subscribe to both DNC and RNC mailing lists and it's typical to see things like "Trump Rally BACKFIRES" and "The Radical Left is trying to destroy America". I try to laugh it off thinking people can't be dumb enough to buy into this, but then I'm gripped by the terrifying reality that actually yes, they are. Dunking on opponents really wouldn't be all that bad if there was some actual debate progressing, where ideas could be tested and improved, but that seems to have stagnated to a large degree.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
The use of slang like dunking, slamming, murdering, and so on by adults in a professional arena is embarrassing.
- nemo44x 5y ago
  We are not a serious country any more.
  - vkou 5y ago
    I don't think you would be able to find a single time period in the history of this country where yellow political journalism was not wildly popular.
- mizzack 5y ago
  Unless it's a literal arena.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    I just had a vision of a dystopian(?) future where politicians unable to reach a compromise are forced to fight in the thunderdome, but they were still a bunch of old pasty white guys.
mistrial9 5y ago
I suspect that there are varying amounts of return on effort, and that their strategists have learned that in a two party ONLY system, with low voter turnout regularly, that just agitating those already on your side to do something, in any way that happens, is more return on effort than convincing people or other variations. There are feedback effects within their decision making that dampen and then eliminate new ideas, which reinforces "return to the party line" and opposite of "take our group in a new direction with this idea" ; anti-evolution basically..

hndirect 5y ago

> Unless social media companies start penalising polarising content and rewarding more constructive posts, Twitter and Facebook are not shy about having a hand in the conversation. If anything they reward polarizing content, and they've shown interest in censoring wrongthink, but do they have any interest in turning down the temperature? > these platforms will continue to be swamped by political animosity that risks spilling into real-world turmoil. It's more than a risk, it's been spilling into real-world turmoil for years.

whatshisface 5y ago
I think it is interesting that high temperature plus censoring wrongthink makes two minute's hate. Calling things Orwellian is something of a cliche, but it is occasionally appropriate.
ruined 5y ago
a subset of journalists seem to continually forget that media is still real, social media perhaps even more so nobody else seems to have this delusion, except cops responsible for investigating threats and harassment campaigns against individuals.

anm89 5y ago

I've noticed this hilarious thing where within the left leaning media sphere, the only verbs that Ocasio-Cortez and to a lesser degree Bernie ever engage in is "slamming". They don't eat, sleep, debate, propose, or discuss. They just slam 24/7. I googled her to verify the spelling on her name and the first headline was: "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez slams the lack of diversity in an all-white group of lawmakers who drafted a bipartisan infrastructure deal"

handrous 5y ago
Not to "both sides" it, but... well, both sides do this in their reporting. Sometimes they also "own" or "destroy" someone. I don't think it's partisan. That kind of language gets clicks, so everyone's optimized for it.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  I'm not so sure about it not being partisan. When I think of "own" in this context, it's mostly in relation to "owning the libs." I'm not sure if this particular usage is used mostly by left-leaning pols ironically, or right-leaning pols unironically, however.
  - GeekyBear 5y ago
    At least as far back as the Jon Stewart era of the Daily Show, there was nothing ironic about it. I believe "destroy" was the preferred nomenclature back then.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - handrous 5y ago
    It started out used seriously on right-wing YouTube and forums, but it probably is the case that right-wing use of it is now self-consciously imitating the parodic use of it by the left, so by now it's irony all the way down. [EDIT] downvoters: is this wrong? My perception was that "own" was originally (in a political context—its roots are in gaming, of course) used as a fairly ordinary headline/title intensifier to get more clicks, mostly on the right (for that particular word—everyone plays with language to get more clicks, of course), that parodic use on the left followed, and I'm guessing that its continued use on the right is with some awareness of the way it's been mocked on the left, so has likely changed the intent with which it's employed.

Spooky23 5y ago

Of course. Virality is a mob action… you always get a visceral reaction from the mob being against something. If you’re running for local office, what gets more attention when you troll social media? Talking about policy to improve storm sewers or claiming that your opponent is a communist who wants to kill children? What gets more attention? In my hometown, a guy got on the non-partisan school board on a platform of being pro-gun, and against his “woke” opponent, who was accused of hating veterans.

dinkleberg 5y ago

On mobile that is the most intense cookie consent I’ve ever seen.

tengbretson 5y ago

Alternative title: Political pr firms appear to be the most effective at astroturfing online virality.

kache_ 5y ago

The democratic system shows its true nature when the media becomes democratic as well.

the_laka 5y ago

Shocking discovery. Really. What's next? Sarcasm is the most effective way to be funny? You heard it here first!

trentnix 5y ago

Well yes, because all political reporting is basically TMZ for boring, ugly people. It molds politics into some fantasy world of rap battles and gang fights rather than a productive discussion about making good policy. And if your first impulse is to think well yeah because the other side blah blah, you're part of the problem too.

lifeisstillgood 5y ago
>>> political reporting is basically TMZ for boring, ugly people. Can I get that on a TShirt please ? (And yes, was it Nietscheze who says politicians are just sales people for their manifestos?)
- im_down_w_otp 5y ago
  Are they even that anymore? That seems like it would be an improvement. Now it seems like they're just cast members doing product placement for someone else's manifesto.
  - azinman2 5y ago
    Not even a manifesto. If you look at people like Marjorie Taylor Greene, their rise is basic upon mutual dislike, and nothing more. Just a willingness to “own” the other side. There is no manifesto (unless you consider god, guns and glory a manifesto), just hatred. And it’s extremely engaging for their respective base. I don’t blame the politicians per se, in some ways it’s democracy at work if that’s what the people want. We need to change what people fundamentally want to not be based upon us vs them mentality.
    - smaddox 5y ago
      Or perhaps we need to change our democracy to stop enforcing a duopoly. I firmly believe that widely implementing STAR Voting (https://www.starvoting.us/ https://www.starvoting.us/) would fix a large swath of problems in politics and public policy.

3grdlurker 5y ago

There’s a lot of commentary here on news reporting and social media but I really don’t think that this is a problem unique to our time. The end effect of virality is herd mentality, which then creates populism past a certain threshold, and we’ve certainly had populist leaders in history before.

jahewson 5y ago
> populism I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

hackeraccount 5y ago

Eh, the easiest most effective arguments are also the most toxic. The people who disagree with me aren't just wrong but they're disingenuous liars with an agenda so terrible even they won't admit to it. The people who disagree with me don't even understand what they're saying because they're just mindlessly repeating things they have been indoctrinated to believe. Neither of those will convince anyone of anything but it makes people who already agree really happy and it drives those people who disagree up a wall.

vkou 5y ago
There's a reason for this. The reason for it is that you don't win elections by convincing the other side that they are wrong, and they should vote for you. You win elections by convincing your side to show up. And the best way to do it is by telling your side that giving the victory to your opponent is voting for a Trump.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The reason for it is that you don't win elections by convincing the other side that they are wrong, and they should vote for you. > You win elections by convincing your side to show up. And the other side not to, either voluntarily or by targeted voter suppression and disenfranchisement. At least, that’s all true in the US, but its mostly artifacts of a strongly-structurally-reinforced two-party system. In multiparty democracy, positive turnout tactics over persuasion is less effective because the activation energy to move to another party is smaller because you don’t just have polar opposites, and negative turnout tactics are less effective because you’ve got more targets to suppress. So persuasion is more important.
  - belorn 5y ago
    We see the same patterns in multiparty democracy. It could simply be behavior drawn from US influence, but I doubt it. What the article did not mention (but maybe the study did?) is that under brain scanners, few things trigger pleasure as much as imagining justified violence. It is also very addictive in term of neurochemistry. In multiparty democracies, the one thing that can however temporary reduce the problem is the consequences of minority government. If enough parties refuses to talk to each other, and always vote against the others, you end up with a situation where the majority will votes no to everything. This does not work, so people then start to prioritize cooperation for a while.

kingsuper20 5y ago

It doesn't strike me as particularly new, politicians in days of yore were pretty durned hard on each other. and usually better read than the current crop. My favorite variation of all this is the micro variety. . Find a social media maven with a zillion followers . Say something horrid to them . Get them to respond . Huzzah! Instant fame or at least a few followers for yourself. . Wash rinse repeat.

chobytes 5y ago

When I was younger I got a bit notable online by doing just this. You can pick up thousands of followers on twitter in a couple weeks by just picking hot topics and big targets, and publicly dunking on them. Ive grown out of the behavior but its definitely left me very cynical about politics.

hhs 5y ago

The paper is also worth reading. Here's part of the conclusion: "Understanding the factors that make social media posts go “viral” online can help to create better social media environments. While social media platforms are not fully transparent about how their algorithmic ranking system works, Facebook announced in a post titled “Bringing People Closer Together” that it was changing its algorithm ranking system to value “deeper” forms of engagement, such as reactions and comments (68). Ironically, posts about the political out-group were particularly effective at generating comments and reactions (particularly the “angry” reaction, the most popular reaction across our studies). In other words, these algorithmic changes made under the guise of bringing people closer together may have helped prioritize posts including out-group animosity." [0] [0]: https://www.pnas.org/content/118/26/e2024292118 https://www.pnas.org/content/118/26/e2024292118

zekrioca 5y ago
Remains to be seen what "deeper" means for them. I'd say they reached deep enough.

cinntaile 5y ago

Where was this trend started? In my mind it was Nigel Farage in Europe that successfully exploited this strategy first, but most of these trends tend to come from the US. Who started this in the US?

platz 5y ago

The Toxoplasma Of Rage https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23972391 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23972391 X can get everyone to agree in principle that Q is bad, but no one will pay any attention to it. And Y can get everyone to pay attention to Q, but a lot of people who would otherwise oppose it will switch to supporting it just because they’re so mad at the way it’s being publicized. At least Y got them to pay attention! They’re traveling up an incentive gradient that rewards them for doing so, even if it destroys their credibility.

klyrs 5y ago

This story is so meta. Most of the comments here are slamming the press and social media users for slamming politicians for slamming eachother. Slam slam slam. And here I am, slamming the lot of you. Serious question though. Is this merely a neologism used to describe a phenomenon that was old before Cicero lost his head?

CyanBird 5y ago
> Is this merely a neologism used to describe a phenomenon that was old before Cicero lost his head? Yep it is Only now there's reduced geographic friction from it, so the waves can get larger quicker, "social media deterritorializes politics" if you'd like to get pedantic about it
kansface 5y ago
> Serious question though. Is this merely a neologism used to describe a phenomenon that was old before Cicero lost his head? While there may be nothing new under the sun, there is still plenty of room for the relative prevalence of slamming vs engaging to change in American political communiques, and for the press' coverage of slamming to change as well.
wolverine876 5y ago
You haven't noticed some changes in politics in the West in the last 10 years? The rise of polarization and conspiracy theories is very well documented.

techbio 5y ago

Just like ESPN highlight reels raise the visibility of athletes. Bread and circus alive and well.

jonnycomputer 5y ago

Sometimes I wish they just disabled the share button.

williesleg 5y ago

Hacker news!

spaetzleesser 5y ago

Foxnews are experts at this language. Their front page is full of “slams”, “rips”, “fires back”, “scold” or “hits”. If this is your main news source it will make you think that the world is just one big conflict.

aliasEli 5y ago

It seems a nice piece of research with a not very surprising result