49 ms·

It's like a societal autoimmune disease - when there's not a real, immediate event to react to, something has to be found to fill the airtime that is compelling

• Mezzie 4y ago
  This is a brilliant comparison.
• Nextgrid 4y ago
  > social media has the added "benefit" of finding that filler algorithmically Algorithmically, tailored per-user and without any oversight. Traditional media can't peddle too extreme viewpoints because that would alienate a large chunk of their target market. Social media on the other hand can tailor the content for each individual user as to achieve maximum engagement without the risk of alienating anyone. Traditional media is also subject to oversight (some people - or government watchdogs - can just record the TV programme as evidence) and regulations targeting broadcast media, where as social media isn't since nobody can monitor every individual user's feed, nor do they have the same regulations governing them (Fox got in trouble for peddling election misinformation, Facebook can promote exactly the same content and get away with it thanks to Section 230).
• jimwhite42 4y ago
  I think that when people are angry, they are more open to suggestion if you do it right. So this is a way to make people more receptive to buying a particular product or subscription, or to supporting a political cause, etc., if you don't make them angry about something first and do nothing else different, you get less conversions. And of all the different ways to improve in this kind of metric, the make-people-angry method one is relatively easy and requires relatively less competence.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]