This paper reflects a lot of my experiences, but I think the "Why are false norms worse online than offline?" didn't make a good case. Platforms like Mastodon,

This paper reflects a lot of my experiences, but I think the "Why are false norms worse online than offline?" didn't make a good case. Platforms like Mastodon, which do not have algorithms, are just as or are even more distorted than algorithmic platforms like X. How can this paper blame it on algorithms, then, if a platform without one ends up the same way? (Possible counterpoint: Mastodon is more extreme because it could represent a platform that people banned from other platforms move to, though the differences between mainstream Mastodon opinions and mainstream offline opinions are so large that I don't think this is the real reason either.) The paper says "Platforms then sell ad space to companies based on indices of attention. As such, there is a strong incentive for users to create content that maximizes engagement–rather than content that reflects reality." This does not follow. Users don't usually make money from ads. I do think users do want to create content that maximizes engagement, but this is simply for ego and impact, not due to monetary incentives. The paper later says that "This is compounded due to the fact that there is often little motivation for someone to post a nuanced or moderate opinion on social media." I think this is the real reason, but either way, I think the paper is not convincing at establishing any kind of causality for "online social media" being worse than "offline social media". Figure 3 is also confusing. What does "moral" and "immoral" mean?