Yes and no, and I’m going to constantly plug network propaganda because it’s the easiest way to point this out. I suppose the shorter version is to hear out the

Yes and no, and I’m going to constantly plug network propaganda because it’s the easiest way to point this out. I suppose the shorter version is to hear out the section where Rob Faris speaks in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGTmuHeFdAo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGTmuHeFdAo. The very clear finding is that the issue isn’t the algorithm its in the information production systems on the left+center vs right. On the right, crucially - sense is made by first having a narrative, getting it amplified by major voices, and then seeking out facts to support it. Counter views do exist, but they dont get amplified. On the Left+center we have your typical media and information economy which we think everyone is a part of. Ie you get punished for having the facts wrong or being inaccurate. The right is about looking like they are smart, but primarily about selling narratives. —— There IS also a problem with the algorithms, in that it creates a fitness function that highly emotional and engaging content survives better than boring and long form content. Or more precisely, highly emotional and engaging content spreads more. But since reach, time on site, etc, are linked with advertising revenue they are essentially conflated with economic viability. The exact linkage though, is a change in the content consumption mix of humans. Humans have only N hours of content they will consume in a day, and some % of that time will be allocated to high cognitive load, kinda-boring content. Your market will be smaller, but there is a sliver of a market that does exist. It’s just that the effort to payout here, is not as effective as making content that gets more views. Yes, it describes the same process, just with extra steps, but each of these steps is a different place which can be approached to alleviate the issue of engagement vs accuracy.