Are a few people ruining the internet for the rest of us?
www.theguardian.com
Why does the online world seem so toxic compared with normal life? Our research shows that a small number of divisive accounts could be responsible – and offers a way out

I can’t abide an unnecessary question hed.

When I scroll through social media, I often leave demoralized, with the sense that the entire world is on fire and people are inflamed with hatred towards one another. Yet, when I step outside into the streets of New York City to grab a coffee or meet a friend for lunch, it feels downright tranquil. The contrast between the online world and my daily reality has only gotten more jarring.

Since my own work is focused on topics such as intergroup conflict, misinformation, technology and climate change, I’m aware of the many challenges facing humanity. Yet, it seems striking that people online seem to be just as furious about the finale of The White Lotus or the latest scandal involving a YouTuber. Everything is either the best thing ever or the absolute worst, no matter how trivial. Is that really what most of us are feeling? No, as it turns out. Our latest research suggests that what we’re seeing online is a warped image created by a very small group of highly active users.

  • memfree@piefed.socialEnglish
    1·
    19 hours ago

    I, too, know the trend of criminal U.S. administrations to tell the other side to tone it down and just go with the President. The current administration makes me more outraged than post-9/11 when we knew the hijackers were Saudis, we knew bin Laden was around Afghanistan/Pakistan, and we had a team of Nuclear inspectors WITHIN Iraq saying they’d found no evidence of such weapons, yet a few days before their official report was finished, Bush declares war on Iraq? With no exit strategy? When Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?

    Rather than suggesting we all calm down, or that true patriots back the President, I’m simply seeing the article’s point in asking people to stop following the top, say, 2% most divisive voices. It is a sad truth that the worst liars will get their followers to disbelieve Dr. Fauci such that he becomes divisive through no fault of his own, but he won’t hit the critical ‘worst’ list because he’s not spouting vitriol of his own.

    As far as Bernie goes, there were a good number of Bernie backers at Trump rallies, so I honestly doubt that anyone but moneyed think tanks have much bad to say about him.

    • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
      1·
      3 hours ago

      I’m simply seeing the article’s point in asking people to stop following the top, say, 2% most divisive voices.

      I would perhaps believe this if the article (or the study) actually listed those accounts. As it is, all they’re doing is leaving it up to readers’ perceptions who the “divisive” accounts are, and insinuating that those are likely misinformation. It’s just pushing people towards the political center.

      there were a good number of Bernie backers at Trump rallies

      In 2016, 12% of people who voted Sanders in the primary voted for Trump in the general. By the 2020 election, that demo was gone. In 2016 Trump was a rebellion vote against the rigged democratic primary, but after Trump’s first term, they’d all seen what a monster he was, and begrudgingly voted Biden.

      I honestly doubt that anyone but moneyed think tanks have much bad to say about him

      I don’t think you’ve spoken with many Trumpers (or centrist dems, but that’s another story) if you think they don’t have bad things to say about Sanders. I discussed him extensively with conservatives in my sphere. The conversation usually goes something along the lines of, “yeah, it’s great he’s pro-union and wants to fix healthcare, but he’s also pro illegal immigration and wants to raise taxes through the roof! You know he’s a socialist, right?” The better-informed/ indoctrinated ones will even bring up things like him (correctly) lauding the literacy gains in Cuba under Castro.