Wait can I get paid too? I don’t follow any politicians on social media. Sign me up!
Comment on A few people are ruining the internet for the rest of us
reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net 4 days ago
In a recent series of experiments, we paid people a few dollars to unfollow the most divisive political accounts on X. After a month, they reported feeling 23% less animosity towards other political groups. In fact, their experience was so positive that nearly half the people declined to refollow those hostile accounts after the study was over. And those who maintain their healthier newsfeed reported less animosity a full 11 months after the study.
Found this bit interesting
algorithmae@lemmy.sdf.org 3 days ago
tangentism@beehaw.org 4 days ago
Spoon found in kitchen. More from Tom at 7
DragonSidedD@monero.town 4 days ago
I delete all my social media periodically for similar reasons.
Even communities of people who are really level headed and supportive, like academics and engineers. Eventually there is groupthink, tribalism, and generally people who I am over (and I’m sure it’s mutual)
p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 days ago
This sounds like a call to be willfully ignorant of the serious political shit going down around them. That’s how you get the average idiot who doesn’t understand why voting for a guy like Trump is a bad idea.
reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net 3 days ago
Yeah it’s kind of like the psychological advice to let go of things you can’t control. That’s fine when it’s your annoying boss (within limits) but not fine when it’s mass kidnappings.
memfree@piefed.social 2 days ago
No, not in context. They are talking about disimformation like, "using YOUR tax dollars, funded bioweapon research, including Covid-19" from Musk. They say:
So if you cut out the the most divisive political accounts, you will not miss ANY actual news, but are likely to miss a huge pile of disinformation.
p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
No, you just cut out the misinformation. If they are spreading vaccine misinformation on Facebook, fuck them. Cut them out. Never read a thing they put out again.
It’s not about divisiveness. It’s about critical thinking skills.
memfree@piefed.social 2 days ago
I am not confident I or most other Americans can always tell what is misinformation. A recent bout of AI generated 'Am I the A-hole?' post on reddit recently got a bunch of people angry (Meta would say, 'highly engaged') because enough of them though the stories might be true.
When the Fukishima power plant got hit by a tidal wave, I foolishly believed an 'expert' on TV that day who said the plant was designed so that lead shielding hoods would automatically cover the rods in the event of power loss. Well THAT didn't happen. I no longer remember who the 'expert' was, so he could fool me again. Maybe he has.
t3rmit3@beehaw.org 2 days ago
Mis/disinformation is not the same as “divisive political content”. Political content can be both true, and divisive (e.g. Trump being a pedophile). Something that is accepted by the majority may still be misinformation, yet not be divisive.
Truthfulness determines whether something is misinformation. How much something matches a group’s beliefs determines whether it is divisive: if everyone agreed that the world was flat, that would not be divisive to state, but it would be misinformation.
Conflating them entrenches the perception that the most widely-held, non-“divisive” viewpoint must not be misinformation.
Go check out Truth Social if you want to see what a space where only “non-divisive” (to them) but near-total misinformation looks like.
memfree@piefed.social 2 days ago
I agree that as categories, the are different things, just as 'tools' are not the same as 'weapons', but ignoring the perncious overlap borders on criminal. If you follow actual news sites and reporters but omit the likes of Musk, you will still see Musk quoted, but it is more likely to be properly discredited where needed. At no point does the article suggest you avoid all partisan content, it simply says the most divisive is likely to hurt us all. You know the platforms profit from engagement, so they'll promote the worst offenders' content upward, but we don't have to take that bait.
The accounts with the MOST divisive political content are unlikely to be your best source of information. You might hate Rachel Maddow or Charlie Kirk, but you''ll be better off getting news from a generic MSNBC or FOX feed than either personality. Better still, pick BBC, Reuters, and AlJazeera to see a variety of views.
A reverse example of context: Project 2025 never explicitly says anything about IVF, but it repeatedly talks about human life "from conception to natural death", which would mean IVF would be problematic. If you try quoting just the last sentence in this chunk, 'day one' might be interpreted as birth, but in context, 'day one' is obviously conception:
P.S. Do we agree that Bernie Sanders is NOT divisive? That the majority of actual people agree with most of what Bernie says, and it is only a few rich interests that object?