Inside the funhouse mirror factory: How social media distorts perceptions of norms – ScienceDirect:
Online discussions are dominated by a surprisingly small, extremely vocal, and non-representative minority. Research on social media has found that, while only 3 % of active accounts are toxic, they produce 33 % of all content [4]. Furthermore, 74 % of all online conflicts are started in just 1 % of communities [5], and 0.1 % of users shared 80 % of fake news [6,7]. Not only does this extreme minority stir discontent, spread misinformation, and spark outrage online, they also bias the meta-perceptions of most users who passively “lurk” online. This can lead to false polarization and pluralistic ignorance, which are linked to a number of problems including drug and alcohol use [8], intergroup hostility [9,10], and support for authoritarian regimes [11]. Furthermore, exposure to extreme content can normalize unhealthy and dangerous behavior. For example, teens exposed to extreme content related to alcohol consumption thought dangerous alcohol consumption was normative [12].
The current paper explains who social media creates a funhouse mirror version of reality., We draw from work in political science, psychology, and cognitive science to explain how online environments become saturated with false norms, who is misrepresented online, what happens when online norms deviate from offline norms, where online people are affected, and why expressions are more extreme online. We provide a framework for understanding and correcting the distortions in our social perceptions created by social media platforms. We argue the funhouse mirror nature of social media can be pernicious for individuals and society by causing pluralistic ignorance and false polarization.
New paper posted at the link above. A tiny percentage of accounts – which may be connected to an even smaller number of people in real life – are able to poison social relationships because of the way social media artificial intelligence promotes them to most users.
The algorithm has tuned itself to provide the greatest financial return to the platform owners. It’s doing what it was told to do, and doing it effectively.
If greed is a form of idolatry as St. Paul says in Eph 5:5 or Col 3:5, then I get why scripture rails against it. The second hand effects are devastating.
This also tells us a lot about how cults work. Interesting.
Agreed. So … what can we *do* about it?
Peace, brother – Eliot Moss
It’s been an interesting experience to compare the way I feel about current events now that Twitter is basically gone and I’m not using any Meta owned product. (I’m mostly just on Mastodon.) I think, like we’ve done with other public health issues, there needs to be a cultural and perhaps legal response to all of this.
That said, I’m not optimistic. But those who are concerned can start sharing this sort of research… granted it’s not likely to get lots of traction on social media.