<< As casual users disengage and polarized partisans remain vocal, the online public sphere grows smaller, sharper, and more ideologically extreme.
It.. feels accurate. I don't frequent FB or other mainstream social spots, but even on HN, the pattern is relatively clear. Vocal minorities tend to drive the conversations to their respective corners, while the middle quietly moves to, at most, watch at a safe distance.
Part of me is happy about it. The sooner we get out of the social media landscape, the better the society as a whole will be.. in my opinion anyway. Still, we have already lost so much of the original internet. That loss makes me sad.
The article uses the word "partisan", the opposite of which I think is "independent", not "centrist" or "middle", but to be fair the article seems to conflate the two as well and never uses the word "independent".
However to me there is a big difference between being a centrist and being independent. One could be independent with views that are at times deemed extreme right and at times extreme left.
Similarly, some people are "centrist" yet somehow deeply partisan in the sense that their party can do no wrong and everything is the fault of the other party.
It is a valid question. I looked at the author's profile and while he is not from US ( Amsterdam ), his studies focus[1] appears to be on subjects that would suggest he should be relatively well acquainted with politics in US along with how they differ in terms of terminology from EU or UK. Sadly, I can't seem to say for sure how term was intended in the article itself. That said, the author does seem to reference individual US parties.
This. Partisanship is going along party lines (agreeing with the Party) where independence is thinking of your own free will. We desperately need more of those people in charge.
Why would the party support them?
Those are the people who do the nost work for the party. People who 'toe the line' are also those who tend not to do the work that gets people elected. People who care enough to think also knock of doors and the other work that gets someone elected. You won't find a thinking person you 100% agree with, but a mostly agree is better than a mostly disagree - and by doing that work you also get to talk to people and perhaps change minds.
For the team? For the influence? There used to be a time when people could work across the aisle.
You can have beliefs, but you also must have heart and a brain to open your world view to other perspectives. This is what being an adult is all about. Not this crap that we see today.
The problem with “the middle” is that’s relative to the Overton window. Federal troops assassinating kneeling protesters didn’t used to be “one side” with “the middle” suggesting they should simply arrest them and lock them up.
It is a major simplification to put the political spectrum on a single line
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum). If we put it as a triangle, the Overton window can be as far from left to right as left/right is to the middle.
The Overton window is not involved in defining the middle, and the middle definitively do not need to agree 50% with any specific decision done by the left or right.
[deleted]
>Federal troops assassinating kneeling protesters didn’t used to be “one side”
This is factually not true. Levels of violence by the state against citizens in the United States is at near historic lows. The state killed dozens of children in Waco in the 90s, bombed domestic buildings in Philadelphia in the 80s, shot protestors Kent State University in the 70s, going back to the early years of the USA where protests and rebellions were put down with private militias and bounties. The shooting by one officer of one protester in a scuffle with officers wouldn't have reached the history books in any other time.
[flagged]
Jan 6 suggests those are merely tourists, not terrorists, even if they are trying to assassinate the VP.
All of the people there were trying to assassinate the VP? How come no one's been charged for assassination attempt?
"According to an F.B.I. affidavit the panel highlighted ... a government informant said that members of the far-right militant group the Proud Boys told him they would have killed Pence 'if given the chance.' The rioters on January 6th almost had that chance, coming within forty feet of the Vice-President as he fled to safety."
Sorry I didn't catch that, how many? And government informant? This is your source?
> All of the people there were trying to assassinate the VP?
Sure seemed like it. All those people chanting to kill the VP? Sure seems like it.
> How come no one's been charged for assassination attempt?
Corruption? Doesn't change the facts. They were trying to kill the VP.
Pretend what you want, there were 1500+ that day that certain people said were just tourists.
It was a riot and attack on the capitol in support of an attempt to overturn a legitimate election result. Isn't that bad enough? Why do you have to lie and claim that it was an assassination attempt on Mike Pence?
So you're suggesting there were 1,500 potential assassins? Record yourself and play it back and tell me if you agree with what you said.
"1,500 people were trying to kill the VP" - mentally ill person
[flagged]
> edit: and to all the lazy downvoters. argue with me ye bums ( name calling very much intended here ). if you cant even manage that, what are you doing here?
Is this irony? You literally just posted about arguments from vocal minorities on HN and other social media driving people away.
In the immortal words of the elder Elaine Benice: it means whatever you want it to mean. What I want is for someone to respond to my message as opposed to a lazy button press. But I dream.
You say socially approved catch phrases and yet people are being shot in my city by federal agents, and I carry a passport knowing that it will do me no good if they decide to crack my head in. When do words have meanings that connect to reality for you personally?
Thank you. This is more reasonable way of phrasing this. That said, it is almost completely irrelevant to the subject at hand. Is it acceptable for you if I simply do not engage or am I obligated to offer a personal value statement as if I were an embassy representative?
I am not making fun of you. I treat words very seriously. I also treat them seriously enough to not direct every conversation to my pet cause ( whatever it may be ).
People are being shot that are interfering with said federal agents. Absolute excessive use of force but it’s stupid to present this as if there isn’t an easy way to avoid it.
[dead]
[flagged]
> and to all the lazy downvoters. argue with me ye bums ( name calling very much intended here ).
Sure. You can guess the "camp", but so what? Must we all use value-neutral language when discussing an issue? I take issue with centrism for centrism's sake. If your goal is to take two points of view and treat them as equals then that grants a systemic advantage to whoever has the more insane view. By not calling something what it is you legitimize atrocities. Fuck centrism. Believe in something, you coward.
<< Believe in something, you coward.
:D I appreciate it. I truly do. I am somewhat aghast that someone would suggest that centrism, as a whole, is a not, in itself, a belief system. If anything, centrists seem to believe in actual principles ( and thus sides with whoever seems to embody those best at any given time ). On the other hand, it really are those pesky zealot believers that are causing all that ruckus..
<< By not calling something what it is you legitimize atrocities.
Oh man. Please, share with me the unsaid truth that must not be spoken. I am not joking. Speak whatever is in your heart and I will personally carry it far and wide in the cities near me.
> If anything, centrists seem to believe in actual principles ( and thus sides with whoever seems to embody those best at any given time ).
What principles could a person have that would put them in the center of US politics right now?
> Please, share with me the unsaid truth that must not be spoken. I am not joking. Speak whatever is in your heart and I will personally carry it far and wide in the cities near me.
Sure. My principles are that those with power must be held to higher, not lower, standards of conduct and accountability. When you act like maybe there's something to the obvious and boldfaced lie that the two recent killings by ICE* were done in self-defense then you are shifting the scope of acceptable conduct towards lawlessness. Playing both sides makes you an enemy of civil society.
The "liberal" media has their version of events, largely blaming "insufficient training." The killers had 10+ years of experience in their roles. When interviewing administration officials reporters refuse to call them liars or question their motivations, instead suggesting that they are simply mistaken.
And of course the official right-wing line is that the murdered civilians were extremist terrorists who attacked law enforcement officers and deserved what they got. Full-throated endorsement of street executions. Where is your centrism? What is the center between these two positions? I align myself more with the former because it's at least not totally deranged. I'm not a partisan because I don't think the Democrats or media agree with my values, but I'm also not going to equivocate between them and Republicans and act like I'm stranded in the middle of two positions. The solution isn't in the middle of two wrong answers, it's something else entirely.
*: (or was it CBP? They all blend together all of a sudden)
Interesting.
<< What principles could a person have that would put them in the center of US politics right now?
Any? All? None? Everything in between? The question itself is rather faulty, which prompted me to respond the way I did. There is a reason for it too beyond pure rhetoric: centrists overlap with US independents so their goals are not as easily labeled ( I suppose ).
Maybe I am approaching it the wrong way.
What do you think each side of US American politics are defined by what principle now?
<< Playing both sides makes you an enemy of civil society.
See.. it is almost as if you did not read my opening paragraph. Statement like that by itself is not exactly conducive to dialogue. I normally would not care, but I note it as we are attempting to have a conversation. Statement like that undermines it for a simple person like me.
<< Where is your centrism?
Oh boy.
<< What is the center between these two positions?
In the middle?
<< When you act like maybe there's something to the obvious and boldfaced lie that the two recent killings by ICE* were done in self-defense then you are shifting the scope of acceptable conduct towards lawlessness.
I can give you Pretti. Despite some previous engagements suggesting he was not just 'some rando, who was at the wrong time at the wrong place', his death was less defensible in the context than Good's ( she actually did swipe that officer.. ). We can argue all day over intentions and whatnot, but that is basically where middle ground lies: in taking each thing as its own case. But we will not do any of that, will we.
<< The solution isn't in the middle of two wrong answers, it's something else entirely.
Color me intrigued. What is the answer?
Right on cue
What is the point of your three words here? Legitimately I don't get it.
The parent comment was about how the most partisan users post the most on social media and sure enough, the first response was by a partisan user.
And you are replying to a partisan user.
Not sure why this is relevant.
The paper says partisanship is strongly correlated with frequency of posting. Are you also pointing out that the commenters here are very partisan and this shows the paper is correct?
The problem is that "partisan" doesn't automatically mean "wrong".
People wield "the middle" as if it is some magic incantation that makes them correct or immune to criticism. In fact, it is generally the "middle" or, as I prefer to call them, the "inert" that tend to be wrong since they are always behind the curve rather than ahead of it.
In Milgram's experiment, only the most "partisan" refused to deliver the shocks. The "middle" dutifully continued right to the end and delivered the highest voltages even as their own distress mounted.
You may avoid politics, but politics may not avoid you.
I am ok with being called inert. In the context, this would suggest I am less easily swayed than most.
Someone very famous had words for you:
"Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."
There isn't exactly a "curve" to be behind, just as there isn't one single "history" that you can end up "on the wrong side of". Politics is just the constantly shifting borders in a formalised war for power between different groups, long term there is no single direction of "progress".
>You may avoid politics, but politics may not avoid you.
This is the correct view, in the sense that if you don't belong to some kind of tribe, you'll get ripped off by someone who does. The inert group are not wrong, but by participating less than the others in the battle for their collective self interest, they will end up being the ones taken advantage of.
They have the most to win/lose.
The rest are just going ‘WTF is this shit?!?’
(De)legitimation is the dominant meta. Much more than arguing on the merits of ideas, folks argue on the legitimate status of their opponents real or perceived stance. A lot of it attempts to play to the audience rather than either side open to changing their minds. That's how I read it at least.
[flagged]
[deleted]
> Part of me is happy about it. The sooner we get out of the social media landscape, the better the society as a whole will be.. in my opinion anyway. Still, we have already lost so much of the original internet. That loss makes me sad.
While I share the hope, it's probably not going to happen: most folks have moved from FB to use AI chats. Now it's the tool to manipulate opinions and habits. And it's working very well and nuanced. With AI, the society will be more divided, more polarised, and less happy than before.
And there's no way back already! Even if the web search works well one day, the folks desire (and habit!) to outsource thinking is too strong, especially among younger.
> the folks desire (and habit!) to outsource thinking is too strong, especially among younger.
The 'younger' only because they're forming habits in the time of AI. Most all humans tend towards minimising cognitive load; the making hard decisions and consideration of complex topics and situations. It's all about the tools that were available to you at the time you started to need those tools. The core is the same. Low-level, essentially sub-conscious, human behaviour change doesn't happen on a noticeable time frame^.
^ my opinion, not based on research. ie. feel free to critique.
What has changed is the awareness of the hacks that work on the human lizard brain, and therefore pandering to all that makes us weak and powerless in exchange for money and convenience. That's the part that makes it feel, for me, more likely that there's no way back. Those hacks will only get more refined and more streamlined into exploitation.
> With AI, the society will be more divided, more polarised, and less happy than before.
While I agree for less happy, I am not seeing AI chatbot been more divisive and polirised than social media in general. Am I missing something?
I mean it’s really not that hard to do a little research to find out that “most” people aren’t leaving Meta properties for ChatgpT
I don't think the social media landscape is inherently bad, but the ways in which it evolved. And I think the shift in social media towards consuming content instead of connecting with others is a direct reflection of the era we live in; one of abundant information.
Social media will stop becoming relevant when we stop treating each person as a mini corporation that needs to provide value, trying to optimize every aspect of your life in a life-long marketing campaign.
You may be onto something. It is a little bit like google when it first started showing ads. Initially, the ads were clearly marked and were promised to be relevant to the user, but that line has been moved slowly in a way to extract more and more value from the user.. while removing value that user already had.
I know social media had some real use cases. CL and FB marketplace are probably one good example of that. But the rest of it.. best I can say, my overall happiness jumped up after first month of going on a media diet.
[deleted]
What do you mean exactly by lost so much of the original internet?
To use internet lingo, no normies.
But to be more broad I'll present you the romantic version which is at least partly true. I miss that.
It used to feel like the internet was a place you went to explore and learn. It was harder to use and navigate, so most ordinary people did not spend much time there. Back then, a lot of people believed it would make the world better because everyone could access information and educate themselves.
That optimism did not survive contact with reality. Today you can carry essentially all human knowledge in your pocket, yet much of the internet is funneled through a handful of corporations whose business model is advertising and attention. Instead of helping people discover things, the dominant platforms optimize for keeping you scrolling with outrage, dopamine hits, and low value content. Worst thing is of course politics which moved in here.
The joy of exploring is done, but honestly I think that it atleast partly that the og users got older. Hackernews somehow reminding me the "old Internet", somehow alike people with desire to explore and have honest discussion on genuinely interesting topic.
> Still, we have already lost so much of the original internet.
Hyper-monetization killed it all
That's the result of excess censorship and PRs on those platform, you can play with people more or less easily but you can't re-program them at such speed. They understand and start rejecting the narrative.
Vocal minorities vary but tend just to excite the others, not to affirm any point.
There is some slight irony talking about a vocal minority in a top comment, heh.
YC does have brakes ... Accounts are rate limited for engaging in conversations that are determined to be beneath the dignity of the platform. It's not clear if the rate limiting is biased against certain perspectives.
FB and Twitter seem to drive heavy political ideological content at the slightest hint of engagement.
I think a problem with loud poles and a quiet middle is the political class takes its queue from the internet discourse. The algorithms drive content, but in a reverse fashion they also poll the electorate, providing signal the political scientists use to calibrate messaging.
It's worth questioning how much of the polarized rhetoric out there is rooted in reality, and how much of it is just social media selecting and promoting extreme views. The answer seems to be that it really depends on where you are.
As a Canadian, I feel that people on opposite ends of the spectrum, although they might literally call for the deaths of those on the other end, have a huge amount in common with each other. Canada has problems, but its still a pretty great country. If people would step outside of the hyper-partisan identities they've been constructing for themselves online and try to see the concerns of the other side, they'd probably find they're not as horrible or misguided as they might think while reading facebook or reddit. If the reasonable centre that dominates public policy can continue to ween itself off of American social media, there's hope for a strong, unified country that's capable of having adult political discourse between people who disagree on finer points. We clearly have some challenges to face (e.g. separatism) in getting there though.
If you're in the U.S. though, things appear very different. While both political parties seem to have been co-opted by billionaire interests, one party has fallen into what can be described as, if we're being charitable, a cult of personality. Unfortunately, that personality has been doing things that are impossible to dismiss as the online hysteria of the other side. Threatening allies with military invasion. High seas piracy. Kidnapping of a foreign leader (admittedly a not very nice one) from his nation. Betraying allies to cozy up to dictators like Putin. Torching global markets with constantly changing tariffs. The list goes on. Then there's what's going on within U.S. borders. If you're in the U.S., the polarization isn't just online. It's something very real. I feel that somebody opposing what ICE is doing in Minnesota and a die-hard Trump supporter really don't have a lot in common and I don't think removing them from online social media will result in civil discourse between the two. There are very real differences there that are coming to a head.
The paper (rightfully) does not address this, but I'd like to speculate about the reasons why, overall, usage has been dropping.
I think it's because social media, as a whole, stopped providing any value to its users. In the early days it did bring a novel way to connect, coordinate, stay in touch, discover, and learn. Today, not so much.
It seems we are between worlds now, with the wells of the "old order" drying up, and the springs of the "new order" not found / tapped just yet.
I have a theory, but based only on my observation of younger family members; needless to say, it may be way off in aggregate. Apart from the obvious, I don't really see them posting on legacy social media platfoms ( fb and so on ). TikTok was commonly used, but I can't say if recent US moves actually caused younger people to limits its use. On the other hand, fragmented discords and the like did seem to start be more common.
Did you see people mourning the demise of forum software, when neatly maintained places oriented towards specific topics gave way to noisy and all-encompassing places like FB at Twitter?
I think these fragmented Discords are the return to the idea of specific, uncrowded, neatly maintained places, with a relatively high barrier to entry for a random person. Subreddits are a bit similar, but less insular.
One of the only differences between new Reddit and Discord is that Reddit has the courtesy of a public index.
I don't know much about Discord (my only experience being some years ago when I joined for an open source project and left soon after I noticed how incredibly use hostile it is) but I do know that if you create a single account it is trivial to join any "server" (which, despite the marketing is just a chatroom hosted on their servers).
We're gonna enter a new age/type of "lost media" as Discord remains popular year over year. It's a complete black hole unless you're manually backing things up. No possible Wayback Machine.
It's honestly a good thing. People should have social outlets where things are forgotten, not memorialized for all eternity.
Sure, but it's definitely not the return of forums and the fact it is being used in place of forums will cause trouble down the line.
[dead]
I've said this for quite a while now. Social media has turned into a bitch fest. It's all you ever read nowadays and I'm tired of it. I'm sure most people are tired of it.
If I think about my own use of social media (and I have a facebook account from waaay back in the day, shortly after they dropped the requirement for a US edu email address), I wonder what value it ever had, over and above just emailing those people I'd like to stay in touch with every-so-often (which is what I do now). The reason why facebook switched to an algorithmic feed is because the previous method was failing, people were starting to give up posting. Algorithmic feeds didn't kill social media, they were an attempt at keeping alive what was already moribund. Social media, in the strict sense (so, not just online clubs or societies), never needed to be invented.
Yes, this.
I miss the old social media. I'd love to have it back. Having moved several times to various corners of the world, I have dear family and friends who are scattered across multiple continents. It's difficult to maintain ongoing 1:1 connections across such distances, but I used to be able to keep up with them and their families -- and them with mine -- via social media. It felt genuinely communal.
And then the posts from them became increasingly interspersed with -- and eventually outright replaced by -- advertisements, rage bait from random people(?) I didn't know, and then eventually AI slop. All with the obvious goal of manipulating my attention and getting me to consume more advertising.
It felt absolutely gross. Not something I wanted my personal life to be associated with. I stopped posting. So did my friends. The end.
But I still miss the old social media, and would use it if it actually existed (not just as a technology or a business model, mind you, but as an actual network with the adoption needed to create those kind of connections).
I'm always surprised that papers don't include some "chat" apps as social media. I don't see Discord mentioned in this paper but I use it almost identically to how I used Facebook in like 2010 and at least among people I know that's very common. I think the use cases from more traditional "social media" has migrated a lot back to chat apps and those still provide a lot of value and are more widely used than ever.
Terminology shifted somewhere along the lines, because the nature of sites like Facebook changed. These sites were called "social networking" in the early days, since they connected people. These sites are called "social media" these days, which I assume is a reflection that the top-down nature of these sites are much more like traditional print/radio/television media.
The treatment of chat applications, online forums, etc. as social media has always felt strange to me for that reason. While the companies that offer those services may control the platform, control of interactions is limited to moderation and the content of those interactions is rarely created by a commercial interest.
After not logging into Twitter for years I logged back in because I wanted to follow some posts regarding some breaking news. Omg the amount of garbage and fake videos and pictures was overwhelming. My guess is bot content is now so realistic and engagement manipulation is so sophisticated from even a few years ago that people will disengage even more.
I think that's the number 1 reason. Bot simply drive away useful content.
I think musk don't fight against bot because it makes the ads sells more (just like in the first days of SEM, where fake traffic and fake clicks was a source of revenue for second tier ad networks). But ultimately he's going to have to do something against it.
"The U.S. social media landscape is quietly reshaping itself. Between 2020 and 2024, overall platform use slipped, driven by a rise in the population – especially the youngest and oldest – who no longer use social media at all. The old incumbents – Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter/X – have lost ground, while TikTok and Reddit have expanded modestly. The users who remain are slightly older, better educated, and more racially diverse than four years ago.
The political balance of social media has shifted just as noticeably. The once-clear Democratic lean of major platforms has declined. Twitter/X, in particular, has seen a radical flip: a space dominated by Democrats in 2020 is now more Republican-aligned, especially among its most active users and posters. Reddit’s remains a Democraic stronghold, but its liberal edge has softened.
Across platforms, overall political posting has declined, yet its link with affective polarization persists. Those expressing the strongest partisan animus continue to post most frequently, meaning that visible political discourse remains dominated by the most polarized voices. This leads to a distorted representation of politics, that itself can function as a driver of societal polarization [17, 12].
Overall, the data depict a social media ecosystem in slow contraction and segmentation. As casual users disengage while polarized partisans remain highly active, the tone of online political life may grow more conflictual even as participation declines. The digital public sphere is becoming smaller, sharper, and louder: fewer participants, but stronger opinions. What remains online is a politics that feels more divided – not because more people are fighting, but because the fighters are the ones left talking."
Yup, nothing unexpected here.
i feel like the underlying thesis of this is maybe wrong. someone closer to the methodology would know better but here is what i see:
(1) Meta and Google have seen their growth slow (not shrink) because they reach virtually the entirety of the online population, especially in the US. Meanwhile their time spent metrics continue to rise.
(2) Reddit is called out as a modest grower but its usage has more than doubled in the US since 2021 from 90M to 170M (according to emarketer).
Doenst mean the conclusions are wrong (i agree with it on polarization) but the growth measures seem to not reflect reality.
Meta and Google time-spent growth is probably people watching Reels and YouTube. They're both becoming Tiktok and most of the accounts on Tiktok when I was on it for a while did not look like people's real name. So with regard to Meta/Google "growth" idk if there's anything too social about that.
I think you are right to suspect the methods and the results. If you look at the paper's github, the python notebook was clearly written by a chatbot (the comments are all in the second person). So what you have here is a monograph, unreviewed, unpublished, based on GPT-level understanding of a survey that might not even apply to this subject.
And worse, it says something smart people wish was true.
Been speaking to current college students and recent college grads and this is their general sentiment:
1. "social media" is toxic
They may consume video on YouTube etc but the thought is, even amongst smart kids, that there is no net positive to interacting with people you don't know on social media.
This is somewhat disheartening given how many wonderful people I've met by just "being myself" on Twitter.
2. There is no central social media network anymore
I coached college club sports from the mid-2000s to the early 2010s. It's hard to overstate how EVERYONE in college was on Facebook. We used to have a dedicated forum for one of the teams and the president convinced me to go to Facebook groups b/c:
"Everyone is already on it and it has a notification system that people check b/c it's how they find out about college parties"
A current club president didn't even know what would be the best way to reach students other than flyers and setting up a table at the student center.
(I suggested Reddit and he acknowledged that would probably be one place where you at least knew students from the school might be there and were interested.)
> “social media" is toxic
I have 14 and 16 year old sons and they, and their friends, have the same feeling about social media. Their preferred way to communicate with friends is an iMessage group.
> As casual users disengage and polarized partisans remain vocal, the online public sphere grows smaller, sharper, and more ideologically extreme.
I think it's the root cause of all our issues (in democratic society).
The root cause of our issues is the economic austerity imposed on the public causing disaffection of the masses. Dividing this public and redirecting this anger against each other and scapegoats leads to what you refer to.
Where is this economic austerity you speak of, and who is imposing it?
From the de-industrialization of a country, the privatization of previously public goods, subsidization of the wealthy by everyone else, the decoupling of national wealth from labor, I mean we can go on and on. And lest you think I’m partisan, both parties are complicit, but this is hardly an American phenomenon.
Starts with a tax on taxes. The richer you are, the less tax you will pay. This is a cost to the entire nation as most people aren't rich and most people require the benefits of taxes.
Monetization through advertising is urinating in the pool
The social media cycle:
1. Quality brings success
2. Success brings popularity
3. Popularity brings idiots
4. Idiots destroy quality
One small change, replace idiots with monetization.
Shifts in U.S. Society, 2020–2024: Decline, Fragmentation, Polarization
Social media just reflects the state of its users.
Reflects or shape it?
Amplifies it, because it's the easier way to profit.
Cable news was ramping up sensationalism -- including polarization -- before the internet was a household thing.
Social media gave the businesses real-time feedback of how to drive up engagement. So they amplify what keeps people engaged, which means leaning heavily on anger and divisiveness.
GPTZero flags every single section of this beyond the introduction as 100% likely to be AI-generated.
Looking for recommendations for discussion forums that aren't filled with these slop posts, anyone have any suggestions?
Social media may have been the biggest disappointment and missed opportunity of the internet era. It’s a literal dumpster fire. People do not get what they want from it. Clearly, the market is not dictated by the customer.
The market is dictated by the customer, but the customer is the ad company, not the user.
I'm a bit confused. What's the alternative outcome? We're talking about humans here, most of which have an IQ below 100! For any social thing, more humans literally means more dumb. The only way around it is silos/migration, which is exactly how it was handled in the early internet, and why this place is reasonable.
Or, is that what was missed? Better silos, with some sort of semi non-community enforcement for the quality of interaction/comment?
> What's the alternative outcome?
Once upon a time, people saw computers (then the Internet) as a way of lifting people up rather than pushing people down. They saw it as a way of equalizing people's access to knowledge, rather than subjecting them to a fire hose of information. They believed that it would encourage discourse to bring people together, rather than dividing people along ideological lines.
Yeah, we were naive.
> Across platforms, political posting remains tightly linked to affective polarization, as the most partisan users are also the most active. As casual users disengage and polarized partisans remain vocal, the online public sphere grows smaller, sharper, and more ideologically extreme.
I keep saying to my internet friends that the vast majority of people do not share political opinions online and you have to apply skepticism about what people actually think about political topics when scrolling through social media “takes”. Seems my intuition was not that far off.
This paper came out in October and I read it at the time. It is pretty surprising but it is also totally contradicted by other major surveys, so I am pretty sure it's just flawed. The most peculiar result is the dramatic reduction in reach for YouTube. This guy has YouTube with 60% reach and falling. Pew Americans’ Social Media Use 2025 has YouTube at 84% and rising, and 95% among 18-29 age cohort, which pretty much refutes this paper's core conclusion.
"Overall [social media] platform use slipped ... especially the youngest ... who no longer use social media at all" is the kind of wild claim that requires a much more significant investigation than this author undertook.
The paper is complete AI slop, run it through GPTZero - there's virtually no human authorship here. (The abstract and intro appear to have been hand-tweaked, but the rest is pure slop.)
I can only assume the coding and analysis was also conducted entirely by ChatGPT, which might explain why it appears superficially convincing but falls apart upon interrogation.
Will be interesting to see if any journal actually touches this. If so, they're going on my list of predatory journals.
Edit: I checked the associated GitHub, the Python notebook is - as expected - conspicuously vibe coded.
I find the idea of "partisans" eg. affective idiots throwing tantrums over each other's because of some absurd current topic while everybody just leaves quitly somehow little amusing.
Deleting my Facebook account was the best thing I ever did. I did it nearly 10 years ago and never looked back. I don’t miss it or miss out.
Worked in the top 3 here
Seems false to me. Explosive growth in 2020 during Covid was widely recorded and seeming engagement. Flips of X were associated with massive drops in population and bots.
This seems entirely wrong to me
So... people actually converse and have civil debates on social media? I wouldn't know, I'm not on Facebook.
The real issue that a lot of people keep forgetting or ignoring is monetization. This alone is responsible for at least 80% of the damage we have in nowadays internet, not just social media. YouTube channels, Twitter accounts, Twitch streamers, podcasts, you name it, are there only as a business to these "influencers", and naturally the more you progress in time the more there's a need to be extreme to get noticed in this exponentially growing domain. So back in 2013 you could get an audience by making some prank on Vine, but in 2025 you have to pretend you are "exposing Somali frauds" to get the same engagement level, and thus the money and popularity, as pretty much no one will care if you made prank videos in 2025 anymore. There are bots running on Twitter as we speak that are actively shilling and grifting on trendy topics, podcasts paid by sponsors, even on HN especially since AI with these wrappers trying to sell subscriptions or asking you to sign up on their blogs. The list goes on. The problem isn't social media. The problem is the oldest issue in history: money and greed. Everyone is trying to monetize anything, including selling used socks or whatever on OF!
The algorithm has not fundamentally changed. There is no secretive or sinister purpose to it. It is simply a highly imperfect predictor of what you want to see. When the algorithm promotes things you don't like it's because there are millions other people with different taste than you who do want to see that content. Certain categories of content grow and fade over time because things like that grow and fade in popularity over time too just as they always have and the algorithm picks up on that. The algorithm is not driving this, it is responding to it. We are in a prison of our own design.
It's a predictor of what you'll click on. This correlates somewhat with what you want to see, but they don't care one whit about what you want, and the two don't always line up well.
In short, the problem is ragebait. I might open up some app because I want to see cat videos, but when I'm presented with "Polly McPoliticianface LIES about FLOWERS" I'm likely to click in anger about Polly's nefarious actions. Do this enough and you end up with something that just tries to make you angry all the time.
This is inevitable. Ragebait is noting inherent to social media or feed algorithms. Cable news is a 24/7 feed of ragebait. The feedback you provide to the social media (or cable news) algorithm is whether or not you chose to watch it, not why. This is not in conflict with what you want. If you didn't want to hate watch, then you wouldn't do it. That you want it for negative reasons doesn't take away from the fact that you do, in fact, want it.
When your society is structured around "sell yourself or die", and the people with capital enough to call the shots like it that way... This is what you end up with.
Tangentially, I think that the “excuse” for these platforms that they need to make money enabled a lot of the current dystopian level of ad tracking.
Network effects be damned, we should all be a little more willing to pay to be part of platforms hosting digital communities or at least contribute in some way to the infrastructure.
And if we did, what would be the difference? Sure, there would be no ads on the platform (plenty of sponsored content, though), but there would still be an algorithm. And it would be minimally different to the one that exists today. The current ad driven model doesn't allow paying advertisers to drive the algorithm. Rather it lets you drive the algorithm by your revealed preferences and then allows advertisers to target you based on those preferences and insert their ads in the result, which is much more effective. But if we didn't have the ads, the algorithm remains. The question "what does this user want to see?" is equally as relevant to a company that wants to convince a user to keep paying for their subscription as it is to a company that uses it as an advertising vector.
[deleted]
In the past, I could go onto Facebook and see what my friends were up to, and share updates with them about what I was doing. It was great for arranging nights out.
Today, it's a dumpster fire, I can't see what anyone is doing, it's just AI videos and engagement bait.
Discord is the replacement for my friends at least.
<< As casual users disengage and polarized partisans remain vocal, the online public sphere grows smaller, sharper, and more ideologically extreme.
It.. feels accurate. I don't frequent FB or other mainstream social spots, but even on HN, the pattern is relatively clear. Vocal minorities tend to drive the conversations to their respective corners, while the middle quietly moves to, at most, watch at a safe distance.
Part of me is happy about it. The sooner we get out of the social media landscape, the better the society as a whole will be.. in my opinion anyway. Still, we have already lost so much of the original internet. That loss makes me sad.
The article uses the word "partisan", the opposite of which I think is "independent", not "centrist" or "middle", but to be fair the article seems to conflate the two as well and never uses the word "independent". However to me there is a big difference between being a centrist and being independent. One could be independent with views that are at times deemed extreme right and at times extreme left. Similarly, some people are "centrist" yet somehow deeply partisan in the sense that their party can do no wrong and everything is the fault of the other party.
It is a valid question. I looked at the author's profile and while he is not from US ( Amsterdam ), his studies focus[1] appears to be on subjects that would suggest he should be relatively well acquainted with politics in US along with how they differ in terms of terminology from EU or UK. Sadly, I can't seem to say for sure how term was intended in the article itself. That said, the author does seem to reference individual US parties.
[1]https://www.uva.nl/en/profile/t/o/p.tornberg/k.p.tornberg.ht...
This. Partisanship is going along party lines (agreeing with the Party) where independence is thinking of your own free will. We desperately need more of those people in charge.
Why would the party support them?
Those are the people who do the nost work for the party. People who 'toe the line' are also those who tend not to do the work that gets people elected. People who care enough to think also knock of doors and the other work that gets someone elected. You won't find a thinking person you 100% agree with, but a mostly agree is better than a mostly disagree - and by doing that work you also get to talk to people and perhaps change minds.
For the team? For the influence? There used to be a time when people could work across the aisle.
You can have beliefs, but you also must have heart and a brain to open your world view to other perspectives. This is what being an adult is all about. Not this crap that we see today.
The problem with “the middle” is that’s relative to the Overton window. Federal troops assassinating kneeling protesters didn’t used to be “one side” with “the middle” suggesting they should simply arrest them and lock them up.
It is a major simplification to put the political spectrum on a single line (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum). If we put it as a triangle, the Overton window can be as far from left to right as left/right is to the middle.
The Overton window is not involved in defining the middle, and the middle definitively do not need to agree 50% with any specific decision done by the left or right.
>Federal troops assassinating kneeling protesters didn’t used to be “one side”
This is factually not true. Levels of violence by the state against citizens in the United States is at near historic lows. The state killed dozens of children in Waco in the 90s, bombed domestic buildings in Philadelphia in the 80s, shot protestors Kent State University in the 70s, going back to the early years of the USA where protests and rebellions were put down with private militias and bounties. The shooting by one officer of one protester in a scuffle with officers wouldn't have reached the history books in any other time.
[flagged]
Jan 6 suggests those are merely tourists, not terrorists, even if they are trying to assassinate the VP.
All of the people there were trying to assassinate the VP? How come no one's been charged for assassination attempt?
"According to an F.B.I. affidavit the panel highlighted ... a government informant said that members of the far-right militant group the Proud Boys told him they would have killed Pence 'if given the chance.' The rioters on January 6th almost had that chance, coming within forty feet of the Vice-President as he fled to safety."
https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-bidens-washington...
Sorry I didn't catch that, how many? And government informant? This is your source?
> All of the people there were trying to assassinate the VP?
Sure seemed like it. All those people chanting to kill the VP? Sure seems like it.
> How come no one's been charged for assassination attempt?
Corruption? Doesn't change the facts. They were trying to kill the VP.
Pretend what you want, there were 1500+ that day that certain people said were just tourists.
It was a riot and attack on the capitol in support of an attempt to overturn a legitimate election result. Isn't that bad enough? Why do you have to lie and claim that it was an assassination attempt on Mike Pence?
So you're suggesting there were 1,500 potential assassins? Record yourself and play it back and tell me if you agree with what you said.
"1,500 people were trying to kill the VP" - mentally ill person
[flagged]
> edit: and to all the lazy downvoters. argue with me ye bums ( name calling very much intended here ). if you cant even manage that, what are you doing here?
Is this irony? You literally just posted about arguments from vocal minorities on HN and other social media driving people away.
In the immortal words of the elder Elaine Benice: it means whatever you want it to mean. What I want is for someone to respond to my message as opposed to a lazy button press. But I dream.
You say socially approved catch phrases and yet people are being shot in my city by federal agents, and I carry a passport knowing that it will do me no good if they decide to crack my head in. When do words have meanings that connect to reality for you personally?
Thank you. This is more reasonable way of phrasing this. That said, it is almost completely irrelevant to the subject at hand. Is it acceptable for you if I simply do not engage or am I obligated to offer a personal value statement as if I were an embassy representative?
I am not making fun of you. I treat words very seriously. I also treat them seriously enough to not direct every conversation to my pet cause ( whatever it may be ).
People are being shot that are interfering with said federal agents. Absolute excessive use of force but it’s stupid to present this as if there isn’t an easy way to avoid it.
[dead]
[flagged]
> and to all the lazy downvoters. argue with me ye bums ( name calling very much intended here ).
Sure. You can guess the "camp", but so what? Must we all use value-neutral language when discussing an issue? I take issue with centrism for centrism's sake. If your goal is to take two points of view and treat them as equals then that grants a systemic advantage to whoever has the more insane view. By not calling something what it is you legitimize atrocities. Fuck centrism. Believe in something, you coward.
<< Believe in something, you coward.
:D I appreciate it. I truly do. I am somewhat aghast that someone would suggest that centrism, as a whole, is a not, in itself, a belief system. If anything, centrists seem to believe in actual principles ( and thus sides with whoever seems to embody those best at any given time ). On the other hand, it really are those pesky zealot believers that are causing all that ruckus..
<< By not calling something what it is you legitimize atrocities.
Oh man. Please, share with me the unsaid truth that must not be spoken. I am not joking. Speak whatever is in your heart and I will personally carry it far and wide in the cities near me.
> If anything, centrists seem to believe in actual principles ( and thus sides with whoever seems to embody those best at any given time ).
What principles could a person have that would put them in the center of US politics right now?
> Please, share with me the unsaid truth that must not be spoken. I am not joking. Speak whatever is in your heart and I will personally carry it far and wide in the cities near me.
Sure. My principles are that those with power must be held to higher, not lower, standards of conduct and accountability. When you act like maybe there's something to the obvious and boldfaced lie that the two recent killings by ICE* were done in self-defense then you are shifting the scope of acceptable conduct towards lawlessness. Playing both sides makes you an enemy of civil society.
The "liberal" media has their version of events, largely blaming "insufficient training." The killers had 10+ years of experience in their roles. When interviewing administration officials reporters refuse to call them liars or question their motivations, instead suggesting that they are simply mistaken.
And of course the official right-wing line is that the murdered civilians were extremist terrorists who attacked law enforcement officers and deserved what they got. Full-throated endorsement of street executions. Where is your centrism? What is the center between these two positions? I align myself more with the former because it's at least not totally deranged. I'm not a partisan because I don't think the Democrats or media agree with my values, but I'm also not going to equivocate between them and Republicans and act like I'm stranded in the middle of two positions. The solution isn't in the middle of two wrong answers, it's something else entirely.
*: (or was it CBP? They all blend together all of a sudden)
Interesting.
<< What principles could a person have that would put them in the center of US politics right now?
Any? All? None? Everything in between? The question itself is rather faulty, which prompted me to respond the way I did. There is a reason for it too beyond pure rhetoric: centrists overlap with US independents so their goals are not as easily labeled ( I suppose ).
Maybe I am approaching it the wrong way.
What do you think each side of US American politics are defined by what principle now?
<< Playing both sides makes you an enemy of civil society.
See.. it is almost as if you did not read my opening paragraph. Statement like that by itself is not exactly conducive to dialogue. I normally would not care, but I note it as we are attempting to have a conversation. Statement like that undermines it for a simple person like me.
<< Where is your centrism?
Oh boy.
<< What is the center between these two positions?
In the middle?
<< When you act like maybe there's something to the obvious and boldfaced lie that the two recent killings by ICE* were done in self-defense then you are shifting the scope of acceptable conduct towards lawlessness.
I can give you Pretti. Despite some previous engagements suggesting he was not just 'some rando, who was at the wrong time at the wrong place', his death was less defensible in the context than Good's ( she actually did swipe that officer.. ). We can argue all day over intentions and whatnot, but that is basically where middle ground lies: in taking each thing as its own case. But we will not do any of that, will we.
<< The solution isn't in the middle of two wrong answers, it's something else entirely.
Color me intrigued. What is the answer?
Right on cue
What is the point of your three words here? Legitimately I don't get it.
The parent comment was about how the most partisan users post the most on social media and sure enough, the first response was by a partisan user.
And you are replying to a partisan user.
Not sure why this is relevant.
The paper says partisanship is strongly correlated with frequency of posting. Are you also pointing out that the commenters here are very partisan and this shows the paper is correct?
The problem is that "partisan" doesn't automatically mean "wrong".
People wield "the middle" as if it is some magic incantation that makes them correct or immune to criticism. In fact, it is generally the "middle" or, as I prefer to call them, the "inert" that tend to be wrong since they are always behind the curve rather than ahead of it.
In Milgram's experiment, only the most "partisan" refused to deliver the shocks. The "middle" dutifully continued right to the end and delivered the highest voltages even as their own distress mounted.
You may avoid politics, but politics may not avoid you.
I am ok with being called inert. In the context, this would suggest I am less easily swayed than most.
Someone very famous had words for you:
"Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."
There isn't exactly a "curve" to be behind, just as there isn't one single "history" that you can end up "on the wrong side of". Politics is just the constantly shifting borders in a formalised war for power between different groups, long term there is no single direction of "progress".
>You may avoid politics, but politics may not avoid you.
This is the correct view, in the sense that if you don't belong to some kind of tribe, you'll get ripped off by someone who does. The inert group are not wrong, but by participating less than the others in the battle for their collective self interest, they will end up being the ones taken advantage of.
They have the most to win/lose.
The rest are just going ‘WTF is this shit?!?’
(De)legitimation is the dominant meta. Much more than arguing on the merits of ideas, folks argue on the legitimate status of their opponents real or perceived stance. A lot of it attempts to play to the audience rather than either side open to changing their minds. That's how I read it at least.
[flagged]
> Part of me is happy about it. The sooner we get out of the social media landscape, the better the society as a whole will be.. in my opinion anyway. Still, we have already lost so much of the original internet. That loss makes me sad.
While I share the hope, it's probably not going to happen: most folks have moved from FB to use AI chats. Now it's the tool to manipulate opinions and habits. And it's working very well and nuanced. With AI, the society will be more divided, more polarised, and less happy than before.
And there's no way back already! Even if the web search works well one day, the folks desire (and habit!) to outsource thinking is too strong, especially among younger.
> the folks desire (and habit!) to outsource thinking is too strong, especially among younger.
The 'younger' only because they're forming habits in the time of AI. Most all humans tend towards minimising cognitive load; the making hard decisions and consideration of complex topics and situations. It's all about the tools that were available to you at the time you started to need those tools. The core is the same. Low-level, essentially sub-conscious, human behaviour change doesn't happen on a noticeable time frame^.
^ my opinion, not based on research. ie. feel free to critique.
What has changed is the awareness of the hacks that work on the human lizard brain, and therefore pandering to all that makes us weak and powerless in exchange for money and convenience. That's the part that makes it feel, for me, more likely that there's no way back. Those hacks will only get more refined and more streamlined into exploitation.
> With AI, the society will be more divided, more polarised, and less happy than before.
While I agree for less happy, I am not seeing AI chatbot been more divisive and polirised than social media in general. Am I missing something?
I mean it’s really not that hard to do a little research to find out that “most” people aren’t leaving Meta properties for ChatgpT
I don't think the social media landscape is inherently bad, but the ways in which it evolved. And I think the shift in social media towards consuming content instead of connecting with others is a direct reflection of the era we live in; one of abundant information.
Social media will stop becoming relevant when we stop treating each person as a mini corporation that needs to provide value, trying to optimize every aspect of your life in a life-long marketing campaign.
You may be onto something. It is a little bit like google when it first started showing ads. Initially, the ads were clearly marked and were promised to be relevant to the user, but that line has been moved slowly in a way to extract more and more value from the user.. while removing value that user already had.
I know social media had some real use cases. CL and FB marketplace are probably one good example of that. But the rest of it.. best I can say, my overall happiness jumped up after first month of going on a media diet.
What do you mean exactly by lost so much of the original internet?
To use internet lingo, no normies.
But to be more broad I'll present you the romantic version which is at least partly true. I miss that.
It used to feel like the internet was a place you went to explore and learn. It was harder to use and navigate, so most ordinary people did not spend much time there. Back then, a lot of people believed it would make the world better because everyone could access information and educate themselves.
That optimism did not survive contact with reality. Today you can carry essentially all human knowledge in your pocket, yet much of the internet is funneled through a handful of corporations whose business model is advertising and attention. Instead of helping people discover things, the dominant platforms optimize for keeping you scrolling with outrage, dopamine hits, and low value content. Worst thing is of course politics which moved in here.
The joy of exploring is done, but honestly I think that it atleast partly that the og users got older. Hackernews somehow reminding me the "old Internet", somehow alike people with desire to explore and have honest discussion on genuinely interesting topic.
> Still, we have already lost so much of the original internet.
Hyper-monetization killed it all
That's the result of excess censorship and PRs on those platform, you can play with people more or less easily but you can't re-program them at such speed. They understand and start rejecting the narrative.
Vocal minorities vary but tend just to excite the others, not to affirm any point.
There is some slight irony talking about a vocal minority in a top comment, heh.
YC does have brakes ... Accounts are rate limited for engaging in conversations that are determined to be beneath the dignity of the platform. It's not clear if the rate limiting is biased against certain perspectives.
FB and Twitter seem to drive heavy political ideological content at the slightest hint of engagement.
I think a problem with loud poles and a quiet middle is the political class takes its queue from the internet discourse. The algorithms drive content, but in a reverse fashion they also poll the electorate, providing signal the political scientists use to calibrate messaging.
It's worth questioning how much of the polarized rhetoric out there is rooted in reality, and how much of it is just social media selecting and promoting extreme views. The answer seems to be that it really depends on where you are.
As a Canadian, I feel that people on opposite ends of the spectrum, although they might literally call for the deaths of those on the other end, have a huge amount in common with each other. Canada has problems, but its still a pretty great country. If people would step outside of the hyper-partisan identities they've been constructing for themselves online and try to see the concerns of the other side, they'd probably find they're not as horrible or misguided as they might think while reading facebook or reddit. If the reasonable centre that dominates public policy can continue to ween itself off of American social media, there's hope for a strong, unified country that's capable of having adult political discourse between people who disagree on finer points. We clearly have some challenges to face (e.g. separatism) in getting there though.
If you're in the U.S. though, things appear very different. While both political parties seem to have been co-opted by billionaire interests, one party has fallen into what can be described as, if we're being charitable, a cult of personality. Unfortunately, that personality has been doing things that are impossible to dismiss as the online hysteria of the other side. Threatening allies with military invasion. High seas piracy. Kidnapping of a foreign leader (admittedly a not very nice one) from his nation. Betraying allies to cozy up to dictators like Putin. Torching global markets with constantly changing tariffs. The list goes on. Then there's what's going on within U.S. borders. If you're in the U.S., the polarization isn't just online. It's something very real. I feel that somebody opposing what ICE is doing in Minnesota and a die-hard Trump supporter really don't have a lot in common and I don't think removing them from online social media will result in civil discourse between the two. There are very real differences there that are coming to a head.
The paper (rightfully) does not address this, but I'd like to speculate about the reasons why, overall, usage has been dropping.
I think it's because social media, as a whole, stopped providing any value to its users. In the early days it did bring a novel way to connect, coordinate, stay in touch, discover, and learn. Today, not so much.
It seems we are between worlds now, with the wells of the "old order" drying up, and the springs of the "new order" not found / tapped just yet.
I have a theory, but based only on my observation of younger family members; needless to say, it may be way off in aggregate. Apart from the obvious, I don't really see them posting on legacy social media platfoms ( fb and so on ). TikTok was commonly used, but I can't say if recent US moves actually caused younger people to limits its use. On the other hand, fragmented discords and the like did seem to start be more common.
Did you see people mourning the demise of forum software, when neatly maintained places oriented towards specific topics gave way to noisy and all-encompassing places like FB at Twitter?
I think these fragmented Discords are the return to the idea of specific, uncrowded, neatly maintained places, with a relatively high barrier to entry for a random person. Subreddits are a bit similar, but less insular.
One of the only differences between new Reddit and Discord is that Reddit has the courtesy of a public index.
I don't know much about Discord (my only experience being some years ago when I joined for an open source project and left soon after I noticed how incredibly use hostile it is) but I do know that if you create a single account it is trivial to join any "server" (which, despite the marketing is just a chatroom hosted on their servers).
We're gonna enter a new age/type of "lost media" as Discord remains popular year over year. It's a complete black hole unless you're manually backing things up. No possible Wayback Machine.
It's honestly a good thing. People should have social outlets where things are forgotten, not memorialized for all eternity.
Sure, but it's definitely not the return of forums and the fact it is being used in place of forums will cause trouble down the line.
[dead]
I've said this for quite a while now. Social media has turned into a bitch fest. It's all you ever read nowadays and I'm tired of it. I'm sure most people are tired of it.
If I think about my own use of social media (and I have a facebook account from waaay back in the day, shortly after they dropped the requirement for a US edu email address), I wonder what value it ever had, over and above just emailing those people I'd like to stay in touch with every-so-often (which is what I do now). The reason why facebook switched to an algorithmic feed is because the previous method was failing, people were starting to give up posting. Algorithmic feeds didn't kill social media, they were an attempt at keeping alive what was already moribund. Social media, in the strict sense (so, not just online clubs or societies), never needed to be invented.
Yes, this.
I miss the old social media. I'd love to have it back. Having moved several times to various corners of the world, I have dear family and friends who are scattered across multiple continents. It's difficult to maintain ongoing 1:1 connections across such distances, but I used to be able to keep up with them and their families -- and them with mine -- via social media. It felt genuinely communal.
And then the posts from them became increasingly interspersed with -- and eventually outright replaced by -- advertisements, rage bait from random people(?) I didn't know, and then eventually AI slop. All with the obvious goal of manipulating my attention and getting me to consume more advertising.
It felt absolutely gross. Not something I wanted my personal life to be associated with. I stopped posting. So did my friends. The end.
But I still miss the old social media, and would use it if it actually existed (not just as a technology or a business model, mind you, but as an actual network with the adoption needed to create those kind of connections).
I'm always surprised that papers don't include some "chat" apps as social media. I don't see Discord mentioned in this paper but I use it almost identically to how I used Facebook in like 2010 and at least among people I know that's very common. I think the use cases from more traditional "social media" has migrated a lot back to chat apps and those still provide a lot of value and are more widely used than ever.
Terminology shifted somewhere along the lines, because the nature of sites like Facebook changed. These sites were called "social networking" in the early days, since they connected people. These sites are called "social media" these days, which I assume is a reflection that the top-down nature of these sites are much more like traditional print/radio/television media.
The treatment of chat applications, online forums, etc. as social media has always felt strange to me for that reason. While the companies that offer those services may control the platform, control of interactions is limited to moderation and the content of those interactions is rarely created by a commercial interest.
After not logging into Twitter for years I logged back in because I wanted to follow some posts regarding some breaking news. Omg the amount of garbage and fake videos and pictures was overwhelming. My guess is bot content is now so realistic and engagement manipulation is so sophisticated from even a few years ago that people will disengage even more.
I think that's the number 1 reason. Bot simply drive away useful content.
I think musk don't fight against bot because it makes the ads sells more (just like in the first days of SEM, where fake traffic and fake clicks was a source of revenue for second tier ad networks). But ultimately he's going to have to do something against it.
"The U.S. social media landscape is quietly reshaping itself. Between 2020 and 2024, overall platform use slipped, driven by a rise in the population – especially the youngest and oldest – who no longer use social media at all. The old incumbents – Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter/X – have lost ground, while TikTok and Reddit have expanded modestly. The users who remain are slightly older, better educated, and more racially diverse than four years ago.
The political balance of social media has shifted just as noticeably. The once-clear Democratic lean of major platforms has declined. Twitter/X, in particular, has seen a radical flip: a space dominated by Democrats in 2020 is now more Republican-aligned, especially among its most active users and posters. Reddit’s remains a Democraic stronghold, but its liberal edge has softened.
Across platforms, overall political posting has declined, yet its link with affective polarization persists. Those expressing the strongest partisan animus continue to post most frequently, meaning that visible political discourse remains dominated by the most polarized voices. This leads to a distorted representation of politics, that itself can function as a driver of societal polarization [17, 12].
Overall, the data depict a social media ecosystem in slow contraction and segmentation. As casual users disengage while polarized partisans remain highly active, the tone of online political life may grow more conflictual even as participation declines. The digital public sphere is becoming smaller, sharper, and louder: fewer participants, but stronger opinions. What remains online is a politics that feels more divided – not because more people are fighting, but because the fighters are the ones left talking."
Yup, nothing unexpected here.
i feel like the underlying thesis of this is maybe wrong. someone closer to the methodology would know better but here is what i see:
(1) Meta and Google have seen their growth slow (not shrink) because they reach virtually the entirety of the online population, especially in the US. Meanwhile their time spent metrics continue to rise.
(2) Reddit is called out as a modest grower but its usage has more than doubled in the US since 2021 from 90M to 170M (according to emarketer).
Doenst mean the conclusions are wrong (i agree with it on polarization) but the growth measures seem to not reflect reality.
Meta and Google time-spent growth is probably people watching Reels and YouTube. They're both becoming Tiktok and most of the accounts on Tiktok when I was on it for a while did not look like people's real name. So with regard to Meta/Google "growth" idk if there's anything too social about that.
I think you are right to suspect the methods and the results. If you look at the paper's github, the python notebook was clearly written by a chatbot (the comments are all in the second person). So what you have here is a monograph, unreviewed, unpublished, based on GPT-level understanding of a survey that might not even apply to this subject.
And worse, it says something smart people wish was true.
Been speaking to current college students and recent college grads and this is their general sentiment:
1. "social media" is toxic
They may consume video on YouTube etc but the thought is, even amongst smart kids, that there is no net positive to interacting with people you don't know on social media.
This is somewhat disheartening given how many wonderful people I've met by just "being myself" on Twitter.
2. There is no central social media network anymore
I coached college club sports from the mid-2000s to the early 2010s. It's hard to overstate how EVERYONE in college was on Facebook. We used to have a dedicated forum for one of the teams and the president convinced me to go to Facebook groups b/c:
"Everyone is already on it and it has a notification system that people check b/c it's how they find out about college parties"
A current club president didn't even know what would be the best way to reach students other than flyers and setting up a table at the student center.
(I suggested Reddit and he acknowledged that would probably be one place where you at least knew students from the school might be there and were interested.)
> “social media" is toxic
I have 14 and 16 year old sons and they, and their friends, have the same feeling about social media. Their preferred way to communicate with friends is an iMessage group.
> As casual users disengage and polarized partisans remain vocal, the online public sphere grows smaller, sharper, and more ideologically extreme.
I think it's the root cause of all our issues (in democratic society).
The root cause of our issues is the economic austerity imposed on the public causing disaffection of the masses. Dividing this public and redirecting this anger against each other and scapegoats leads to what you refer to.
Where is this economic austerity you speak of, and who is imposing it?
From the de-industrialization of a country, the privatization of previously public goods, subsidization of the wealthy by everyone else, the decoupling of national wealth from labor, I mean we can go on and on. And lest you think I’m partisan, both parties are complicit, but this is hardly an American phenomenon.
Starts with a tax on taxes. The richer you are, the less tax you will pay. This is a cost to the entire nation as most people aren't rich and most people require the benefits of taxes.
Monetization through advertising is urinating in the pool
The social media cycle:
1. Quality brings success
2. Success brings popularity
3. Popularity brings idiots
4. Idiots destroy quality
One small change, replace idiots with monetization.
Shifts in U.S. Society, 2020–2024: Decline, Fragmentation, Polarization
Social media just reflects the state of its users.
Reflects or shape it?
Amplifies it, because it's the easier way to profit.
Cable news was ramping up sensationalism -- including polarization -- before the internet was a household thing.
Social media gave the businesses real-time feedback of how to drive up engagement. So they amplify what keeps people engaged, which means leaning heavily on anger and divisiveness.
GPTZero flags every single section of this beyond the introduction as 100% likely to be AI-generated.
Looking for recommendations for discussion forums that aren't filled with these slop posts, anyone have any suggestions?
Social media may have been the biggest disappointment and missed opportunity of the internet era. It’s a literal dumpster fire. People do not get what they want from it. Clearly, the market is not dictated by the customer.
The market is dictated by the customer, but the customer is the ad company, not the user.
I'm a bit confused. What's the alternative outcome? We're talking about humans here, most of which have an IQ below 100! For any social thing, more humans literally means more dumb. The only way around it is silos/migration, which is exactly how it was handled in the early internet, and why this place is reasonable.
Or, is that what was missed? Better silos, with some sort of semi non-community enforcement for the quality of interaction/comment?
> What's the alternative outcome?
Once upon a time, people saw computers (then the Internet) as a way of lifting people up rather than pushing people down. They saw it as a way of equalizing people's access to knowledge, rather than subjecting them to a fire hose of information. They believed that it would encourage discourse to bring people together, rather than dividing people along ideological lines.
Yeah, we were naive.
> Across platforms, political posting remains tightly linked to affective polarization, as the most partisan users are also the most active. As casual users disengage and polarized partisans remain vocal, the online public sphere grows smaller, sharper, and more ideologically extreme.
I keep saying to my internet friends that the vast majority of people do not share political opinions online and you have to apply skepticism about what people actually think about political topics when scrolling through social media “takes”. Seems my intuition was not that far off.
This paper came out in October and I read it at the time. It is pretty surprising but it is also totally contradicted by other major surveys, so I am pretty sure it's just flawed. The most peculiar result is the dramatic reduction in reach for YouTube. This guy has YouTube with 60% reach and falling. Pew Americans’ Social Media Use 2025 has YouTube at 84% and rising, and 95% among 18-29 age cohort, which pretty much refutes this paper's core conclusion.
"Overall [social media] platform use slipped ... especially the youngest ... who no longer use social media at all" is the kind of wild claim that requires a much more significant investigation than this author undertook.
The paper is complete AI slop, run it through GPTZero - there's virtually no human authorship here. (The abstract and intro appear to have been hand-tweaked, but the rest is pure slop.)
I can only assume the coding and analysis was also conducted entirely by ChatGPT, which might explain why it appears superficially convincing but falls apart upon interrogation.
Will be interesting to see if any journal actually touches this. If so, they're going on my list of predatory journals.
Edit: I checked the associated GitHub, the Python notebook is - as expected - conspicuously vibe coded.
I find the idea of "partisans" eg. affective idiots throwing tantrums over each other's because of some absurd current topic while everybody just leaves quitly somehow little amusing.
Deleting my Facebook account was the best thing I ever did. I did it nearly 10 years ago and never looked back. I don’t miss it or miss out.
Worked in the top 3 here
Seems false to me. Explosive growth in 2020 during Covid was widely recorded and seeming engagement. Flips of X were associated with massive drops in population and bots.
This seems entirely wrong to me
So... people actually converse and have civil debates on social media? I wouldn't know, I'm not on Facebook.
The real issue that a lot of people keep forgetting or ignoring is monetization. This alone is responsible for at least 80% of the damage we have in nowadays internet, not just social media. YouTube channels, Twitter accounts, Twitch streamers, podcasts, you name it, are there only as a business to these "influencers", and naturally the more you progress in time the more there's a need to be extreme to get noticed in this exponentially growing domain. So back in 2013 you could get an audience by making some prank on Vine, but in 2025 you have to pretend you are "exposing Somali frauds" to get the same engagement level, and thus the money and popularity, as pretty much no one will care if you made prank videos in 2025 anymore. There are bots running on Twitter as we speak that are actively shilling and grifting on trendy topics, podcasts paid by sponsors, even on HN especially since AI with these wrappers trying to sell subscriptions or asking you to sign up on their blogs. The list goes on. The problem isn't social media. The problem is the oldest issue in history: money and greed. Everyone is trying to monetize anything, including selling used socks or whatever on OF!
The algorithm has not fundamentally changed. There is no secretive or sinister purpose to it. It is simply a highly imperfect predictor of what you want to see. When the algorithm promotes things you don't like it's because there are millions other people with different taste than you who do want to see that content. Certain categories of content grow and fade over time because things like that grow and fade in popularity over time too just as they always have and the algorithm picks up on that. The algorithm is not driving this, it is responding to it. We are in a prison of our own design.
It's a predictor of what you'll click on. This correlates somewhat with what you want to see, but they don't care one whit about what you want, and the two don't always line up well.
In short, the problem is ragebait. I might open up some app because I want to see cat videos, but when I'm presented with "Polly McPoliticianface LIES about FLOWERS" I'm likely to click in anger about Polly's nefarious actions. Do this enough and you end up with something that just tries to make you angry all the time.
This is inevitable. Ragebait is noting inherent to social media or feed algorithms. Cable news is a 24/7 feed of ragebait. The feedback you provide to the social media (or cable news) algorithm is whether or not you chose to watch it, not why. This is not in conflict with what you want. If you didn't want to hate watch, then you wouldn't do it. That you want it for negative reasons doesn't take away from the fact that you do, in fact, want it.
When your society is structured around "sell yourself or die", and the people with capital enough to call the shots like it that way... This is what you end up with.
Tangentially, I think that the “excuse” for these platforms that they need to make money enabled a lot of the current dystopian level of ad tracking.
Network effects be damned, we should all be a little more willing to pay to be part of platforms hosting digital communities or at least contribute in some way to the infrastructure.
And if we did, what would be the difference? Sure, there would be no ads on the platform (plenty of sponsored content, though), but there would still be an algorithm. And it would be minimally different to the one that exists today. The current ad driven model doesn't allow paying advertisers to drive the algorithm. Rather it lets you drive the algorithm by your revealed preferences and then allows advertisers to target you based on those preferences and insert their ads in the result, which is much more effective. But if we didn't have the ads, the algorithm remains. The question "what does this user want to see?" is equally as relevant to a company that wants to convince a user to keep paying for their subscription as it is to a company that uses it as an advertising vector.
In the past, I could go onto Facebook and see what my friends were up to, and share updates with them about what I was doing. It was great for arranging nights out.
Today, it's a dumpster fire, I can't see what anyone is doing, it's just AI videos and engagement bait.
Discord is the replacement for my friends at least.
https://www.facebook.com/?filter=all&sk=h_chr
and
https://www.facebook.com/?filter=friends&sk=h_chr
Change your Facebook bookmark to one of these.
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
I feel like we're all glossing over the whole "pedophile billionaires colluded to throw the United States into chaos" part.
[flagged]