[arcticbull]

I think it’s important to remember the issue with Facebook isn’t speech it’s amplification. Algorithmic amplification of content that drives engagement. This is what folks have an issue with.

Further bear in mind that “free speech” refers to the government not precluding your speech and Facebook ain’t government. Unless you’re proposing nationalizing it.

[worrycue]

It’s a positive feedback loop. Introduce people to outrage. Spur them into “action” where they create more “outrage content” (comments, posts, … etc.) for you in return for attention and praise (Likes, upvotes, … etc.). Outrage content grows exponentially like the spread of an infectious disease or a nuclear chain reaction … as does the “engagement” of the site. The job of the site is just to get the outrage content in front of the viewers and keep the chain reaction going.

Basically the modern version of riling up a lynch mob … for profit.

To some extend, all social media use this feedback loop, even this site.

P.S. Yes, I realize the irony of this comment.

[jboy55]

The introduction to outrage can happen off Facebook, I would argue the 'outrage victim culture' started with daytime AM radio in the US in the early 80s, when people realized that people would argue for days over their sports teams. Then people realized that political parties are just basically sports teams that play all the time.

[fstrthnscnd]

In essence, it works like a catalyst?

[azov]

> bear in mind that “free speech” refers to the government ...

First amendment refers to the government not precluding your speech. "Free speech" is a much broader concept.

[arcticbull]

How so? I think you'll find that pretty quickly it rolls back up into the First Amendment.