[fredgrott]

Maybe we are missing some things....

What is different about Twitter, YouTube, and LinkedIN?

they all do social but Twitter has more abuse than the other two.

Is that due to the structure involved?

Or extend it further, is amplification bad because the ones doing the amplification are somewhat flawed in coping mechanisms?

What I mean is we keep looking at social platforms as the problem, instead of seeing that the are lenses into the society problems yet not solved and handled.

I.E. based on networks and economics the ones that can amplify the worst economic decisions coupled with the least coping skills cause the most harm on social networks. Caution, not a statement about individuals or politics just some deep way above things macro observations.

[phailhaus]

Yes, it's due to structure. If you view social media sites as games, you can see why certain behaviors emerge from each one depending on the platform's rules. If you want to discourage abuse, you need to develop mechanisms to disincentivize it.

For example: the way Twitter works, an individual's reach is proportional to the number of their followers. This means that individuals can influence thousands of people with a single tweet. That's a lot of power, but that's also a lot of attention focused on one person. So it ends up cutting both ways: we see prolific tweeters able to spread their ideas really easily, but we also see witch hunts where huge groups all gang up on one person with devastating effect.

YouTube sees this for the same reasons, but the scale is smaller because creating videos and response videos take significantly more effort. LinkedIn could, but it doesn't because it's really a website for making yourself appear attractive to employers.