[DrScientist]

> Until you realize that this is the root of the problem, that the whole system is built to make people angry at each other, you are only contributing to the anger and division.

It's not built to make people angry per se - it's built to optimise for revenue generation - which so happens to be content that makes people angry.

People have discovered that creating and posting such content makes them money, and the revenue is split between themselves and the platforms.

In my view if the platforms can't tackle this problem then the platforms should be shutdown - promoting this sort of material should be illegal, and it's not an excuse to say our business model won't work if we are made responsible for the things we do.

ie while it turns out you can easily scale one side of publishing ( putting stuff out their and getting paid by ads ), you can't so easily scale the other side of publishing - which is being responsible for your actions - if you haven't solved both sides you don't have a viable business model in my view.

[shadowgovt]

In social networks, revenue is enhanced by stickiness.

Anger increases stickiness. Once one discovers there are other people on the site, and they are guilty of being wrong on the internet, one is incentivized to correct them. It feels useful because it feels like you're generating content that will help other people.

I suspect the failure of the system that nobody necessarily predicted is that people seem to not only tolerate, but actually like being a little angry online all the time.

[groundzeros2015]

> it's built to optimise for revenue generation

I think blaming it all on money ignores that this also serve political goals.

Groups spend money to manipulate public opinion. It’s a goal in and of itself that has value rather than a money making scheme.

[DrScientist]

Sure -it's a mix - but to be honest I think it's over-emphasized - in that in the US most of that kind of money driving politics operates in plain sight.

For example, the 'Russian interference' in the 2016 US election, was I suspect mostly people trying to make money, and more importantly, was completely dwarfed by US direct political spending.

There is also a potentially equally, if not larger problem, in the politicisation of the 'anti-disinformation' campaigns.

To be honest I'm not sure if there is much of a difference between a grifter being directly paid to promote a certain point of view, and somebody being paid indirectly ( by ads ).

In both cases neither really believes in the political point they are making they are just following the money.

These platforms are enabling both.