This is an excellent article, I would say. Do read it in its entirety if you have the time.

Coming back to the social media algorithms, do you think by controlling what one sees on their screens, platform owners are driving the divisions deeper? I give you my own experience. I read from several news outlets, not necessarily what one calls left leaning, and also use YouTube and Facebook. I follow American politics closely, probably more than many Americans. Yet, until his terrible assassination, I had never heard of Charlie Kirk. When I read Saeed saying that he never heard of Mr Kirk, I believed him. Saeed even reads the Daily Mail regularly! What do you think can be done to limit social media platforms' owners' ability to control what one sees? Appreciate your views.

Katty Kay: America is at a dangerous crossroads following the Charlie Kirk shooting

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c78n0e83ye0o

quote:

The reason is simple, yet hard to change. The incentives that fuel American political life reward the people and platforms that turn up the heat, not those who dial tensions down.

Around the country, you're more likely to get elected to political office if you run on policies and rhetoric that appeal to your political base, rather than the political middle (it's the depressing byproduct of gerrymandering - the original sin behind America's dysfunctional, divided politics).

Equally, in the media, people who opine about politics are rewarded for being more extreme and stoking outrage — that's the way to get more eyeballs and, ultimately, more advertising dollars.

This incentive structure is what makes Utah Governor Spencer Cox something of an American exception.

STUPIDITY is in action.

I agree with you Robin.

I might have heard of Charlie Kirk, but he just didn't register with me. People like Hannity did.

For a long time I have thought that algorithms could be significant contributors to info bubbles, serving affirmation more than critical thinking.

That's hard to measure.

For example, if I want affirmation in my "news" consumption, I don't need no stinkin' algorithm's help.

However, IMO it is something worth thinking about.

There is much reading published on this and related topics. The problem is the most vulnerable don't read or listen well, by choice or ability. After all, this is classed as an intellectual topic, not designed to affirm polarization.

I'll provide some sources and info for those who do read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..._the_media_ecosystem

Political polarization in the United States

Changes in the media ecosystem

There are several links in this section for more reading related topics. Also, the fourth paragraph in this section is about Big Data algorithms.

And here's an article about Political polarization

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...ation#US_perspective

And here is an AI summary answer to the question; Are social media algorithms driving the political divisions?

Research shows that social media algorithms exacerbate political division, though they are not the sole cause. Designed to maximize user engagement and advertising revenue, these algorithms promote emotionally charged and partisan content, leading to "filter bubbles" and "echo chambers". The platforms' business models have been widely criticized for fueling political polarization, with internal company research confirming the harmful effect of some automated systems.

How social media algorithms promote division

Reinforce existing beliefs: Algorithms prioritize content that aligns with a user's pre-existing views, often displaying more extreme or one-sided information. By limiting exposure to diverse perspectives, platforms can entrench people deeper into their political identities.

Encourage "affective polarization": In addition to ideological divides, algorithms intensify "affective polarization"—the emotional dislike and distrust of opposing political groups. Content designed to provoke anger or fear is highly engaging and therefore heavily promoted, which can encourage hostility.

Amplify radical and extremist content: Because outrage drives engagement, algorithms can push users toward increasingly extreme viewpoints. One study found that, compared to a chronological feed, Facebook's algorithmically driven feed surfaces more politically aligned and extreme content. A 2025 study also indicated that algorithms on X (formerly Twitter) could increase negative feelings toward out-parties by adjusting exposure to content expressing "partisan animosity".

Rapidly spread misinformation: Social media enables false information to be instantly disseminated and amplified within partisan communities. The speed of this spread often outpaces the ability of fact-checkers to counter it, causing damage by the time inaccuracies are addressed. Some platforms have even scaled back their fact-checking efforts in recent years.

Prioritize sensationalism: The prioritization of user engagement over factual, balanced reporting means algorithms consistently promote the most divisive or sensational content, which can erode public trust in both institutions and objective facts.

Countervailing evidence and alternative causes
While the role of social media algorithms is significant, some recent studies suggest their effects are more complex and not the sole driver of political polarization.

Limitations of studies: Some research conducted in partnership with Meta found that altering users' feeds for a short period did not significantly change their political attitudes. Critics point out that these were short-term experiments in a politically charged environment, so they may not capture the long-term, cumulative impact of social media.

Other contributing factors:
Experts point to other major causes of polarization, which social media then amplifies:
Economic inequality
Changes in the media landscape, such as the shift from traditional media
Political activism and campaign finance
In-group biases and partisan sorting, where people align their opinions with their party's stance

Historical context: Research from the Pew Research Center indicates that polarization has been growing for decades, predating the rise of social media. Social media did not create political divisions from scratch but has accelerated and intensified existing trends.

=====================================================

At the bottom of the article, three more questions are linked to answers:

What are some examples of social media design changes to reduce polarization?

Tell me more about how algorithms can be redesigned

How can platforms prioritize content popular across the political spectrum?

quote:

Originally posted by RobinOLocksley:
This is an excellent article, I would say. Do read it in its entirety if you have the time.

Coming back to the social media algorithms, do you think by controlling what one sees on their screens, platform owners are driving the divisions deeper? I give you my own experience. I read from several news outlets, not necessarily what one calls left leaning, and also use YouTube and Facebook. I follow American politics closely, probably more than many Americans. Yet, until his terrible assassination, I had never heard of Charlie Kirk. When I read Saeed saying that he never heard of Mr Kirk, I believed him. Saeed even reads the Daily Mail regularly! What do you think can be done to limit social media platforms' owners' ability to control what one sees? Appreciate your views.

Katty Kay: America is at a dangerous crossroads following the Charlie Kirk shooting

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c78n0e83ye0o

quote:

The reason is simple, yet hard to change. The incentives that fuel American political life reward the people and platforms that turn up the heat, not those who dial tensions down.

Around the country, you're more likely to get elected to political office if you run on policies and rhetoric that appeal to your political base, rather than the political middle (it's the depressing byproduct of gerrymandering - the original sin behind America's dysfunctional, divided politics).

Equally, in the media, people who opine about politics are rewarded for being more extreme and stoking outrage — that's the way to get more eyeballs and, ultimately, more advertising dollars.

This incentive structure is what makes Utah Governor Spencer Cox something of an American exception.

To see just how profoundly devious SM is, watch this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaaC57tcci0

You (we) are being directed into hating one another.

ME, people are not stupid as you suggest, they just think on different levels
Anyone using blanket word “ Stupid “ for others is guilty of being stupid and therefore very biased
And my view on news algorithm is that liberal organizations are using it hell of a lot more and conservative organizations

That video is five years old, Steve.

I think it's very true, BTW.

Five years in today's world is a long time, relating to this topic and effect. When thinking of acceleration, think AI.

People who are keen on self-defense, for example, always emphasize situational awareness.

That applies regarding this very much.

quote:

Originally posted by M.Shy:
ME, people are not stupid as you suggest, they just think on different levels
Anyone using blanket word “ Stupid “ for others is guilty of being stupid and therefore very biased
And my view on news algorithm is that liberal organizations are using it hell of a lot more and conservative organizations

You are right. There wasn't sufficient reason for me to use the "stupid" word. I'm going to edit that out. Thanks for the feedback.

I'll have to think about your last sentence some more. My initial instinct is to not agree with it. I don't know about "liberal organizations" and their use vs conservative orgs' use. Think "cause".

But this topic seems more about the "effect" on the vulnerable, which IMO is across the board.

Social media algorithms are very much part of the problem.

The way they make money is to drive responses (clicks) and get ad revenue.

It’s been obvious that more extreme coverage gets more response, so human psychology is used to drive revenue, regardless of what it does to the audience.

Young people without much experience are very susceptible to this manipulation and this is probably part of why social media is so addictive to them.

So we are having increasing extremism and at younger ages exacerbated by ubiquitous social media.

Zuckerberg was asking Trump what he wanted Fuckbook to do to help him!

And Youtube blocked Meduro's channel too.

All because the ORANGE MEGA TURD told them to do so.