RIP social media. What comes next is messy.
Last fall, we featured an extensive interview with Petter Törnberg of the University of Amsterdam, who studies the underlying mechanisms of social media that give rise to its worst aspects: the partisan echo chambers, the concentration of influence among a small group of elite users (attention inequality), and the amplification of the most extreme divisive voices. He wasn’t optimistic about social media’s future.Törnberg’s research showed that, while numerous platform-level intervention strategies have been proposed to combat these issues, none are likely to be effective. And it’s not the fault of much-hated algorithms, non-chronological feeds, or our human proclivity for seeking out negativity. Rather, the dynamics that give rise to all those negative outcomes are structurally embedded in the very architecture of social media. So we’re probably doomed to endless toxic feedback loops unless someone hits upon a brilliant fundamental redesign that manages to change those dynamics.
Törnberg has been very busy since then, producing two new papers and one new preprint building on this realization that social media is structured quite differently than the physical world, with unexpected downstream consequences. The first new paper, published in PLoS ONE, specifically focused on the echo chamber effect, using the same combined standard agent-based modeling with large language models (LLMs)—essentially creating little AI personas to simulate online social media behavior.
RIP social media. What comes next is messy.
As social media splinters, how can we keep the new online spaces from devolving into toxic pits of despair?Jennifer Ouellette (Ars Technica)

SigHunter
in reply to Powderhorn • • •i_am_not_a_robot
in reply to Powderhorn • • •ikidd
in reply to Powderhorn • • •That's some optimism there, all right.
like this
Quantumantics likes this.
darkkite
in reply to ikidd • • •HobbitFoot
in reply to darkkite • • •Kichae
in reply to HobbitFoot • • •Yes, but federation isn't really about enabling one singular discussion space. Network splits are ultimately healthy for the communities, because it allows for self-governance and actual community building, rather than unmanageably large masses screaming into themaatically named voids, controlled by a handful of super-mods and super-admins.
Distributed networks are meant to be, well, distributed, not quasi-centralized with some fun URLs used as dumb terminals.
corsicanguppy
in reply to HobbitFoot • • •I like how you said "minimal", like it's a floor and not a flavour.
No-no, it's perfect like that. Don't dare change it.
HobbitFoot
in reply to corsicanguppy • • •reluctant_squidd
in reply to Powderhorn • • •It should be renamed to “ad media”. At least everything that isn’t in the fediverse. It’s getting harder and harder to find anything you are looking for in any web based service nowadays.
I’m not even that opposed to ad revenue as a supplement for costs. But these companies are so far into the ad revenue game that they seem to have forgotten why people used their service in the first place.
like this
Quantumantics likes this.
Phoenixz
in reply to reluctant_squidd • • •That already rang true 20 years ago
FaceDeer
in reply to Powderhorn • • •
... Show more...Ooh, this is interesting. It suggests the possibility of automating this; since most social media allows for upvoting and downvoting it should be possible to automatically determine which users are "agreeable" and which are "disagreeable" and fil
Ooh, this is interesting. It suggests the possibility of automating this; since most social media allows for upvoting and downvoting it should be possible to automatically determine which users are "agreeable" and which are "disagreeable" and filter thread contents to push it toward this 10 percent threshold.
Probably wouldn't work on the Threadiverse yet, though, there's not a large enough population here yet.