In a recent series of experiments, we paid people a few dollars to unfollow the most divisive political accounts on X. After a month, they reported feeling 23% less animosity towards other political groups. In fact, their experience was so positive that nearly half the people declined to refollow those hostile accounts after the study was over. And those who maintain their healthier newsfeed reported less animosity a full 11 months after the study.

Twitter got a lot better when I unfollowed the peeps whose tweets I hated. But it also got boring, so I stopped using it (this was loooong before Trump, Elon, etc).

There's probably a lesson there.

It's definitely not the same, but I am somewhat reminded of Robert Sapolski's Baboon stress study

Some key paragraphs:

Robert Sapolsky and Lisa Share report evidence of a higher order cultural tradition in wild baboons in Kenya. Rooted in field observations of a group of olive baboons (called the Forest Troop) since 1978, Sapolsky and Share document the emergence of a unique culture affecting the “overall structure and social atmosphere” of the troop.

Through a heartbreaking twist of fate, the most aggressive males in the Forest Troop were wiped out. The males, which had taken to foraging in an open garbage pit adjacent to a tourist lodge, had contracted bovine tuberculosis, and most died between 1983 and 1986. Their deaths drastically changed the gender composition of the troop, more than doubling the ratio of females to males, and by 1986 troop behavior had changed considerably as well; males were significantly less aggressive.

After the deaths, Sapolsky stopped observing the Forest Troop until 1993. Surprisingly, even though no adult males from the 1983–1986 period remained in the Forest Troop in 1993 (males migrate after puberty), the new males exhibited the less aggressive behavior of their predecessors.

The authors found that while in some respects male to male dominance behaviors and patterns of aggression were similar in both the Forest and control troops, there were differences that significantly reduced stress for low ranking males, which were far better tolerated by dominant males than were their counterparts in the control troops. The males in the Forest Troop also displayed more grooming behavior, an activity that's decidedly less stressful than fighting. Analyzing blood samples from the different troops, Sapolsky and Share found that the Forest Troop males lacked the distinctive physiological markers of stress, such as elevated levels of stress-induced hormones, seen in the control troops.

But if aggressive behavior in baboons does have a cultural rather than a biological foundation, perhaps there's hope for us as well.

A mere 0.1% of users share 80% of fake news. Twelve accounts – known as the “disinformation dozen” – created most of the vaccine misinformation on Facebook during the pandemic. These few hyperactive users produced enough content to create the false perceptions that many people were vaccine hesitant.

So, this is super anecdotal, but through the father of a friend I learned about a guy who was just downright a walking stereotype in that regard. Said father is a rather conservative guy (ex-cop, actually), got lucky and rather rich, and he lived in a suburban village here in Germany. Said neighbour, as described by him: Also an ex-cop, old acquaintance, wife and kids left him because he was violent, living financially comfortably in a large house in that suburban German village on his own, but miserable. And he, unironically, sent said father of my friend far-right propaganda articles, images, messages just... all day long. Every 10 minutes or so. Presumably as mass messages to about anyone who still had a semblance of contact with him. Anecdotal, hearsay with 2 degrees of separation, but - it was the first time I realised those people existed as actual people just casually living their lives around us all.

Musk, Bezos, Zuck, Page ruined the internet for us. That's who to blame

Had the same experience on Blue sky. I was never into Twitter, so I checked out Bsky to see if that was better. Nah. Just different political circle jerking.

FTFY: Are a few people ruining the world for the rest of us?

Answer: Yes. They need to face justice.

You can extrapolate that to humanity for the last few centuries or even millennias

So we just need something to 86 the worst of us?

8647 at least

Independent of what anyone is actually saying, the mere fact that someone is commenting on social media at all makes it highly likely they’re one of the people the article is talking about. As the saying goes, a tiny number of users produce nearly all the content. Most people don’t post comments online. The average person doesn’t. So if someone does, that alone already marks them as unusual in some way.

This becomes especially obvious on Lemmy, where you can see people’s moderation history - and it takes only a few seconds to notice how many users are spouting mean, violent, and extremist views. You might not see those views as extreme because this is an echo chamber and you probably agree with them, but they’re extreme nonetheless when compared to what the average person would say.

Nobody ever thinks of themselves as the problem - we all have some story about how our behavior is justified and how those people over there are the real issue. Nah, you're probably part of the issue as well. I am too.

Yep. Musk. Trump. Rogan. Spez. Libs for Tik Tok. Zuckerberg. And so on. It’s like giving Conservatives access to the web lead to it being a septic tank.

Absolutely agree. There's a minority of highly polarized people who encourage a false binary view of the world - where anyone who doesn't 100% agree with you is your enemy, and questioning even a subtle aspect of an opinion is an all-out attack. These people post so much they dominate forums and create the false appearance of trends. Most people aren't nearly that polarized.

Nah, "the rest of us" is ruining the internet by following the people in the top of the trash pit.

You know... nobody is stopping you from self hosting, building a website or digging a gopherhole?

I find in real life they are just as polarized but not as rude about it. Both left and right friends of mine.

However almost all of them get the hint to respectfully change the topic when there is an impasse. Online the badgering continues unabated.

A "few" people? The problem is not a handful of loudmouths, but the masses hanging on their lips. An influencer is not influencing without a mass of followers.

One of them being main stream media trying to stay relevant

The main point is that these interactions happen much less often IRL than online, where the anger trolls post relentlessly. If they acted like that in person almost nobody would ever talk to them, but for some weird reason they get a lot of takers online.

My friends set up a CMS by invite only (people we know IRL). Hundreds of us there and yet only a handful are active.

People want to be where the action is (more so than where the quality is). FOMO.

Well, look at it the other way around:

Those niche places act like a filter, pretty much alike as the whole internet was about ~20 years ago. Yeah, there may be fewer people around, but those people tend to be quiet a bit more interesting.

I think you've got a point. My initial thought was that because this platform is decentralized and there's no Elon or Zuck at the helm, this isn't applicable. But as you pointed out, the vast majority of users don't interact or post anything, so that naturally amplifies the users who do, particularly if they have an agenda to push.