“Fixing” social media is like “fixing” capitalism. Any manmade system can be changed, destroyed, or rebuilt. It’s not an impossible task but will require a fundamental shift in the way we see/talk to/value each other as people.

The one thing I know for sure is that social media won’t ever improve if we all accept the narrative that it can’t be improved.

We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words.

-Ursula K Le Guin

Fixing social media is like fixing guns so they can't hurt or kill anyone anymore. Both have been designed for a very particular purpose.

Meta and twitter cease to exist tomorrow and 99% of the issues are solved IMO

The fediverse is social media and it doesn't have anything close to the same kinds of harmful patterns

It's almost like the problem isn't social media, but the algorithms that put content in front of your eyeballs to keep your engagement in order to monetize you. Like a casino.

Lemmy is social media. So is Mastodon. So is peer tube. And everything else in the fediverse.

So I wouldn’t compare social media to a gun, across the board.

I'm not surprised. I am surprised that the researchers were surprised, though.

Bridging algorithms seem promising.

The results were far from encouraging. Only some interventions showed modest improvements. None were able to fully disrupt the fundamental mechanisms producing the dysfunctional effects. In fact, some interventions actually made the problems worse. For example, chronological ordering had the strongest effect on reducing attention inequality, but there was a tradeoff: It also intensified the amplification of extreme content. Bridging algorithms significantly weakened the link between partisanship and engagement and modestly improved viewpoint diversity, but it also increased attention inequality. Boosting viewpoint diversity had no significant impact at all.

The original source is here:

Can We Fix Social Media? Testing Prosocial Interventions using Generative Social Simulation

Abstract page for arXiv paper 2508.03385: Can We Fix Social Media? Testing Prosocial Interventions using Generative Social Simulation

arXiv.org (arxiv.org)

Social media platforms have been widely linked to societal harms, including rising polarization and the erosion of constructive debate. Can these problems be mitigated through prosocial interventions? We address this question using a novel method – generative social simulation – that embeds Large Language Models within Agent-Based Models to create socially rich synthetic platforms. We create a minimal platform where agents can post, repost, and follow others. We find that the resulting following-networks reproduce three well-documented dysfunctions: (1) partisan echo chambers; (2) concentrated influence among a small elite; and (3) the amplification of polarized voices – creating a “social media prism” that distorts political discourse. We test six proposed interventions, from chronological feeds to bridging algorithms, finding only modest improvements – and in some cases, worsened outcomes. These results suggest that core dysfunctions may be rooted in the feedback between reactive engagement and network growth, raising the possibility that meaningful reform will require rethinking the foundational dynamics of platform architecture.

Social media hasn't been designed to cause these problems, though. It's more a babelfish thing.

Amazon, Google and Microsoft would still be there, so the Internet seems to be suffering from a metastatic cancer at this point. Cutting off two revolting lumps helps, but the prognosis doesn’t look that great.

Social media was a mistake, tbh

Let's just pretend nothing after MySpace ever happened

We're on the solution right now, lmao

Every problem is an opportunity to earn even more money or gain even more power. Bad for average users, great for those who own and control the platform.

Uhm, I seem to recall that social media was actually pretty good in the late 2000s and early 2010s. The authors used AI models as the users. Could it be that their models have internalized the effects of the algorithms that fundamentally changed social media from what it used to be over a decade ago, and then be reproducing those effects in their experiments? Sounds like they're treating models as if they're humans, and they are not. Especially when it comes to changing behaviour based on changes in the environment, which is what they were testing by trying different algorithms and mitigation strategies.

All those platforms work the same way. In the end it's all about the same social dynamics, about control. "We are the alternative to all the shitty peer groups out there! Join us!" is one of the oldest tricks in the playbook. There is no alternative. Because it's all based on human nature.

Seriously, read her books. I looooove „The Dispossessed“

Pre print journalism fucking bugs me because the journalists themselves can't actually judge if anything is worth discussing so they just look for click bait shit.

This methodology to discover what interventions do in human environments seems particularly deranged to me though:

We address this question using a novel
method – generative social simulation – that embeds Large Language Models
within Agent-Based Models to create socially rich synthetic platforms.

LLM agents trained on social media dysfunction recreate it unfailingly. No shit. I understand they gave them personas to adopt as prompts, but prompts cannot and do not override training data. As we've seen multiple times over and over. LLMs fundamentally cannot maintain an identity from a prompt. They are context engines.

Particularly concerning sf the silo claims. LLMs riffing on a theme over extended interactions because the tokens keep coming up that way is expected behavior. LLMs are fundamentally incurious and even more prone to locking into one line of text than humans as the longer conversation reinforces it.

Determining the functionality of what the authors describe as a novel approach might be more warranted than making conclusions on it.

Good thing is, you don't need to use it.
Bad thing is, it affects reality.

The dream was that social media would help revitalize the public sphere and support the kind of constructive political dialogue that your paper deems "vital to democratic life." That largely hasn't happened.

Their idea is basically that people need to be told the same things to what to believe in so that democracy can work as it's supposed to and social media is disrupting that with all the conspiracy shit, flame wars and polarization of opinions. The issue is that this common idea is fermented by the boomer generation. They grew up in really quite anomalous post war world when there was first time in human history basically monolithic mass media that people watched it AND had high trust in AND the system provided more for the masses more than it does now. Those then lead to to high societal inclusion and high social cohesion that again fed into the prosperity. Now we have fragmented information sphere and things are shit are shit, political center is hated by most and radicalism is once again rising.

However so called democracy or collective decision making in general itself does not rely on people not believing in crazy shit, not being fed the best possible validated information, or god forbid having unorthodox ideas of their own or developing factionalism or totally different reading on reality. It helps make it smoother and avoids violence, but that "smoothness of process" that boomers have come to expect is also why society in wider terms is politically stagnant and rotting. People seem to live in different realities, because in a sense we are, because our economic realities can be so different and decoupled form the mainstream narrative. It never didn't have to get this bad, but social media only a venting mechanism not the reason for the growing divides. The division in society and the general anguish is real IRL, it just takes forms of all kinds of irrational and counterproductive forms online. The problem isn't really that people are factional and can't agree with each other, it's that nobody can no longer agree with the monolithic unpopular political center that is holding on to power for dear life.