Social Media Algorithms Warp How People Learn From Each Other, Research Shows (theconversation.com) 31
William Brady writes via The Conversation: People are increasingly interacting with others in social media environments where algorithms control the flow of social information they see. Algorithms determine in part which messages, which people and which ideas social media users see. On social media platforms, algorithms are mainly designed to amplify information that sustains engagement, meaning they keep people clicking on content and coming back to the platforms. I'm a social psychologist, and my colleagues and I have found evidence suggesting that a side effect of this design is that algorithms amplify information people are strongly biased to learn from. We call this information "PRIME," for prestigious, in-group, moral and emotional information. In our evolutionary past, biases to learn from PRIME information were very advantageous: Learning from prestigious individuals is efficient because these people are successful and their behavior can be copied. Paying attention to people who violate moral norms is important because sanctioning them helps the community maintain cooperation.
But what happens when PRIME information becomes amplified by algorithms and some people exploit algorithm amplification to promote themselves? Prestige becomes a poor signal of success because people can fake prestige on social media. Newsfeeds become oversaturated with negative and moral information so that there is conflict rather than cooperation. The interaction of human psychology and algorithm amplification leads to dysfunction because social learning supports cooperation and problem-solving, but social media algorithms are designed to increase engagement. We call this mismatch functional misalignment.
One of the key outcomes of functional misalignment in algorithm-mediated social learning is that people start to form incorrect perceptions of their social world. For example, recent research suggests that when algorithms selectively amplify more extreme political views, people begin to think that their political in-group and out-group are more sharply divided than they really are. Such "false polarization" might be an important source of greater political conflict. Functional misalignment can also lead to greater spread of misinformation. A recent study suggests that people who are spreading political misinformation leverage moral and emotional information -- for example, posts that provoke moral outrage -- in order to get people to share it more. When algorithms amplify moral and emotional information, misinformation gets included in the amplification. Brady cites several new studies on this topic that have demonstrated that social media algorithms clearly amplify PRIME information. However, it's unclear if this amplification leads to offline polarization.
Looking ahead, Brady says his team is "working on new algorithm designs that increase engagement while also penalizing PRIME information." The idea is that approach would "maintain user activity that social media platforms seek, but also make people's social perceptions more accurate," he says.
But what happens when PRIME information becomes amplified by algorithms and some people exploit algorithm amplification to promote themselves? Prestige becomes a poor signal of success because people can fake prestige on social media. Newsfeeds become oversaturated with negative and moral information so that there is conflict rather than cooperation. The interaction of human psychology and algorithm amplification leads to dysfunction because social learning supports cooperation and problem-solving, but social media algorithms are designed to increase engagement. We call this mismatch functional misalignment.
One of the key outcomes of functional misalignment in algorithm-mediated social learning is that people start to form incorrect perceptions of their social world. For example, recent research suggests that when algorithms selectively amplify more extreme political views, people begin to think that their political in-group and out-group are more sharply divided than they really are. Such "false polarization" might be an important source of greater political conflict. Functional misalignment can also lead to greater spread of misinformation. A recent study suggests that people who are spreading political misinformation leverage moral and emotional information -- for example, posts that provoke moral outrage -- in order to get people to share it more. When algorithms amplify moral and emotional information, misinformation gets included in the amplification. Brady cites several new studies on this topic that have demonstrated that social media algorithms clearly amplify PRIME information. However, it's unclear if this amplification leads to offline polarization.
Looking ahead, Brady says his team is "working on new algorithm designs that increase engagement while also penalizing PRIME information." The idea is that approach would "maintain user activity that social media platforms seek, but also make people's social perceptions more accurate," he says.
No surprises here. (Score:5, Insightful)
People have been complaining for the 8 years about this effect at least.
I want to point out, however, the manipulation is the problem. By putting themselves in the middle to massage these triggers, social media has become actors rather than a passive service. As such, they bear responsibility for these actions.
Also, claiming these PRIME factors are no longer useful is incredibly stupid. The behavoir is obviously working, so it is copy worthy.
The true problem lies in the solidification of views due to reinforcement..
And the root cause is the impression from millions of people. We aren't built to deal with what amounts to mobs of this size. We are trying to use our individual based tools on the multitudes problem.
But we are
A very disturbing trend (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: A very disturbing trend (Score:1)
"There is currently a campaign going on by reactionary left wing grifters to make black people fear white people in the western world."
Fixed it for you. Let's come together guys.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Fixed it for you properly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the tactic is called Divide and Conquer, inspiring fear in both sides achieves the same result.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's about the money, stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
The algorithms are designed to amplify revenue. Yes, that might be engagement, but not always. To pick one example, Spotify directs you to songs that maximise the odds of you subscribing. Apple does the reverse - they direct you to songs that cost them the least.
Along the same lines, you could well imagine Google search prefers sites that earn the most clicks on Google ads. I'd be amazed if Facebook doesn't do a similar thing. For example, they could display a few social posts in the news feed that highlight the desirability of some item, followed by an ad for the item itself.
The point being, you're up against an AI's developed by the world's leading computer companies. Those AI's can be far more subtle and devious that you might expect if you thing they are just optimising for engagement.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything you mentioned is optimizing for engagement, which just means attention. They want you to pay attention to stuff that makes them money. Sometimes that's more clicks on your content from other people, and sometimes that's more clicks from you on ads.
Bullshit (Score:1, Troll)
They are prestigious in modern society because our oligarchs already decided their messages should be accepted. This is a vitally important distinction, unless we want to sacrifice naturally created success for whatever behavior our overlords want us to have. The Today shows and Tonight shows and This Evening shows are pure propaganda.
Re: (Score:2)
The obvious one is "my sky-daddy says so": The political movements demanding nudity, sex-education, birth-control, pornography and abortion be deleted from human awareness, depend on it.
Another one is revealed by ex-president Trump: By several metrics, he is successful. When he isn't, the message is, plutocrats are simultaneously excused and rewarded for their immoral deeds.
The problem is not how social media makes things w (Score:3)
I hate to break it to people, but polarization and radicalization predates social media by eons. In fact, it could be argued that polarization and radicalization is the norm for humans, regardless of the presence of advanced technologies such as the internet, and social media.
The problem is not that social media platforms cause polarization and radicalization through some kind of algorithmic process. The problem is that these platforms are used by humans indiscriminately in a reflexive way that perpetuates and amplifies the radicalism that is latent in all humans.
Humans generally are pretty fucking terrible at their core by nature. Itâ(TM)s only through force of effort and conscientiousness that we get ourselves to be collaborative and thoughtful. Social media is not defective, humans are.
Re: (Score:2)
Social media is not defective, humans are.
Yes, but social media is amplifying those traits tremendously, both in depth and surface area.
Before Internet and Social Media, the village idiot was the village idiot and that was it. There were also those villagers who had dumb thoughts and ideas, but little to no way of spreading them except to immediate family members and maybe a few friends, who might accept those dumb ideas or not.
With Internet and Social media, the village idiots can gather together in a large group and fling their shit collectively,
Oh so thats why (Score:1)
So thats why I naturally avoid social media.
What?! (Score:2)
It's a good job I'm not fooled by all this ridiculous, provocative, indignant outrage generating nonsense! What a load of rubbish! Absolute idiots!!!
Not trustworthy. (Score:2)
"PRIME," for prestigious, in-group, moral and emotional information
I'm assuming that any group willing to follow such a tortured path in a failed attempt to get this phrase to have a readable acronym (it actually abbreviates to PGMEI), that they would be willing to do the same to the data.
My first swing at it was "Prestige Ring Information, Moral and Emotional", and took 15 seconds. I'm sure there are far better phrases that fit the acronym, and far better options if you're not bizarrely attached to using PRIME as the word. I just have an innate distrust of research done
SEO (Score:2)