> That's how we got algorithms that optimize outrage, because outrage and stress create massive engagement.
I mean, in this case, it's not a "problem", it's a predetermined goal. It's not some sort of accident that they optimize for engagement, it's explicitly what they want to optimize for. The fact that it causes harmful interaction isn't an unwanted side effect, at least for the social media company, but a means to an end.
It is absolutely an accident. Engagement recommender systems do not optimize for outrage, they optimize for engagement. It just turns out that outrage causes engagement. The difference is that at no point is there a human who says "Let's cause outrage!" It's the algorithms that figure out the connection, which is the point being made by the person you replied to.
The second it became clear that outrage causes more engagement than anything else, using an engagement optimizing system became equivalent to pushing for outrage. You cannot do otherwise without EXTREME intervention.
The assumption is that engagement = good for business. I personally believe it isn't, as I've personally quit all social networks (notwithstanding HN and a few private communities) because they made me addicted and unhappy. Unhappy users stay because they're addicted, and a part of them quits. Happy users stay because they want to.
Not making people unhappy is good for business. Or at least I hope it is...
I mean, in this case, it's not a "problem", it's a predetermined goal. It's not some sort of accident that they optimize for engagement, it's explicitly what they want to optimize for. The fact that it causes harmful interaction isn't an unwanted side effect, at least for the social media company, but a means to an end.