It's that combined with the echo chamber effect of their algorithms. I've watched a diverse group of smart and average people across political spectrum this election. Most of them consistently shared unsubstantiated claims or biased media. As expected, their media was always presenting evidence for their side and agsinst the other. Corporate media always did that for maximizing ratings and ad impressions.

However, there's a difference. People often had these discussions face to face with other views visible or at least some consequences for bullshitting. Now, the like-minded naturally group together with Facebook making the others (esp moderates) largely disappear from the feed. Showing them what they wanted to see with convenience of scrolling past opposing beliefs reinforced the echo chambers and false beliefs. That few counterpoints are displayed reinforces it further by creating illusion of false consensus for their side. All the resulting upvotes and shares reinforce the algorithm's effect.

I speculate such things are why the divide seemed so much stronger in this election than before. They need to bump into each other more for the necessary conversations to occur. The tech increases isolation instead. The effects will only get worse over time.

It would be really nice if you wouldn't consistently post such balanced comments as they're doing nothing to reinforce the polarization, anger, and frustration we find so vital to drive engagement, page views, clicks, and time on site.

"The effects will only get worse over time."

I'm trying to think of comparable societal changes that we've been able to reverse at least sufficiently ameliorate. My imagination (and knowledge of history) are too limited. Anyone have some good examples? Or know of projects that are working on similar topics?

"It would be really nice if you wouldn't consistently post such balanced comments"

Lol. Believe me, a few people on social media agreed and I can't see their stuff any more. ;)

"I'm trying to think of comparable societal changes that we've been able to reverse at least sufficiently ameliorate. "

Similarly having a hard time. This particular one got reversed temporarily each time new mediums were invented. Then, the people using such tactics mastered them for the new mediums. Helps when the start rolling in money then use it to ensure the dominance. The social media has more potential to counter this than ever if they just adjust the algorithm to bridge the groups a certain percentage of time. They can mostly create a comfortable experience for the ad revenue but should make sure articles citing at least half-ass sources float into opposing feeds while letting bullshit stuff Snopes counters fall lower. That simple change, applied to everyone, might have a significant effect on the situation at least for moderates or rational people likely to effect change.

Just wondering, was this sentence intentionally written in an extremely complicated way? It took me a while to figure out what it was saying.

No, that's pretty typical of my writing that isn't edited down.

Usually, even for HN comments, I'm a little better at editing before anyone else sees it, though.

6 commas in one sentence is indeed a lot. I'm still unsure what it means.