I postulate that corporate social media has only one goal outside of making money: influencing public opinion. Any algorithms that optimize for engagement with ideas that are hostile to democracy should be forbidden, just as influencing foreign elections in general.

Rumors have been spreading for a millennium, and democracy has been okay in the sense that democracy has only been a thing relatively recently. Social media didn't exist 1,000 years ago as a means to spread rumors at scale to hundreds of millions of people.

Something that was said decades ago is that every village used to have an idiot. Now every idiot has a village.

And even more so now, the efforts of one person to sway public opinion can push lies to hundreds of millions of people, which is something that has been impossible up till now.

I wonder how much damage media titans like Hearst would have done today if they built their empires now, on top of social media feeds, instead of in print 125 years ago…

Is there really much of a difference besides the speed of communication? Social media is the top medium that people get their news from, just like newspapers from 125 years ago, and just like TV (Fox News) from 40 years ago . Have enough control over that medium and you have control over the information flow, enough to generate your own propaganda and have a real meaningful impact.

Besides that fact that social media can post information in a matter of minutes vs. the daily cycle of newspapers, I don't really see the difference. Social media isn't really special in that regard. If anything, the control has shifted more towards the public. But, people are still lacking in critical thinking skills and continue to idolize famous people as a proxy for trustworthiness. Hence, they still fall for rumors and disinformation, especially if some famous dumbass said it.

What about anything you said refutes the point?

Well, if they were surveying the prevalence of the rumors, then the survey could show how they spread. But it's not what they did. As you described, it's a survey about people believing how social media harms democracy.

It also includes trolling and people that are just plain wrong, but people tend to believe what they want to believe.

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2026/10/01/across-the-globe-people-increasingly-say-social-media-is-harming-democracy/

Is the study they are referring to

Well I didn’t vote for Reuters

News came before the internet, so they state sources, not link them, which they did in the first sentence:

Oct 1 (Reuters) - A growing number of people think social media manipulates and divides people and harms democracy, Pew Research Center said ​on Thursday

And by extension the bastardization and gutting of basic education. People who aren't taught how to think won't understand things.

Oh yes they do, as a multiplicator of everything that lobbies and billionaires say and do.

And the Kremlin.

It's literally one of the things that gives lobbies and billionaires the level of control that they have.

Why do you think they managed to keep growing and maintaining control? It's because everyone else is going at each other's throats over artificially created cultural issues in an ever-ongoing culture war, largely fueled by these people and spread and scaled over social media.

Social media is literally the weapon they use, and almost no one has any idea of the level of manipulation they are subject to through their feeds.

My guy... Social media ARE the elites media platforms you Dingus.

They aren't letting people do shit, they are all censored and monitored to ensure we stay fractured and disengaged

They did. That's why they spent so much effort to ruin the internet these past few years.

for the first time is allowing the peasants to speak to each other rather

That's what the tavern was for...

You know, the place where the elites couldn't manipulate the topics of conversation and shared sentiment by adjusting algorithms and shadowbanning ideas they don't like...

Your main point might hold if people were mostly using fediverse platforms, but such is not the case

That's the point. Rumors are, in many ways, more dangerous than lies, since they mix in with the truth in ways that make them more believable.

as opposed to established media, which is totally trustworthy and not captured. not at all.

I love the quiet irony you employed here. I know nothing about Greta Hopkins other than she's a village-ruining whore who should suffer for all the pain she's caused!

I don't know her, I don't know the village, and I don't know you, but that bitch needs to go down. Thanks, social media!