Having just read "How Toxic Content Drives User Engagement on Social Media" from the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business' Stigler Center's ProMarket newsletter I see we are running the blog counter to accepted platform wisdom.
The vast majority of social media platforms’ revenue comes from advertising. This business model relies on getting users to view or click on as many ads as possible. For this to happen, social media algorithms need to give users the type of content that makes them spend time on the platform and engage with ads.
This business model naturally raises concerns about whether platforms are incentivized to prioritize engaging but potentially harmful content. These concerns stem from seminal work in social psychology showing that negative events and emotions disproportionately impact human behavior. Thus, toxic content that is rude, disrespectful or hostile, though in principle unpleasant, might paradoxically drive more engagement....
Return with me now to the glory days of the dotcom boom, the summer of 1999 when all the marketers and consultants said the key to online success was a clickbait headline and tarpit content to attract and engage "sticky eyeballs":
I think the Department of Justice should impanel a new "Epstein" grand jury.
That's it, that's all I've got.
The predicate of course would be anything that Maxwell said over this past weekend.
I understand that some very powerful, very wealthy, very influential people might be opposed to this idea but it should be done.
So bring Donald Trump and Bill Clinton, Les Wexner, Ehud Barack And Reid Hoffman, a couple of Bronfmans, Alan Dershowitz, Mort Zuckerman, Leon Black, Peter Mandelson and Prince Andrew, Woody Allen, Bill Gates and Noam Chomsky, bring them before a grand jury and ask them what they know.
It's all very private, the only people even aware of what is said in a grand jury are those in the courtroom so the reputational damage to the innocent is minimized and let's just get to the bottom of this.
