> We are drawn to sensational, scandalous stories for some combination of entertainment and self-righteous outrage/virtue signaling to the others in our tribe.

While I agree, I think there's more to it than that, I think it's more serious than that, and I think the message amplification capabilities afforded to profit-driven (or ideologically driven) bad actors is something we've not really seen before. Certainly not at this scale.

So while it is human nature, that's not to say the outcomes are desirable, nor that the marketplace of ideas concept is consistent with reality. In fact I think it might be the point, much like the perfect economic market, the concept of the well-functioning marketplace of ideas cannot exist, because of the humans that make it up.

"major platforms’ amplification features have also caused or contributed to real damage in the world. At a societal level, they have spread misleading political material, to the detriment of democratic governance"

https://knightcolumbia.org/content/amplification-and-its-dis...

The Catholic Church felt the same way about Gutenberg's press.

Gutenberg's first mass-produced book was a Latin Vulgate bible. The 40 remaining copies are among the most valuable books in the world. Gutenberg also printed indulgences for the church. It's fair to say the Catholic Church absolutely loved Gutenberg. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07090a.htm

>It's fair to say the Catholic Church absolutely loved Gutenberg.

I wasn't talking about the man, I was talking about the machine. The Catholic Church certainly didn't love it anymore once The Reformation happened. See the Catholic Church could no longer control information when lay people could read the Bible, and Martin Luther's texts. Gutenberg's press completely transformed the church's control in Europe and it lasts to this day.

https://speccoll.library.arizona.edu/online-exhibits/exhibit...

This has parallels today. The government can no longer control information via traditional media channels because the internet, in its current form, exists. They want that control back. I believe this is an attempt to regain control. The government would never shut down big tech companies, they are a great source of information for data collection.

I knew you were going to bring up the Reformation. The printing press, by that point, was something anyone with sufficient resources could obtain. The Catholic Church was certainly not lacking for resources. Martin Luther and his allies didn't have access to non-traditional media channels. Everyone was using printing presses, the Catholic Church just wanted to have the last word on who was allowed to use printing presses.

Interestingly, in 1644 John Milton wrote an impassioned philosophical defense of the principle of a right to freedom of speech and expression. He wrote it response to the requirement, of the Protestant government, that all authors be licensed and approved by the state. In that defense, he wrote, "Yet if all cannot be of one mind—as who looks they should be?—this doubtless is more wholesome, more prudent, and more Christian, that many be tolerated, rather than all compelled. I mean not tolerated popery, and open superstition, which, as it extirpates all religions and civil supremacies, so itself should be extirpate"

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/608/608-h/608-h.htm

>Catholic Church just wanted to have the last word on who was allowed to use printing presses.

Which is the way government is treating big tech, government wants the last word on "truth." Sounds like you are agreeing with my analogy.

I agree that the outcomes are not desirable. Many people over history have recognized this, and that is why we have religions that recognize our inherent flawed or "sinful" nature in this regard and give us a framework of rules for how to live. Look at the "Seven Deadly Sins" just as one example, it's pretty much what the social media algorithms select for when they promote content.

It is not unique to the online world, but the online world does change the dynamics around these things significantly, because the social immune system that we have in the real world completely fails on the internet.

In a small, real world friend group "that guy" who talks about ancient aliens, flat earth and Pleiadians or whatever gets shut down real quick and suffers consequences within his social circle.

In the online world, "those guys" can find each other and egg each other on into more bizarre world views. This isn't a theory, you can watch this happen in real time with the qanon "movement".

People who (rightfully) feel estranged by mainstream media or left behind by politics pick up some weird idea, find communities who agree with them and end up holding on to those views longer than they would without the support. In some cases, this leads them to slowly becoming more estranged from real world contacts. Family and friends distance themselves because they don't want to hear any more about how Earth being a globe is somehow a big conspiracy and this little supportive online community eventually remains the only safe space to talk openly and they become more invested in it.

The problem is these communities harshly punish everyone who disagrees with the mob. Increasingly outlandish ideas are pushed into the conversation, and your only options are to agree or to be turned away, which becomes increasingly painful the more other contacts withdraw from you. It's a death spiral that is scary effective.

Eventually the only people that you can relate with is a group that also talks about how every bad thing that happens is orchestrated, democrats are all traitors that need to be put in front of a firing squad and baking soda treats cancer.

We need to come up with something to fight this deterioration of the social fabric, but I agree censorship is not sufficient or maybe even helpful.