Is the network authority the only entity to blame here? Looking at the other end of the spectrum, if a popular network was fully decentralized and had zero censorship or speed bumps to control how viral something goes, then I still think that social network would be vulnerable to propaganda machines. Specifically still by those with the most money to throw at it.

I don't think Facebook and many social networks are doing a good job but I think we should also recognize that the problem is difficult and unclear how to solve. There's an issue with how information naturally flows and how that can be manipulated.

Specifically I don't think TikTok is great because the focus on short videos (we see this on Facebook too. A meme is even shorter). 30 sec to 3 min political videos are more likely to be propaganda in my experience (e.g. NowThis). Though that isn't too say there aren't longer form versions (e.g. PragerU).

Generally I agree people (especially on HN) are too optimistic about zero-censorship decentralized systems, but I think it's important to point out that decentralization doesn't have to mean zero censorship / everything goes. In federated systems like Mastodon, each instance can handle their own moderation separately, allowing moderation to be done with more context by people closer to their communities and for a diversity of moderation styles to exist.

TikTok has already been found to be censoring content that criticises the Chinese government [1]. Theres a big difference between that and a nonpolitical public research project that ended up with a minuscule effect size.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/25/revealed-...

> a nonpolitical public research project

Are you referring to Camebridge Analytica?

No, the emotional contagion paper the OP linked. Facebook had no active role in the Cambridge Analytic affair.

Or you could just not waste your time with social media or the news in general.

If you didn't check social media or have any input from a new sources in the past 2 weeks what would you have missed?

The NASDAQ went down then back up?

Real news could be done with a single web page that updates weekly. Even if monthly you wouldn't really miss out on much of anything important.

For news, weekly newspapers are probably the best source. They don't have to be reactionary, they have time to do research and let things play out a bit, enabling them to give you useful insights instead of hysteria.

To me social media isn't about news, it's about entertainment, education, social interaction, etc. My TikTok is about people rapping childrens books, what ADHD does to people and how to deal with it, how introverts go to the party for the cats instead of to meet people (all things in the first five clips when I just opened it).

Social media certainly can be toxic, but it can also enrich your live and give you a much wider horizon by bringing you into contact with people outside your social bubble.

> Which social network would you trust not to do that?

Well step 1 is to see what country the social network was made in, and see if that government has had a strong history of using the law to force companies to silence criticism.