Most people don't want to get harassed and attacked at the level Trump gets so there are strong incentives to not do what he did. Saying there are no reasons not to do it is just ignorant, most people prefer peace and quiet over drama.

Joining the crowd to express approval for extremism (or equally extreme disapproval) has a much lower bar than making the "top-level" statements you refer to, though. Inflammatory content is constantly rewarded with a firehose of such "engagement", and it's coming from the vast populace that's supposedly averse to drama.

Suppose there is an arsonist setting fire to random houses. They come by and throw a Molotov cocktail through your window.

We then observe that you immediately drop everything to deal with the fire. Should the conclusion be that you love arson and enjoy spending time on it? More importantly, do we like a system where the arsonist is rewarded for getting you to spend time on something?

Are you making an analogy of having a moral obligation to engage in a flame war online?

Suppose this is inherent in human nature:

https://xkcd.com/386/

Now decide if you would like something that works differently than Facebook to replace it.

I can’t tell you much I recommend getting off social media.

I post here, and sometimes in a dynasty football reddit.

You’ll realize how evil the whole thing is.

> People game their social scores by being provocative edgelords.

Sure, some people are shooting that moon, but that's a tiny fraction of the rest—let alone the lurkers—who are keen on maintaining employment and wedding invitations.

Yes, provocation is a viable strategy for clicks and audience-building, but few people are attempting that, and among those who do it's not the only strategy.

Everywhere else -- in corporate America, on Facebook, at churches and family gatherings, even with many friends -- conformity is still the norm, and there are more landmine topics than ever.

Social cooling is real.

Yeah, it's been noticeable. Especially in the last year or so, everyone has gone quiet.

I don't think its "social cooling" as much as its a fracturing of social media into edgelords / influencers + their fanboys.

Everyone seems to have their own parasocial relationships with some podcast / youtuber / media personality. The fanboys want to conform to their tribe of fanboys and what the influencer wants. The influencer usually wants to sell something.

Agree the phenomenon you describe is pervasive, though I don't see it as mutually exclusive with social cooling.

I see them working together. If everyone is privately living in different fiefdoms of homogenous thought, you never know what crazy true believer you're going to run into. Every "normal" belief might be hated by someone, somewhere. The risk-averse strategy is to stop sharing everything but the anodyne.

Bimodal distribution. Edgelords are amplified as is conformity. People are being pushed more and more to the opposite ends.

Both conclusions can be right at the same time.

Social media in 2017 was very different than social media in 2025.

There was a gradual change from social media with your friends to social media, look at these videos chosen by the algorithm to keep you on our platform.

Back in 2017 it was already changing but not nearly as much as where we’d find ourselves in 2025.

I think people could definitely come to the conclusion of being able to game your social score by conforming in 2017, all you had to do was post a few nice pictures but more often.

Provocative, sure. But people are generally provocative within a very narrow, uninformed window. Taking an extreme view on a hot political issue. Democrats are stupid. Republicans are evil. Science is broken and unrecoverable.

There is very little room to have a nuanced perspective. You'll lose viewership on BOTH sides.

Only people with a certain amount of financial security can afford to do that. It is very few people.

The loudest voices are often the most algorithmically rewarded but that doesn't mean everyone feels free to speak

The quiet ones are conformists and they eventually conform to the extremists if that's all they see. Many people who think they are moderates probably aren't actually or won't be over time. There is no "radical centrism".

That's why I still think Bernie would've taken the Dems to victory in 2016. Extreme beats extreme. Hillary was just too normal.