Most Americans misjudge how many users share toxic content on social media

[Shawn Knight]

The takeaway: Ask anyone who has spent at least a couple of decades on the Internet, and they will likely say it used to be a much friendlier place. Today, the web has a reputation for being vile and toxic – but according to a recent survey, perception doesn't necessarily match reality.

A recent survey of 1,090 Americans found that people grossly overestimate just how toxic today's Internet really is. On Reddit, for example, Americans believed that 43 percent of users post toxic or misleading content. In actuality, the number of truly toxic users is closer to three percent.

Similarly, those surveyed believe 47 percent of Facebook users share fake or misleading news stories. Data from other large-scale studies on social media found that only around 8.5 percent of users post such content.

And it's not simply an issue of people not being able to correctly identify vile content. In a signal detection test, most participants were able to correctly pinpoint examples of toxic online posts. Instead, it seems to be that people believe misbehavior is more widespread than it truly is. But why?

Perhaps one reason such behavior sticks in our minds has to do with algorithms. What we see on social media is highly curated, and it is not a stretch to think that attention-grabbing content is high on the list of what we are fed due to its shock value. What's more, this kind of content can be jarring and stick in our minds far more prominently than run-of-the-mill news stories.

Interestingly enough, participants' perception of online toxicity changed after they were presented with the facts about how widespread the issue really is. Some even reported feeling more optimistic overall, and less worried that humanity is on the decline morally.

For better or for worse, social media is here to stay and many are learning that limiting usage allows them to reap the benefits of virtual connections without succumbing to its many pitfalls.

Image credit: Adem Ay, Camilo Jimenez

Permalink to story:

Most Americans misjudge how many users share toxic content on social media

 

[yRaz]

User interactions prioritize content. Bad content is likely to generate more user interactions which is why we are often fed negative content instead of positive content

 

[m4a4]

User interactions prioritize content. Bad content is likely to generate more user interactions which is why we are often fed negative content instead of positive content

Yeah, and then too much bad/negative content draws a certain crowd, which then adds to actual toxicity. Which it then turns into a steep slope to appeal to them.

It is also disappointing when certain sites do click-baiting or doom-posting because they see numbers go up in a shallow way...

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

User interactions prioritize content. Bad content is likely to generate more user interactions which is why we are often fed negative content instead of positive content

I'd argue echo chambers most lead to users reading into less nuance, thereby causing more divisive discussions. If users cannot discern between what they agree/have no opinion on and what they disagree with, then they're bound to not bother to understand opposing points and eventually be unable to separate differing viewpoints from what is evil.

 

[brucek]

Also, that small fraction of users who are there to post toxic content to further an agenda, post at a much higher rate than a typical user. So the portion of posters may be small but the portion of posts may be higher.

It is encouraging to think that if the portion of bad actors is small enough we may eventually be able to squelch them. Which would be very nice since the governments and others that are spending money on doing this are doing so for a reason. And some people end up falling for their obvious BS.

 

[RudyBob]

Much Friendlier? Nope. People have not changed. Posts have not changed. What has changed are the people that decide what is written is a meanie post. Good advice on maturity is not being mean

 

[DrSuess]

If I read 2 social media post a day, at least one is guaranteed to be toxic. People get brave behind a keyboard. If they said that crap in public they might end up on an episode of Dave Chappelle's "When keeping it real goes wrong".

 

[ScottSoapbox]

It's a vocal small minority that share toxic content, but that doesn't mean that only a small minority of content is toxic. Those are two different metrics.

Also: bots. Any study examining this and not even mentioning bots suggests a sophomoric understanding of the subject and how to a real study rather than a simple poll.

 

[Axeia]

Ah so users, not posts. But that small percentage of users can make up for a disproportionately large amount of posts.
The most toxic of people tend to be those that post 100 things a day (referred to as the chronically online) whilst a regular user might have something to say once a week.

 

[Win7User]

I've, said it before. ALL, social media like Facebook, Twitter, What's app, etc... should be banned in the US. it's a cancer on society.

 

[3volv3d]

Also, that small fraction of users who are there to post toxic content to further an agenda, post at a much higher rate than a typical user. So the portion of posters may be small but the portion of posts may be higher.

It is encouraging to think that if the portion of bad actors is small enough we may eventually be able to squelch them. Which would be very nice since the governments and others that are spending money on doing this are doing so for a reason. And some people end up falling for their obvious BS.

You mean like Trump when he wanted Robert Pattocakes to dump Kristen.
Or when he posts so much BS about his achievements which he hasn't achieved because he needs to brainwash people about his lies.
When the people at the top and your every day media papers TV etc have an agenda. What are you meant to believe?
Add AI ...
Online news from social Bs like YouTube is toast. You have content creators who verify sources there but it's now a sea of turds. And it gets worse the more and more people who think they should voice their opinions.

Like I just pointlessly did.

 

[Megalomaniac]

Facebook, Instagram, Twitter/X, Youtube, Tik Tok... All of them are designed to entice users to share toxic content.

 

[hahahanoobs]

You mean like Trump when he wanted Robert Pattocakes to dump Kristen.
Or when he posts so much BS about his achievements which he hasn't achieved because he needs to brainwash people about his lies.
When the people at the top and your every day media papers TV etc have an agenda. What are you meant to believe?
Add AI ...
Online news from social Bs like YouTube is toast. You have content creators who verify sources there but it's now a sea of turds. And it gets worse the more and more people who think they should voice their opinions.

Like I just pointlessly did.

This is irony, right?

 

[Liranan]

Toxic content = Mah feefees got hurtz. MUMMY, the bad man is saying nasty things on the internet!!!!!

 

[Xelions]

I stopped reading at this

Most Americans misjudge

 

[Hogelem]

The word "toxic" meant something radically different 10 years ago, let alone 20 years ago.

 

[mountains]

I am a little late to this article, but...

The righties and lefties endlessly try to win the winless argument. However; the left and the right are loud minorities that need each other. And Big Media/Big Tech need the engagement.

Most people are not toxic. What is important is the Free World.

 

[SRB]

This is irony, right?

Nah, he's just trying to prove the article wrong. However, for now, the mods here and TechPowerUp are keeping this from becoming wccftech forums. He'd fit in well over there.

 

[Win7User]

Social Media = Cancer

 

[ZedRM]

The author of this survey seems unaware just how toxic social media has become. They're all a joke.

 

[maxxcool7421]

Given the 2020 elections and how republicans behaved online it is far worse than anyone can imagine and it is only getting worse.