A paper out of New York University on social media finds "0.1% of users shared 80% of fake news," and "74% of all online conflicts are started in just 1% of communities" www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
![Online discussions are dominated by a surprisingly small, extremely vocal, and non-representative minority. Research on social media has found that, while only 3 % of active accounts are toxic, they produce 33 % of all content [4]. Furthermore, 74 % of all online conflicts are started in just 1 % of communities [5], and 0.1 % of users shared 80 % of fake news [6,7]. Not only does this extreme minority stir discontent, spread misinformation, and spark outrage online, they also bias the meta-perceptions of most users who passively “lurk” online. This can lead to false polarization and pluralistic ignorance, which are linked to a number of problems including drug and alcohol use [8], intergroup hostility [9,10], and support for authoritarian regimes [11]. Furthermore, exposure to extreme content can normalize unhealthy and dangerous behavior. For example, teens exposed to extreme content related to alcohol consumption thought dangerous alcohol consumption was normative [12].](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_fullsize/plain/did:plc:jmte4w4x7ukciit6lci6ziau/bafkreiddm2btaao7h3fzhkrjkn3iel7ppeihtycfzca7wbqj7l2v3pcuda@jpeg)
can confirm, the glizzy community is a violent bunch
Wild numbers! I still need to work out how I feel about those stats. Thanks for sharing. 📌
reminds me of what i have about crime statistics — concetrated violence often drives the spiking rates, the same few individuals …
Sounds incredibly easy to game social media
CEOs at BILLION dollar social media companies keep telling us with a straight face that they just can’t moderate. Then we learn moderation would only need to curtail .1% of users. Sure seems like a will issue, but we all just shrug in the face of looming catastrophe. Wild.
The 0.1%, huh coughMUSKcough