It's pretty clear now that a suggestion algorithm that prioritizes engagement at all costs has toxic side effects. This does not prove that all promotion algorithms, much less all social media, is inherently toxic.
Mastodon is a social media platform that's not built on a content promotion algorithm. Mastodon has a lot of group think, and you can absolutely build yourself an echo chamber full of political virtue signalling if that's what you're into. But I wouldn't characterize this as "toxic," it just reflects what you put into it. There's no algorithm to pump it into your face if you don't want it.
I'd love to see a version of Mastodon, or some social media platform, that manages to promote sensible discussion algorithmically. I don't know how this would work, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that this proves that it's impossible.
If you ban politics, someone will just say you're playing politics.
I personally think the idea of creating a place that suits everyone is unrealistic. It will never happen, and there will always be something that offends one side or the other. It seems like open social networks will always be toxic (whatever that really means).
There's a difference between being toxic and not allowing politics. Political discussions aren't inherently toxic, they're just easier to slip into toxicity.
Look at HN. There's political conversation here occasionally, but it's not generally toxic.
All it takes is clear, consistent, and constant moderation.
I used to think like that, but now I believe the vast majority of those discussions are inherently toxic, so I just don’t bring them up anymore in almost any context, whether it's work, friends, family, or social networks (if I still used them, that is). It just brings so much unhappiness, and there's nothing to "gain", especially nowadays when you're constantly bombarded by social media, the media, or whatever else is pushing you in whatever direction is convenient at the time.
Let’s be honest, most political posts here get flagged and disappear almost immediately, especially if they lean a certain way. I’m not specifying which direction I think they lean because people will interpret it differently, and it would be pointless. It's yet another example of why, in most cases, it’s toxic.
They will be inherently toxic when the politics are inherently toxic.
You can be banned from /r/Conservative permanently for showing the slightest deviation from the current propaganda line, but there are such a ready supply of new people that the algorithm attracts who naturally are opposed to the political platform that many bans are handed out per discussion.
It amazes me that in the age of AI there isn't a way to utilise it to either talk users out of posting aggressive, illegal or inflammatory material or tag it as such, so you can filter out the blowhards on the platform.
The AI and content moderation can do all sorts of things like “this is violent, obscene, rude, self harm” or “this is a Twitter screenshot and I don’t want to see these.”
Id enjoy it if it supported filtering out us politics from “both sides” altogether. (I’m not in the USA and I’m worn out on it.)
While I like these features; bluesky wasn’t my cuppa. I had not even been on there for four hours and somebody was railing on me for not enough info in my bio or whatever. I don’t use social media (or have a Xitter to “go back to”) and I’m not performing for anybody when I do… I settled on deactivating bluesky for some time to see if it calms down.
The features are promising but, a little too confrontational , “you ain’t from around here boy” attitude for me and that’s a different kind of “toxic” that I don’t need in my life.
Banning politics can be truly toxic, because it turns out people don't agree on what's political and what isn't. Me, I don't think the rights of women to get healthcare is political but I'm fully aware plenty of people disagree with me on this point.
Also, blue sky is also beholden to rich people like the rest…