I’ve been a curator of online community spaces for nearly a decade now, which means I spend more time than most people staring at the system of what gets seen and what doesn’t. I watch which posts gain traction and which ones disappear into nothing, and, historically, the inflammatory one or hottest take almost always wins the social media game because engagement and virality is the currency these platforms are built on.
The business logic is not complicated here — make high engagement content more visible, show the metrics, sell more ads. In 2021, whistleblower Frances Haugen confirmed through internal documents that Facebook’s own research showed that the company had weighted angry emoji reactions as five times more valuable than a standard like when determining what to promote in your feed.
Facebook’s own data scientists flagged the problem almost immediately: Posts that generated anger were disproportionately likely to contain misinformation and low-quality content. The company made adjustments over the following years, but not before that weighting had reshaped how billions of people saw information across the platform. Haugen told the British Parliament directly that “anger and hate is the easiest way to grow on Facebook.” A landmark MIT study published in Science tracked 126,000 news stories across Twitter over more than a decade and found that false information is 70% more likely to be shared than true information, and reaches its first 1,500 people six times faster. It wasn’t bots driving the behavior, it was humans.
In 2022, researchers at Wharton found that ad-supported platforms have a structural reason to moderate less aggressively than the public interest requires because engagement and safety online run contrary to each other on social media. Every post removed is a potential interaction that never happened and an impression never to be sold.
When performed with fidelity, content moderation is expensive and revenue-negative, so I don’t think anyone was surprised when in early 2025 Meta announced it was ending its third-party fact-checking program, replacing it with a crowd-sourced community notes system, and rolling back content restrictions on political topics. Zuckerberg was candid about what the change meant: “We’re going to catch less bad stuff.” By midyear the company posted a 22% revenue increase.
Perhaps the more hyperlocal version you may be aware of is Nextdoor, which presents itself as a neighborhood resource but still drives revenue through ads and engagement and uses community volunteers to moderate their respective corners of the internet. A peer-reviewed study published this spring in the journal New Media & Society by University of Colorado Boulder researchers Toby Hopp and Patrick Ferrucci reports that regular Nextdoor users report significantly higher concern about crime and show greater openness to aggressive policing tactics than people who use the platform less or not at all, even as national crime data shows overall declines.
Recommended for you
Different platform, same revenue model, same engagement triggers, same human outcomes. Nextdoor’s own CEO once said in an interview that more neighbors using the platform means more ad inventory and more revenue for the company.
Where so many people go to get a sense of whether your neighborhood is safe and whether your neighbors are trustworthy is being engineered by people whose incentive is not truth but engagement. Every conversation is filtered through algorithms optimized for engagement, data and revenue.
California’s June primary just wrapped, which means you’ve spent the past few months absorbing increasingly intense social content designed to trigger emotions across races up and down the ballot because that’s what still wins in the “pic for algo” game. While we are in this temporary lull of all caps posts with AI generated imagery and a sprinkle of unverified accusations intended to fuel online outrage, now is the time to remind ourselves that what registers as community conversation on social media is also always an ad product.
Today, misinformation is dressed up to look like the truth, created with AI tools that make it easier than ever to paint someone as a caricature, appropriating language that you’ve heard before in another context, and used by people you trust. The only antidote to yet another train wreck of social media politicking is human presence and putting in the work to pick up the phone, send an email or grab a coffee and have a real conversation.
Our unfortunate reality is that the version of people and community you’re seeing online has been curated by people whose job is not to inform you but to keep you engaged long enough to get more data and sell an ad. Yes, scrolling and tapping on a screen from bed is a lot easier than reaching out. But this is the work that’s going to preserve your relationship to the people around you and your ability to make a clear decision when you vote in November and beyond.
Annie Tsai is chief operating officer at Interact and three-time author, leads community engagement and learning for Moms in Tech, and is a city and county commissioner, among other things. She can be reached at: media@annietsai.co.
Thanks for your column today, Ms. Tsai, detailing the machinations of making money through increasing the number of eyeballs by any means possible, which involves spurring and encouraging as many emotional “tantrums” (for lack of a better word) as possible, regardless of truth or common sense. Again, it is all about the eyeballs for social media companies chasing ad revenue as well as contributors chasing attention. BTW, one of the goals of social media companies is to make money for investors holding stock, so can we blame them for attempting to maximize profit?
You propose a solution in “reaching out” instead of “scrolling and tapping on a screen from bed” but let’s be honest. If you know some of these folks (for a small example, just look at DJ LTEs and comments) gaslighting, perpetuating fake news, lies, and spewing whatever it takes to partake in the outrage machine, would you really want to reach out to them? These folks are showing us who they are and how far they’ve strayed from truth and common sense. Most of us, unless you have pets, may have a more enjoyable time watching grass grow or paint dry, with or without stopwatch in hand.
Yes, that is 100% what I am suggesting you and everyone else do. Stop hiding behind an alias and a screen and talk to each other face to face. I think you'll find that you agree more than disagree. That's the most important ingredient in a strong and healthy community.
Thanks for your reply, MEANNIE, but how did wanting to meet face to face work out for conservative speakers at colleges, such as UCLA, UCBerkeley, UC Davis, Stanford? Wait, we don't know because they were shut down or yelled down. How did wanting to meet face to face work out at universities across the nation by terrorist supporters shutting down Israeli students? How did wanting to meet face to face work out for Turning Point USA chapters in schools?
And I’m sure we can always find things we agree on, such as breathing, currently residing in the USA, sleeping, waking up, etc. But for other things, when people tell you who they are and throw emotional “tantrums” and mostly on the left, sometimes physical tantrums instead of productive conversation, we believe them. Will it get better? I doubt it, because the more these folks are ignored, the more attention-seeking and radical they’ll become. Maybe I’m wrong. It doesn’t happen often but in this case, I hope I am. BTW, everyone participating in this forum is hiding behind an alias and a screen. There is no Voter, er, username ID verification.
You are conflating. We are talking about community members here, not public speaking events. Part of talking to each other also includes listening to each other. You can hope you’re wrong, but you can also give it a shot. I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised. And yes, the people who comment here every week pushing the same message regardless of the actual topic without a real name or photo are also hiding behind aliases and screens, I agree.
MEANNIE - conflating? No, in your face screaming and yelling occurs when democrats learn one of their co-workers is a conservative. I have friends who work at Apple and they cannot say anything that might be considered conservative without being attacked and reported to upper level management. Same things go on in Hollywood. I can personally talk to anyone, but I'm not going to even calmly attempt to verbally engage an extreme liberal democrat. The paid for extremists might come knocking on my door if I my name was public, it's self survival based on facts.
Thanks, MEANNIE, for your additional reply. Not every example I’ve provided above is a public speaking event. Turning Point USA does public speaking events but they also have numerous school chapter kiosks. With some chapter kiosks damaged and personnel assaulted. All for the sin of wanting to meet and talk to people. Assuming, of course, their kiosks were not banned by schools for frivolous reasons. Regardless, I’ve asked rabid Democrats to justify why they put the welfare of criminals and terrorists over the American people or why it is okay for biological men to compete against biological women while also allowing these biological men to invade biological women safe spaces. Response? Crickets, unless you count personal attacks.
Do you think meeting these Democrats in person will result in their answering the simple questions above? Or will they admit their online persona and content is a lie? That brings up another set of issues. I have no problems meeting folks but for those who have already shown me they’re not for law and order or equality or common sense, there’s no value-added in meeting them in person. It is obvious they’re not interested in unity. BTW, who determines what a “real” name or photo is? There is no username/photo ID verification.
Interesting to hear concerns about older tech. I think AI is more dangerous the rush to have the top model is not only for profit, but to control the narrative (whether good or bad) by defining the information source. Once captured the winner will have a disincentive to allow new information or update information since it will weaken their dominant position. Who uses Facebook anymore?
Regarding Nextdoor very toxic and it is important to point our that Seema Patel was a moderator and blocked community members whom opinion's did not align with her own.
Lastly, these day everyone is so easily offended. This causes people to disengage since there is such a strong fear of retaliation.
Perhaps Ms. Bonta will create another bill indicating if you type something and someone is offended by it they can file a lawsuit against the party who is offensive.
Thank you Mr. Morgan for providing a real-life example in support of Annie's article :)
1. I am a "Reviewer" on Nextdoor
2. Reviewers do not have the power to block people or remove posts/comments. They simply cast votes to leave or remove content reported by users.
3. I don't spend much time on Nextdoor anymore and haven't reviewed flagged content in years. When I did, I always cited the relevant community guideline(s) supporting my vote.
4. I encourage you to critically examine "facts" that you hear, especially during election season. What is the trustworthiness of the source? Have they provided evidence to support their claim? I would also encourage you to cite or provide evidence when making claims yourself, particularly as a community leader (President of San Mateo United and the Sunnybrae Neighborhood Association) who wants to be seen as a trustworthy source of information.
Seema - so you're in favor of censorship? Just like the good ole days with Biden asked (required) FB and Twitter to censor conservatives and of course FB and Twitter went along with it. I think the nuts who left FB and Twitter now work at extDoor because they are following the same censoring path. I signed out of NextDoor permanently when they started their censorship game.
Speaking of misinformation, how's the SNA doing? I'm still on the board, and there haven't been meetings in a long time...though I see you're listed as the president of the effectively defunct organization?
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(10) comments
Thanks for your column today, Ms. Tsai, detailing the machinations of making money through increasing the number of eyeballs by any means possible, which involves spurring and encouraging as many emotional “tantrums” (for lack of a better word) as possible, regardless of truth or common sense. Again, it is all about the eyeballs for social media companies chasing ad revenue as well as contributors chasing attention. BTW, one of the goals of social media companies is to make money for investors holding stock, so can we blame them for attempting to maximize profit?
You propose a solution in “reaching out” instead of “scrolling and tapping on a screen from bed” but let’s be honest. If you know some of these folks (for a small example, just look at DJ LTEs and comments) gaslighting, perpetuating fake news, lies, and spewing whatever it takes to partake in the outrage machine, would you really want to reach out to them? These folks are showing us who they are and how far they’ve strayed from truth and common sense. Most of us, unless you have pets, may have a more enjoyable time watching grass grow or paint dry, with or without stopwatch in hand.
Yes, that is 100% what I am suggesting you and everyone else do. Stop hiding behind an alias and a screen and talk to each other face to face. I think you'll find that you agree more than disagree. That's the most important ingredient in a strong and healthy community.
Thanks for your reply, MEANNIE, but how did wanting to meet face to face work out for conservative speakers at colleges, such as UCLA, UCBerkeley, UC Davis, Stanford? Wait, we don't know because they were shut down or yelled down. How did wanting to meet face to face work out at universities across the nation by terrorist supporters shutting down Israeli students? How did wanting to meet face to face work out for Turning Point USA chapters in schools?
And I’m sure we can always find things we agree on, such as breathing, currently residing in the USA, sleeping, waking up, etc. But for other things, when people tell you who they are and throw emotional “tantrums” and mostly on the left, sometimes physical tantrums instead of productive conversation, we believe them. Will it get better? I doubt it, because the more these folks are ignored, the more attention-seeking and radical they’ll become. Maybe I’m wrong. It doesn’t happen often but in this case, I hope I am. BTW, everyone participating in this forum is hiding behind an alias and a screen. There is no Voter, er, username ID verification.
You are conflating. We are talking about community members here, not public speaking events. Part of talking to each other also includes listening to each other. You can hope you’re wrong, but you can also give it a shot. I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised. And yes, the people who comment here every week pushing the same message regardless of the actual topic without a real name or photo are also hiding behind aliases and screens, I agree.
MEANNIE - conflating? No, in your face screaming and yelling occurs when democrats learn one of their co-workers is a conservative. I have friends who work at Apple and they cannot say anything that might be considered conservative without being attacked and reported to upper level management. Same things go on in Hollywood. I can personally talk to anyone, but I'm not going to even calmly attempt to verbally engage an extreme liberal democrat. The paid for extremists might come knocking on my door if I my name was public, it's self survival based on facts.
Thanks, MEANNIE, for your additional reply. Not every example I’ve provided above is a public speaking event. Turning Point USA does public speaking events but they also have numerous school chapter kiosks. With some chapter kiosks damaged and personnel assaulted. All for the sin of wanting to meet and talk to people. Assuming, of course, their kiosks were not banned by schools for frivolous reasons. Regardless, I’ve asked rabid Democrats to justify why they put the welfare of criminals and terrorists over the American people or why it is okay for biological men to compete against biological women while also allowing these biological men to invade biological women safe spaces. Response? Crickets, unless you count personal attacks.
Do you think meeting these Democrats in person will result in their answering the simple questions above? Or will they admit their online persona and content is a lie? That brings up another set of issues. I have no problems meeting folks but for those who have already shown me they’re not for law and order or equality or common sense, there’s no value-added in meeting them in person. It is obvious they’re not interested in unity. BTW, who determines what a “real” name or photo is? There is no username/photo ID verification.
Interesting to hear concerns about older tech. I think AI is more dangerous the rush to have the top model is not only for profit, but to control the narrative (whether good or bad) by defining the information source. Once captured the winner will have a disincentive to allow new information or update information since it will weaken their dominant position. Who uses Facebook anymore?
Regarding Nextdoor very toxic and it is important to point our that Seema Patel was a moderator and blocked community members whom opinion's did not align with her own.
Lastly, these day everyone is so easily offended. This causes people to disengage since there is such a strong fear of retaliation.
Perhaps Ms. Bonta will create another bill indicating if you type something and someone is offended by it they can file a lawsuit against the party who is offensive.
Thank you Mr. Morgan for providing a real-life example in support of Annie's article :)
1. I am a "Reviewer" on Nextdoor
2. Reviewers do not have the power to block people or remove posts/comments. They simply cast votes to leave or remove content reported by users.
3. I don't spend much time on Nextdoor anymore and haven't reviewed flagged content in years. When I did, I always cited the relevant community guideline(s) supporting my vote.
4. I encourage you to critically examine "facts" that you hear, especially during election season. What is the trustworthiness of the source? Have they provided evidence to support their claim? I would also encourage you to cite or provide evidence when making claims yourself, particularly as a community leader (President of San Mateo United and the Sunnybrae Neighborhood Association) who wants to be seen as a trustworthy source of information.
Seema - so you're in favor of censorship? Just like the good ole days with Biden asked (required) FB and Twitter to censor conservatives and of course FB and Twitter went along with it. I think the nuts who left FB and Twitter now work at extDoor because they are following the same censoring path. I signed out of NextDoor permanently when they started their censorship game.
Speaking of misinformation, how's the SNA doing? I'm still on the board, and there haven't been meetings in a long time...though I see you're listed as the president of the effectively defunct organization?
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.