Now, this isn’t a definitive coverage change or replace that Elon’s reinforcing. Nevertheless it does appear to counsel that Twitter might, at least, be trying to present individuals extra opposing political commentary of their tweet feeds, as a method to spark broader consciousness and engagement. Musk additionally pinned this tweet, which provides a bit of extra weight to the suggestion.

Which is fascinating as a result of as numerous research have proven, this method merely doesn’t work.

Again in 2020, Meta govt Andrew Bosworth printed a protracted weblog put up on the challenges of political polarization on social networks, and their experiences at Fb in coping with such.

Bosworth defined that, whereas that they had, at completely different occasions, tried to try to present customers extra content material from each side of the political spectrum, the consumer response had been the other of the meant impact.

As per Bosworth:

“Ask your self what number of newspapers and information packages individuals learn/watched earlier than the web. For those who guessed ‘one and one’ on common you’re proper, and in case you guessed these have been ideologically aligned with them you’re proper once more. The web exposes them to much more content material from different sources (26% extra on Fb, in accordance with our analysis). That is one that everybody simply will get improper. The deal with filter bubbles causes individuals to overlook the actual catastrophe which is polarization. What occurs once you see 26% extra content material from individuals you don’t agree with? Does it assist you empathize with them as everybody has been suggesting? Nope. It makes you dislike them much more.”

Inside this, Bosworth primarily acknowledges that Fb utilization has certainly amplified political division, although not in the best way that many count on – i.e. by displaying you an increasing number of posts that align together with your established beliefs. Bosworth says that Fb customers really ended up seeing much more opposing viewpoints, however that solely exacerbated political divides, as a result of these posts drove extra angst, and additional embedded opposition, versus opening individuals’s minds to a different mind-set.  

Certainly, that very same 12 months, in a speech on the Munich Safety Convention, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg defined that:

“Persons are much less more likely to click on on issues and have interaction with them in the event that they don’t agree with them. So, I don’t know the way to clear up that drawback. That’s not a expertise drawback as a lot as it’s a human affirmation drawback.”

Shortly after this, in January 2021, Meta introduced its intention to cut back the quantity of political content material in consumer feeds.

As per Zuckerberg (on Meta’s This fall ‘20 earnings name):

“One of many prime items of suggestions we’re listening to from our neighborhood proper now’s that individuals don’t need politics and combating to take over their expertise on our companies.”

Individuals have been getting sick of the angst and bickering on Fb, which was inflicting them to go online much less and fewer, so Meta sought to cut back political content material, in favor of extra pleasing experiences.

In truth, as per extra latest reviews, Zuckerberg really directed his engineering groups to successfully reduce political content material out of individuals’s Information Feeds altogether. Which Fb customers additionally didn’t like.

Meta has since scaled again politics in-feed, nevertheless it’s stopped wanting eliminating it.

As reported by The Wall Avenue Journal:

“Meta now estimates politics accounts for lower than 3% of complete content material views in customers’ newsfeed, down from 6% across the time of the 2020 election, the paperwork present. However as an alternative of decreasing views by indiscriminate suppression or heavy-handed moderation, Fb has altered the newsfeed algorithm’s suggestions of delicate content material towards what customers say they worth, and away from what merely makes them have interaction, in accordance with paperwork and folks conversant in the efforts.”

In different phrases, Meta’s not displaying individuals as a lot divisive, incendiary posts – which doubtless implies that it’s not trying to spotlight as a lot content material from the other aspect of the political spectrum.

Which can, as Musk notes, maintain customers of their echo chamber. However the analysis and experiments present that customers merely don’t need the fixed provocation and angst, which, finally, sees them use the app much less.

On Twitter, that’ll doubtless drive customers to change over to the ‘Following’ feed as an alternative of the ‘For You’ primary itemizing, which incorporates advisable tweets, as chosen by Twitter’s programs. If Musk and Co. are certainly pushing extra politics into this stream, these previous experiments counsel that it received’t work out as they may hope – although in concept, you’ll be able to see why Musk needs to broaden individuals’s horizons, and get them to see extra content material from the opposite aspect of the political divide.

Or he simply needs to advertise his personal political beliefs, and get extra individuals to see issues from his perspective.

It’s obscure the total motivations on this respect, notably given Musk’s overt political leanings and opinions. However in essence, it looks as if one other concept that appears to make sense, based mostly on an ideological view, however in actuality, doesn’t work – and we now have a heap of examine and information to underline this.

Nonetheless, Musk has proven that he’s going to go his personal method, even when meaning difficult established ideas, so as to show them for himself.

Possibly it really works out completely different on Twitter, nevertheless it looks as if a dangerous transfer, particularly once you’re making an attempt to maximise discovery and engagement inside that primary ‘For You’ feed.

However in case you begin to discover extra political content material in your tweet feed, that is most likely why.