THE leading social media companies have, through their various built AI scripts, stumbled upon a gold mine. They found that themes surrounding portraits of hate received greater attention than any other theme.

The companies then arranged their profit model around harbingers of hate. They developed complex AI tools and algorithms that predict what is likely to generate rage. So, social media algorithms favour content that keep users engaged longer through provocative content designed simply to trigger an emotional reaction. For these companies, greater engagement translates to greater financial gain.

In January 2024, CEOs of Meta (Mark Zuckerberg), TikTok (Shou Zi Chew), X (Linda Yaccarino), Snap (Evan Spiegel), and Discord (Jason Citron) were all hauled before the US Senate to answer questions regarding their algorithm. Most of them acknowledged that the companies were aware of it, and promised to take steps to monitor extreme views and issue content warnings. However, not a single CEO took responsibility or gave a commitment to reorder their algorithms around more positive lifesaving themes.

Many social media users are unaware that there is a grand scheme to target the most fragile and vulnerable instincts of their emotional well-being. You click on Facebook with every intention to express birthday sentiments to a good friend, and to peep at the latest pictures posted by a sibling. Two clicks later and —boom—you’re shaking your head, knitting your brows or clenching your jaw at a half‑baked, all‑caps hate riddled, political rant. How did you sommersault from “aww how sweet” to “he can’t be serious” in under ten seconds? Social media content creators tend to weaponise your attention and cash in on outrage. It is therefore not strange that users sometimes feel compelled to respond to provocative content.

Though we are facing a self-consuming beast, the effects are not entirely inescapable. The reason why some of these can be escaped is simply because algorithms and AI tools function based on a decision tree model that depends heavily on trends and popular action; in other words, we can click away the hate. The social media tools will show you information with themes relating to those you choose to click on.

So, the essential question is, how to step off the rage treadmill before it hijacks your day. There are two ways to do this. First through content creation awareness. Flood the social media space with only positive, lifesaving information and even when discussing sensitive topics, use alternative words to the standard loaded hate inviting words that the algorithm could easily recognise and shoot to the top.

The second approach is for users to follow only those who generate positive trustworthy content, then click and comment only if the comment itself is hate- free.

Further, when you recognise positive content that is free of hate-riddled words, like it and make a comment even if it is simply to encourage positive content.

Guyana is part of this insatiable social media algorithmic diktats. In this country, rage baiting as a tactic to generate outrage is increasingly being employed, particularly by political figures, to attract followers and spread misinformation. There are four basic characteristics:

1. Audience targetting content intended to evoke rage usually targets specific audiences to drive engagement and provoke emotional responses. This often deliberately targets marginalised groups, while exploiting vulnerabilities to generate engagement.
2. Inflammatory attention-grabbing headlines with exaggerated claims in an attempt to spark immediate emotional reaction.
3. Landmine comments made by hired trolls lurking in the comments section throwing in incendiary remarks to keep the conversation heated.
4. Designed to generate income. Some of the vilest purveyors of rage baiting often sign up with the social media companies to share in viewership revenues and/or appeal for donations and contributions because local mainstream advertisers wouldn’t dare associate their brand with that kind of negative rage.
5. Those with more notorious instincts are perched overseas and do not have a real local experience but see it fit to comment on local politics and social dynamics often making libelous, racially inciteful statements, fearmongering and outright bullying that quite often violate our cybercrime statutes. These messengers of hate often claim immunity from Guyanese justice due to foreign residency.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited.