This! I only watched it today and I am shocked! I wonder if they vetted the participants, how did they pass the screening and I really really worry about the aftermath.. What you say is true, many see a social media jump and this guy who got fired, crowd funded all the money.

Moskalenko and McCauley (2009) find that perceived social support accelerates radicalization, even without direct recruitment. (www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1...)

Cinelli et al. (2021) demonstrate that echo chambers on social media amplify polarization and limit exposure to opposing views. (www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...)

Sunstein (2001) explains how group polarization causes like-minded individuals to adopt more extreme views after discussion. (onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1...)

The debate is over, but the aftershock is the real danger.
Who takes responsibility when public platforms become validation engines for hate? History warns us: this is how extremist movements grow. What safeguards should exist after the show ends?
#DigitalEthics #SocialImpact #HateSpeech

Modern studies confirm this online: echo chambers fuel radicalization.
• Cinelli et al. (2021) showed social platforms create self-reinforcing loops.
• Moskalenko & McCauley (2009) found that perceived support accelerates radicalization.
I wonder if these debate aren't actually neutral.
(P3)

Research shows when like-minded people interact, polarization intensifies. Cass Sunstein called this group polarization (Sunstein, 2001). In other words: put people with similar biases in a room, and their views grow stronger with sometimes extreme. Add millions of views = amplification. P2