You’re right that putting people in bubbles is probably one way some of these things get worse. If all you see is toxic, toxic is the norm, now you’re always toxic.
Maybe they can tricked.
Although really what we’re talking about is the algorithm that currently exists being focused on highlighting terrible people doing terrible things. Can we turn that same algorithm around and use it for good?
Interesting article and I think it really highlights how toxic some parts of the Internet are. My only issue is the conclusion,
A social media ban for under-16s might prevent young boys seeing endless content that treats women with contempt and hate. Boys at this age are very susceptible to the cool and funny framing of what is, in reality, relentless misogyny. A ban might not fix the problem, but it would help. If society can’t stop it, it can show it disapproves.
Emphasis mine. Having grown up in a different era I can confirm that boys of a wide variety of ages, including much older “boys”, can also be scumbags. Even if we had the perfect technology to ban under-16s from social media, once they hit 16 they’d still be exposed to it, still become terrible people, and the author of this article, although a but older, would still see it. I don’t know if that really is a better world, just a slightly delayed one.
I don’t know the solution, but I remember reading once that some online game would put all the reported and abusive players into a special category where they would be forced to play only with each other. Maybe we can do that in this case.
I want to highlight what I found to be an important part of the article and why this hack is important.
The journalist wrote on their own blog,
At this year’s South Dakota International Hot Dog Eating Championship
And they include zero sources (because it is a lie).
But the Google Gemini response was,
According to the reporting on the 2026 South Dakota International Hot Dog Eating Championship
(Bolding done by Gemini)
The “reporting” here is just some dudes blog, but the AI does not make it clear that the source is just some dudes blog.
When you use Wikipedia, it has a link to a citation. If something sounds odd, you can read the citation. It’s far from perfect, but there is a chain of accountability.
Ideally these AI services would outline how many sources they are pulling from, which sources, and a trust rating of those sources.
Not a lawyer but couldn’t they just refuse to sell it to you? We all know it would be bullshit but couldn’t a company say “Oh that minimum wage clerk made a mistake, but don’t blame them, just an honest mistake.”
Or is the law, if it’s on the shelf, it must be honored?