It’s a general rule.

The original source is here:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.03385

Social media platforms have been widely linked to societal harms, including rising polarization and the erosion of constructive debate. Can these problems be mitigated through prosocial interventions? We address this question using a novel method – generative social simulation – that embeds Large Language Models within Agent-Based Models to create socially rich synthetic platforms. We create a minimal platform where agents can post, repost, and follow others. We find that the resulting following-networks reproduce three well-documented dysfunctions: (1) partisan echo chambers; (2) concentrated influence among a small elite; and (3) the amplification of polarized voices – creating a “social media prism” that distorts political discourse. We test six proposed interventions, from chronological feeds to bridging algorithms, finding only modest improvements – and in some cases, worsened outcomes. These results suggest that core dysfunctions may be rooted in the feedback between reactive engagement and network growth, raising the possibility that meaningful reform will require rethinking the foundational dynamics of platform architecture.

I doubt it’s an honest mistake or simple hypocrisy. You can see that AI is both supposed to be useless and see hugely increased usage. Sure, people can be pretty dumb but this is really heavy.

Well, whatever the reason for this may be… You will certainly not reason these accounts out of posting this stuff with numbers.

Saying it’s not bad is too strong. All human activity has undesirable side effects.

But yes. People who peddle that environment narrative are definitely not interested in improving matters.