TikTok and Meta deliberately prioritize extreme content on their platforms in order to retain users. This came to light through the BBC documentary Inside the Rage Machine, based on leaked internal documents and whistleblower accounts. For years, we have been arguing that Big Tech’s sensationalist algorithms must be regulated. These revelations provide compelling evidence in support of that demand.

Whistleblower's revelations

It is difficult for an organization like Bits of Freedom to demonstrate exactly how algorithms on major platforms operate. Big Tech companies such as TikTok and Meta are extremely opaque in this regard. As a result, citizens and organizations are dependent on current and former Big Tech employees who leak internal documents.

For example: One whistleblower at Meta revealed that they were required to prioritize "borderline content", videos that are not illegal but are nonetheless harmful, including misogynistic videos and videos promoting conspiracy theories. Meta collected hard data on this: Reels (videos) that Meta itself classified as "bullying and harassment" generated 75% more engagement compared to standard Reels. Internal research indicates thatborderline content serves to "hook" users, particularly when the content provokes outrage in it’s users.

A similar situation is unfolding at TikTok: In its competitive battle against Instagram Reels, this platform also began to boost borderline content, as is revealed in a BBC documentary. At the same time the content moderation teams on both platforms, whose specific mandate is to safeguard content safety, were laid off to be replaced by AI.

More scrolling, more profit!

The picture painted by these whistleblowers does not sound unfamiliar. It is well known that Big Tech companies go to great lengths to keep users on their platforms for as long as possible and with great success. The longer users linger, the more advertisements they see, and consequently: the
higher the profits. Extreme content retains users; therefore a platform displays more extreme content, even if doing so comes at the expense of the health and safety of billions of users.

It is precisely these billions of users, and society at large, who end up paying the (intangible) price. For many, social media serves as their primary source of news. Consequently, the content displayed on these platforms exerts a profound influence on our worldview. Now that whistleblowers have revealed that the information people consume on social media is often extreme in nature, the inevitable consequence becomes starkly clear: The worldview of these platforms' users is becoming increasingly extreme. People find themselves trapped in "bubbles" of extremism, whether in the realms of the "manosphere", eating disorders, or even in the political sphere. Research conducted by *Eenvandaag* during the last election revealed that the far-right PVV party benefited disproportionately from TikTok's algorithm. These platforms lack the nuance that is factually essential for a healthy public debate. People become hardened and remain trapped within the extreme realities these platforms construct for them, a dynamic that causes society and public discourse to become increasingly rigid and polarized. The tech moguls sit, laughing and devoid of conscience, atop their piles of cash, while society is left to pay the bill.

Lawsuit

Is there still light at the end of the tunnel? luckily, yes.  Since the introduction of European platform regulations two years ago, the largest platforms have been required to offer at least one recommendation algorithm that is not based on profiling. A feed in where extreme content, the kind designed to
keep people scrolling, is not given the main priority. Thanks to our successful lawsuit against Meta, also upheld on appeal, users on Instagram and Facebook can now opt for an alternative chronological feed. This marks a major step away from the extreme algorithms of Big Tech, but more work remains to be done.

Digital Fairness: the solution

A new opportunity lies in upcoming European legislation currently being drafted: The Digital Fairness Act. This aims to regulate addictive design patterns and algorithms. In Brussels, just as in our own House of Representatives, the Big Tech lobby is doing everything in her power to block far-reaching measures; yet, herein lies a chance for us to move away from the current prioritization of extreme content.

For example, this legislation could stipulate that platform users be given a much wider range of feed options to choose from, feeds powered by underlying recommendation algorithms developed by third parties. Consider an algorithm that displays only black-and-white content, one that prioritizes nuance, one that sorts content alphabetically, or one that adapts specifically to your personal preferences. All of this could become a reality. Further possibilities offered by this new law include: A ban on "infinite scrolling," a ban on auto-playing videos, and notifications that are switched off by default. Measures of this kind would shift the balance of power back from Big Tech to the user. Not a moment too soon!

The BBC documentary covering the whistleblower revelations concludes with the observation that the solution to this problem ultimately lies with the government. The European Union, and the Netherlands as a member state, has a unique opportunity to intervene against these toxic algorithms and other
addictive design techniques with the advent of this legislation. The government now has the chance to protect European citizens from the harmful impact of Big Tech and to reclaim control over these platforms. The ultimate goal: Autonomy and freedom of choice for users and a paradigm where well-being takes precedence over profit.