Social media thrives on outrage politics — leaving us hooked and divided

Social media’s rage machine

I remember some ten years ago, I came across a Facebook group that billed itself as a space to talk about Canadian politics. I was a young and hopeful undergrad studying politics then. So naturally, I was curious. But what I found inside was bewildering.

Less a place for “discussion,” this group felt like a battleground. 

People who disagreed were called names, degraded, compared to some of history’s worst villains, and even threatened. It was toxic - but strangely captivating. Eventually, I moved on, writing it off as just a strange corner of the internet.

Little did I know that what I’d dismissed then as an oddity would soon become the norm in online politics. 

Divide and engage

At the core of social media’s business model is one goal: maximize the time you spend on their app. To do that, algorithms learn what draws people in. And in the early days of social media, they discovered one supercharger of engagement: divisive content.

Think of it like this — when we see something non-controversial, something most of us agree with, we might glance and scroll. But when we see something enraging or divisive, something that shakes us or attacks our beliefs, we pause, we engage, we argue. And that’s engagement gold.

One study found that social media posts expressing animosity toward an out-group (i.e., political opponents) are significantly more likely to go viral. They discovered that each mention of the out-group increased the likelihood of a post being shared by 67%.

Even Facebook’s internal researchers, tasked to look into the issue, warned their bosses that “our algorithms exploit the human brain’s attraction to divisiveness.” 

It’s outrageous

If divisiveness is the kindling, outrage is the gasoline. 

Speaking from experience, as someone whose job once involved making content go viral, nothing spreads faster or wider than outrage. Why? Social media needs our attention, and moral outrage commands it like nothing else.

One experiment flashed participants with a social media feed, tracking where their attention landed. Out of everything on the screen, words tied to moral outrage — what researchers call “moral-emotional” words — dominated. Even when participants were focused on something else, these outrage-triggering words would pull their attention away.

Researchers figured this out in 2020, but social media’s algorithms had learned this years ago and were already thriving on it. Beyond just thriving on this, social media actively incentivizes it.

Yale researchers analyzed 12.7 million tweets and found that users who received more “likes” and “retweets” for expressing outrage tended to adopt even more outraged language in future posts. In other words, social media was teaching us to perform outrage. 

Shame on you

Historically, outrage serves a purpose. In small communities, it helped enforce social norms: when someone violated a code, collective anger would often lead to shame, guiding them back in line. 

But the internet has expanded that “community” from dozens to millions. Add social media, which incentivizes outrage. And now, when someone steps out of line, it’s not just a few neighbors confronting them — it’s millions of people worldwide, shaming, insulting, exposing their personal lives, sometimes even trying to get them fired.

Don’t get me wrong; online outrage can mobilize people around important causes. But from where I sit, the positives are rare, and the negatives are glaring and growing.

Consider Myanmar, an infamous example of social media politics gone wrong. A country that went from completely offline to online all at once. There, social media stoked hate-fueled outrage that eventually led to the genocide of tens of thousands of people. 

Or think about those who’ve withdrawn from politics, discouraged by the online hostility. They’re likely the kind of people politics needs — thoughtful, open-minded — but they’ve been driven away, leaving an echo chamber of hostility.

I understand if you disagree, but to me, social media’s outrage is often the unproductive sort. It leaves us angrier, less empathetic to those we disagree with, and collectively more polarized — without achieving any meaningful change.

Who signed up for this?

Social media didn’t invent divisiveness or moral outrage. But these platforms exploit and magnify those parts of us by degrees that are unnatural. 

It isn’t just your friend group’s opinions anymore; it’s the whole world’s judgment - a scale we aren’t wired to handle.

The “cancel culture” some rant about? It’s not exclusive to any political side. 

It’s baked into social media’s core as one of the best ways to capture your attention.

The irony? Polls show that a majority of us actually feel social media has made it easier to manipulate and divide us. Most of us don’t want this endless cycle of outrage. 

There are more things that unite us than divide us, but social media — designed to maximize engagement, not empathy — makes that harder to see.

ONE BIG EXPERT

Today’s expert: Dr. Molly Crockett, American neuroscientist and Associate Professor of Psychology at Princeton University

• Dr. Crockett researches human morality, altruism, and decision-making, focusing on how brain chemistry drives moral behaviors, especially outrage.

Summary: In this talk, Dr. Crockett explains how brain chemicals, like serotonin and dopamine, affect our desire to punish unfair actions, making moral outrage feel rewarding. She links these insights to larger social issues like economic inequality and populism, showing how outrage plays out on a societal scale.

Key insights:

• Our brain’s dopamine reward center activates when we punish unfair actions, making outrage feel inherently satisfying.

• Scarcity of resources may amplify our sensitivity to perceived injustices, making punishment feel even more valuable or rewarding.

• The ultimatum game is an experiment where one person proposes how to split a sum of money, and the other can accept or reject it. If they reject it, both get nothing. Though it’s “rational” to accept any amount, people often reject low offers to punish unfairness, even at a personal cost.

• This game shows that more than economics drives our choices, values like fairness and identity often take precedence. Dr. Crockett relates this to events like Brexit, where people acted against financial interests to express dissatisfaction with the status quo

TIPS & TRICKS

Empathy doesn’t mean agreement

For this week, I have a single tip. It might not feel right for everyone, so take what resonates and leave the rest: practice empathy without needing agreement.

I used to think empathy meant I had to endorse someone’s perspective, that to “understand,” I needed to see things exactly as they did, even if it went against my values. 

But that isn’t what empathy asks of us. Instead, empathy is simply recognizing that we’re all human, with our own mistakes, griefs, and stresses, deserving of compassion, even when we disagree.

Empathy doesn’t mean endorsing or excusing bad behavior. You can still find someone’s actions wrong — morally or otherwise — and hold your boundaries. Empathy just means allowing space for another person’s humanity, without compromising your own. 

In a world where judgment comes easily, this simple act can be rare. Yet when practiced, it benefits you too, encouraging patience, resilience, and maybe even a bit more inner calm.

So, practice empathy—not as agreement, but as a reminder that we’re all sharing this imperfect journey.

RESOURCE & RECOMMENDATIONS

• Ever wonder why people leave hateful comments online? In his podcast, Dylan Marron calls them up, takes the conversation offline, and asks: why did you write that?"

• Political spending online has surged to unprecedented levels, estimated to reach $3.5 billion this year. Check out this chart showing just how fast it’s rising.

• In The Chaos Machine, NYT’s Max Fisher traces the roots of social media’s outrage culture — from early Silicon Valley ideals to alt-right forums to today’s political landscape. A compelling history of how the ‘outrage machine’ evolved right in front of our eyes

• Looking for real solutions? Check out this conversation with Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen where she shares practical ideas on how social media could address mental health and political division.

• News today often means echo chambers. Ground News is a site that lets you escape them by showing you varied perspectives, disclosing outlet biases, and revealing which issues each side highlights most.