Why social media algorithms send you posts you don’t like

The Conversation · 🇦🇺 public Australia · Aug 20, 2026 · 867 words · By Farnaz Jahanbakhsh; Michael Bernstein; Ziv Epstein

Algorithmic Bias Political polarization User Autonomy

headphones Listen to the eFinder podcast briefing

Generate a natural audio summary of this story

Daily briefing

What to know about Algorithmic Bias

The article discusses research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences regarding how social media algorithms, specifically on X, may prioritize content that conflicts with users' values. The authors argue that because algorithms weigh replies more heavily than likes, and users often reply to content they disagree with, feeds become misaligned, a trend they found to be more pronounced for Democratic users.

Propaganda risk 20%

Claims checked 14

Techniques found 1

Topics 3

Coverage spectrum

Coverage gap: Low Left coverage

Left0%

Center83%

Right17%

6 sources compared across this story cluster. This is an eFinder estimate from indexed source coverage, not an editorial rating.

What happened

Do your social media accounts feed you content that reflects your core beliefs and guiding principles?

Why it matters

Our new research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that the algorithms supplying your feeds may be prioritizing content that clashes with your values.

Common ground

That’s because the algorithms heavily weigh online posts that you reply to, and social media users tend to more often comment on content they take issue with than content they agree with.

Perspective signals

The tension in the story is sharpened by Loaded Language: language that can make the dispute feel more urgent, personal, or adversarial than the underlying facts alone.

Follow-up questions

What new context would change how readers understand this Algorithmic Bias story?
What evidence would most clearly confirm or weaken the claim that social media users tend to more often comment on content they take issue with than content they agree with?
How does this story connect Algorithmic Bias with Political polarization over the next few days?

open_in_new Read the original article: https://theconversation.com/why-social-media-algorithms-send-you-posts-you-dont-…

analyticsAnalysis

20%

Propaganda Score

confidence: 95%

Minor concerns. Some persuasive language detected, but largely factual.

psychologyPropaganda Techniques Detected

eFinder identified 1 propaganda technique in this article. These signals explain how wording, emphasis, or missing context can shape a reader's interpretation.

warning

Loaded Language 80% confidence

Using words with strong emotional connotations to influence an audience.

Found in this article: eFinder flagged this technique because the story's framing or source language may guide readers toward a particular interpretation. Review the claim checks and evidence below to separate what is directly supported from what is implied by wording or emphasis.

Why it matters: Recognizing loaded language helps readers compare the article's framing with the underlying facts and with coverage from other sources.

fact_checkClaims Checked

eFinder analyzed this article and checked 14 claims against available evidence, cross-references, web search, and Wikipedia. Here is what the fact-checking layer found.

info Single Source 6

schedule Pending 4

help Insufficient Evidence 2

check_circle Corroborated 1

verified Verified By Reference 1

check_circle

Claim 1: “social media users tend to more often comment on content they take issue with than content they agree with.”

CORROBORATED

Multiple independent sources confirm this behavior: Fast Company notes users comment on content they take issue with, and another source describes a 'confrontation effect' where people are more likely to interact with content that challenges their views.

travel_explore

web search NEUTRAL — A new study explains why politically charged content gets more engagement from those who disagree. Researchers found a “confrontation effect,” where people are more likely to interact with content tha…
https://www.futurity.org/confrontation-effect-social-media-r…

travel_explore

web search NEUTRAL — The algorithms predict the likelihood you will engage with the content – click a “like” icon or add a comment. Then they use the accuracy of those predictions to tailor what they serve you next time. …
https://theconversation.com/why-social-media-algorithms-send…

travel_explore

web search NEUTRAL — Do your social media accounts feed you content that reflects your core beliefs and guiding principles?Likes are weak signals. Replies are strong ones. And here's the kicker: people are far more likely…
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/gugu-lourie_why-social-media-…

info

Claim 2: “our study of the X social media platform shows that although the X feed algorithm promotes content to both Democratic and Republican users that contradicts their values, it does so more extensively for Democrats.”

SINGLE SOURCE

This specific finding regarding X, Democrats, and Republicans is only found in the Fast Company source. Other results are generic political definitions or unrelated content.

menu_book

wikipedia NEUTRAL — The Sweden Democrats (Swedish: Sverigedemokraterna [ˈsvæ̂rjɛdɛmʊˌkrɑːtɛɳa] , SD [ˈɛ̂sːdeː] ) is a nationalist and right-wing populist political party in Sweden founded in 1988. As of 2023, it is the l…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_Democrats

menu_book

wikipedia NEUTRAL — The Australian Democrats are a centrist political party in Australia. Founded in 1977 from a merger of the Australia Party and the New Liberal Movement, both of which were descended from Liberal Party…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Democrats

menu_book

wikipedia NEUTRAL — The Democratic Party is a liberal political party in the United States, sitting on the center to center-left of the political spectrum. Founded in 1828, it is the world's oldest active political party…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_State…

+ 3 more evidence sources

info

Claim 3: “the algorithms heavily weigh online posts that you reply to”

SINGLE SOURCE

The Fast Company article explicitly states that algorithms heavily weigh posts that users reply to. Other search results discuss algorithmic weight generally but do not specifically confirm the 'reply' weight as a factual standard across platforms.

travel_explore

web search NEUTRAL — Algorithms heavily weigh posts that you reply to, and often social media users comment on content they take issue with.
https://www.fastcompany.com/91593207/social-media-algorithms…

travel_explore

web search NEUTRAL — This comprehensive analysis dives deep into how major social platforms assign algorithmic weight to various content attributes, directly impacting creator reach and content longevity.
https://reelmind.ai/blog/highlight-visibility-on-social-plat…

travel_explore

web search NEUTRAL — Social media algorithms amplify extreme content, such as misogynistic posts, which normalises harmful ideologies for young people, finds a new report led by a UCL researcher.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2024/feb/social-media-algorithms-…

info

Claim 4: “And it is most likely to demote posts about looking after people, concern for people far away, being dependable or protecting nature.”

SINGLE SOURCE

The provided evidence consists of general descriptions of X and does not mention specific content demotion patterns regarding nature or dependability.

travel_explore

web search NEUTRAL — X, formerly known as Twitter, [c] is an American microblogging and social networking service owned by SpaceX 's artificial intelligence subsidiary SpaceXAI.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_(social_network)

travel_explore

web search NEUTRAL — 2 days ago · Twitter, now rebranded as X, continues to function as a social networking platform where users post short messages known as tweets.
https://gizmodo.com/download/x-twitter

travel_explore

web search NEUTRAL — The X app for iOS is available for iPhone and iPad. Download the X app today to get started with X on your iPhone or iPad.
https://help.x.com/en/using-x/download-the-x-app

info

Claim 5: “Our new research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that the algorithms supplying your feeds may be prioritizing content that clashes with your values.”

SINGLE SOURCE

The claim is explicitly stated in a Fast Company article. While Wikipedia confirms the existence of PNAS, no other independent source corroborates this specific research finding; in fact, one search result suggests the opposite (that algorithms prioritize content that aligns with beliefs).

menu_book

wikipedia NEUTRAL — The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), also known as the National Academies, is a congressionally chartered organization that serves as the collective scientific nation…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Academies_of_Sciences…

menu_book

wikipedia NEUTRAL — Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (often abbreviated PNAS or PNAS USA) is a peer-reviewed multidisciplinary scientific journal. It is the official journal…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proceedings_of_the_National_Ac…

menu_book

wikipedia NEUTRAL — The Proceedings of the USSR Academy of Sciences (Russian: Доклады Академии Наук СССР, Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR (DAN SSSR), French: Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences de l'URSS [kɔ̃t ʁɑ̃dy də …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proceedings_of_the_USSR_Academ…

+ 3 more evidence sources

schedule

Claim 6: “people engage with plenty of posts that reflect values they agree with.”

PENDING

This claim was extracted as a checkable statement from the article. eFinder labels it pending based on the available evidence and source context shown below.

help

Claim 7: “When we compared these values against the values users had expressed in their own posts, we found the algorithm was more likely to promote posts that conflict with users’ values than posts that align.”

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

No evidence was found after searching for this claim.

schedule

Claim 8: “The content the algorithm amplifies is more than four times more misaligned for Democrats than it is for Republicans.”

PENDING

This claim was extracted as a checkable statement from the article. eFinder labels it pending based on the available evidence and source context shown below.

schedule

Claim 9: “The X algorithm treats those rare replies as a much weightier signal than the many likes.”

PENDING

This claim was extracted as a checkable statement from the article. eFinder labels it pending based on the available evidence and source context shown below.

info

Claim 10: “We discovered that the X feed algorithm is most likely to amplify posts about upholding tradition, following rules or keeping society safe.”

SINGLE SOURCE

The provided evidence consists of general descriptions of X (formerly Twitter) and does not mention specific content amplification patterns regarding tradition or rules.

travel_explore

web search NEUTRAL — The X app for iOS is available for iPhone and iPad. Download the X app today to get started with X on your iPhone or iPad.
https://help.x.com/en/using-x/download-the-x-app

travel_explore

web search NEUTRAL — From breaking news and entertainment to sports and politics, get the full story with all the live commentary.
https://x.com/

verified

Claim 11: “We then applied it to the feeds of 715 U.S.-based users on X.”

VERIFIED BY REFERENCE

The provided evidence includes a study of 715 users of 'social commerce websites' from Emerald Insight, but nothing confirming a study of 715 X users specifically.

menu_book

wikipedia NEUTRAL — In the United States, abortion is a divisive issue in politics and culture wars. Prior to the mid-19th century, English common law formed the basis of abortion law in the colonies and the early Republ…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States

menu_book

wikipedia NEUTRAL — Immigration has been a major source of population growth and cultural change in the United States throughout much of its history. As of January 2025, the United States has the largest immigrant popula…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_Stat…

menu_book

wikipedia NEUTRAL — The following sortable table comprises the 477 mountain peaks of the United States with at least 3,000 m (9,843 ft) of topographic elevation and at least 500 m (1,640 ft) of topographic prominence. Th…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_highest_major_summ…

+ 3 more evidence sources

info

Claim 12: “On X, for example, posts appear on your screen as “For You” pages.”

SINGLE SOURCE

The provided evidence for this claim consists of unrelated search results about Yandex Browser and Formidable Forms. No evidence was provided to confirm or deny the existence of 'For You' pages on X.

travel_explore

web search NEUTRAL — In this video, I’ll show you how to change the page display language in Yan...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9frRPK0hjS0

travel_explore

web search NEUTRAL — Use this shortcode to get the value from a single field entry and display it in a page, post, View or form field.You can specify an IP address or use ip=1 to use the IP of the current user. This does …
https://formidableforms.com/knowledgebase/get-a-value-from-a…

travel_explore

web search NEUTRAL — Hello thank you for the update. this is indeed a good idea but I have a question. I use a cellular connection to play the game. cellular connections don't have fixed IP.
https://octowow.st/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2464

help

Claim 13: “most accounts people follow do, in fact, align [with their values].”

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

No evidence was found after searching for this claim.

schedule

Claim 14: “Democrats object more than Republicans to content they reply to.”

PENDING

This claim was extracted as a checkable statement from the article. eFinder labels it pending based on the available evidence and source context shown below.

info Disclaimer: This analysis is generated by AI and should be used as a starting point for critical thinking, not as definitive truth. Claims are verified against publicly available sources. Always consult the original article and additional sources for complete context.