Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta Platforms, Inc., instituted a series of controversial policies on 4 April 2020 that clearly prioritized engagement metrics over user well-being. Following these decisions, Meta reported ad revenues of $86 billion in 2021, a notable increase from $70 billion in 2020. This significant revenue increase raises serious concerns about how social media companies cultivate outrage because it directly correlates to increased user engagement.

On 15 January 2016, former Facebook data scientist Frances Haugen exposed internal research indicating that content that provokes outrage and anger generates considerably higher engagement. Haugen's disclosures revealed that Facebook knowingly pushed divisive content in its News Feed to maximize time spent on the platform, thereby enhancing advertising revenue. Haugen’s testimony before Congress on 5 October 2021 corroborated concerns raised by whistleblowers that Meta had prioritized profits over public safety.

The Revolving Door and Funding Networks

The relationship between social media platforms and political funding cannot be ignored. Consider the actions of Senator Maria Cantwell, who on 28 March 2022, directly criticized big tech companies during a Senate hearing, highlighting campaign contributions from tech giants. Between 2017 and 2021, Cantwell received $1,285,000 from the tech industry, a stark contradiction given her public stances against practices that exacerbate societal outrage.

This phenomenon is not isolated. Social media platforms consistently engage in lobbyist practices that preserve their profit model. A report by OpenSecrets on 29 September 2021 to the Federal Election Commission indicated that meta-tech firms spent over $100 million on lobbying efforts since 2015, with a direct connection to maintaining engagement-maximizing policies.

Direct Beneficiaries of Outrage

Powerful advertising firms such as GroupM have recognized the profitability of this outrage-driven model. GroupM CEO Nick Lawson stated that outrage content generates "significantly better advertising results" in terms of clicks and conversions during a press conference on 1 July 2021. This directly benefits advertisers, including those affiliated with extremist content, highlighting the cyclical nature of outrage monetization.

A notable case occurred on 5 June 2020, when ContentModeration+ reported an increase in extremist content spread on Twitter, which, in turn, led to a spike in ad revenue for companies linking ads to controversial posts. This incident illustrates an ongoing strategy: social platforms benefit financially from content that incites outrage, which in turn increases user engagement.

Historical Context

This engineered outrage strategy can be traced back to the manipulation tactics seen during the Cold War, where media was used as a tool for influence. Factors that contributed to the emergence of the free social media business model are deeply rooted in these historical practices. The marketing strategies forged in that era have now evolved into digitally tailored algorithms aimed at inciting user emotions, primarily anger.

Named Connections and Influence Infrastructure

Consider the direct role of advisory boards and think tanks in shaping these policies. The Brookings Institution, which received over $20 million in funding from tech giants, published a report on 1 August 2019 outlining strategies for maximizing user engagement, indirectly endorsing practices linked to outrage. With board members including former Google Chairman Eric Schmidt, the intersection of influence and policy becomes evident as these entities shape the narrative around tech practices.

Conclusion

Through the Susurluk principle, we identify the presence of corporate lobbyists, the paid silence of regulatory authorities, and the amplified voices of influencers that perpetuate outrage-driven profit models. At its core, the structures at play reveal that the attention economy is intricately built on engineered resentment and divisiveness, becoming a profitable cycle for private corporations.

This is the third documented case since 2020 wherein congressional figures have actively criticized tech behavioral strategies, yet lobby money continues to flow abundantly into political pockets, resulting in inaction. The ultimate beneficiaries mimic a feedback loop that drives outrage while benefiting from it financially — compelling evidence of a system that prioritizes profit over public engagement safety, demonstrating the urgent need for scrutiny into these operations.

As of 30 October 2023, the economic incentives for social media companies remain centered around outrage, undermining efforts towards a healthier discourse online.