The phenomenon that causes certain things to go viral is not associated with "social media algos."
Humans are driven by underlying psychology. Whatever we thought about content on the rest of the internet, we will still think now. The structure change just means you own what you post. That's pretty much it. Some will say that you can't be censored - I don't know how much I agree with that. Psychology is powerful.
I'm less concerned about what make something go viral but what behavior going viral rewards. What got me thinking about this was the types of content posted to social media, particularly commentary and political content, and what the inherent rewards of the system encourage from creators.
From what I've seen, more extreme views get more engagement. No one cares about "Thing X is bad" but "Thing X is the worst thing ever and kills babies" tends to drive more clicks, likes, etc. which might push the "algorithm" to boost the post. In the end all the storm and fury surrounding one post that gets a zillion views doesn't mean much other than bragging rights. If, on the other hand, the reward is money there is more incentive to use that extremism to try and hit big, rake in the sats, and to keep going extreme to keep the sats flowing.
Maybe I'm overthinking it. (It's been known to happen.) I'm just wondering if one of the things that makes nostr awesome (the ability to reward value with value by zapping sats) doesn't also encourage the toxic behavior that is so prevalent on X, Facebook, etc.
I see where you're coming from. I didn't make the point I was trying to make very well.
I think the answer is yes. Likes/comments/etc are not different than money, not exactly. To the point you were making, all I see on nostr is more of the same stuff (as far as I can tell) - the material difference is the underlying platform.
