Why are people so mad about books?

Why are people so mad about books? And why does everyone suddenly have such trash opinions about TV?

You may have already guessed that it's bot-driven. But I have a theory that it's a little bit more than that.

It's ads.

Specifically, it's ads for the products that are being trashed online.

You’re not imagining it; the internet is an angry place

It hardly needs to be justified. By now, the territory is well-tread: social media, specifically algorithmic feeds, make us feel worse. But even though we intellectually know this, it can be hard to figure out why. We curate our feeds, pay attention to screen time, and try to meter our attention. We tell ourselves that it’s “just the internet.” 

But no matter what we do as individuals, as a culture, we still live a lot of our lives online. It’s how we stay in contact, it’s how we learn, it’s how we work. It’s almost impossible to totally avoid the social aspects of the internet without damaging the social aspects of our real lives.

Years ago, I noticed something that forced me to radically change the way I used social media. I could have 100 positive interactions online, but a single negative interaction would dominate my time. And that’s because positive interactions are naturally terminating. You either don’t respond or you respond once or twice.

Arguments, on the other hand, beg to continue. A conflict often doesn’t have any type of organic or natural end, because neither side is willing to concede.

So, I proposed a rule for myself: I respond once to any argument and no more.

Recently, a Stanford University study confirmed that negativity rises on social media over time—not just under posts, but in communities. This negativity was driven by a desire for uniqueness and differentiation. It’s simply easier to differentiate oneself through negative statements than positive statements… and this type of negativity can proliferate even when it isn’t intentional.

But… is it intentional?

Lately, social media has been flooded with some surprisingly virulent and often outlandish takes about books and television. And it’s not just that they’re controversial takes—it’s that they seem to arise from people who have never read or watched the media at all.

I don’t think this is simply the nature of social media, although obviously it is driven by the architecture of it. I think it’s actually two things, one obvious, and one less.

First, it goes without saying that there are influencers out there; it’s essentially worthless to point out that influencers (especially book influencers) are driving a lot of the tumult. But what isn’t as commonly known is that at least some of these influencers are likely paid by publishing houses themselves to drum up engagement. Penguin Random House, for example, has its own influencer network. Getting paid requires followers and activity, so even if they aren’t getting directly paid, they need to come up with hot book-related takes to get paid in the future.

Second is something a little more insidious and a little less obvious. I’ve become convinced that production companies and publishing houses are actually driving negative discourse around their own products. In the Stanford study, conversations trended toward the negative specifically when uniqueness was involved. And that’s something that a product needs to do: differentiate itself. 

Consider this:

1) It is now widely known that negativity garners more engagement. I know it, marketers know it, and you know it. If you want to get your product in front of more eyes, it isn’t positivity or hype that’s going to do it—it’s negativity. It’s controversy.

2) Defending a property against negativity creates loyalty. If you get into a fight with people who seem to absolutely irrationally hate a product you love, it builds your relationship with the product. You find friends and allies who are on your side. You start to identify even more as a fan.

And it’s that last part that I find remarkably unsettling. Because companies can actually tie us to their products and brands artificially by forcing us into these defensive positions.

You need to starve a fire

My “one reply” rule isn’t my only social media rule. I have another: Never argue with an opinion that I’ve only ever seen online. Some of the opinions being posted today are almost transparently bad. “I’ve never read X, but I think…” “I’ve never actually watched X, because…”

And I do think that’s by design. Because if I were marketing a book or television show, I wouldn’t start with legitimate critiques that you could have against the show. I would start with indefensible, off-the-wall statements. Things that would get people talking without doing damage to my product.

To be clear: I don’t have evidence that this is what’s happening. This is a theory.  But I do believe that this is happening, if only because it’s perhaps the most obvious marketing move a person in marketing could make today.

And I don’t think what we're seeing now is just engagement bot or influencer-driven—because a lot of the accounts that post these opinions are micro-accounts. They’re brand-new, blank profiles, with a handful of posts that never seem to grow. (What it could be is driving activity for fake followers that are then resold as follower packages, but that really wouldn’t demand such huge levels of engagement.)

Regardless of why it’s happening, the best counter, of course, is to ignore it—and to remember that one way or another, regardless of why it is artificial, it is artificial. If you see an opinion online that you've never actually heard a human speak, it's very likely not to be a real opinion at all.