"Elon Musk has announced an upcoming algorithm update for X, formerly known as Twitter, intended to promote more informative and entertaining content while reducing 'negativity"

"This change aims to enhance user experience by focusing on 'unregretted user-seconds,' where engagement is meaningful rather than just extensive. The update follows public discussions about how content visibility impacts free speech and platform dynamics, with some users and commentators expressing concerns over potential censorship or the stifling of diverse viewpoints."

That's what I'm reading at X in what is billed as "a summary of posts on X and may evolve over time. Grok can make mistakes, verify its outputs."

If you go to that link at a different time, will you see a different summary? Maybe! But trust me. What you see there is what I just copied, and you can see the time stamp on this post.

I can see I need to learn the term "unregretted user-seconds"! How does the machine know about regret?! Of course, I ask the machine for help. Oh! The answer is so different from my guess! I thought "user-seconds" might be the number of times users seconded a post — expressed agreement with it — by liking it or retweeting it. And I thought these reactions could be counted as "unregretted" if they were not subsequently deleted. But I see that "seconds" refers to the unit of time:

"Unregretted user-seconds" refers to a quality metric for user engagement on the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter. This concept, introduced by Elon Musk, focuses on maximizing the time users spend on the platform in a way that they do not regret. The idea is to ensure that the time spent is positive, meaningful, and enjoyable, rather than being filled with content that users might later wish they hadn't engaged with.

This is a fine goal. Musk doesn't need any more money, so he can embrace what is lofty and good. Perhaps everyone will flock — like little blue birds — to the site that is truly psychically rewarding, and those other grubby sites — seeking to addict us with junk food — will run short of users. (Why are they still calling us "users," like we are indeed addicts?)

Grok continues:

In the context of the upcoming algorithm update for X, "unregretted user-seconds" is aimed at promoting content that is informational, entertaining, and less negative. This approach seeks to enhance user satisfaction by curating content that aligns with user preferences, thereby reducing the amount of time spent on regrettable or negative interactions. The algorithm will reportedly prioritize engagement from credible and verified accounts, and it might interpret actions like muting or blocking as negative signals, potentially decreasing the visibility of such content or accounts....

Oh! Muting and blocking is a sign of negativity. In that light, the effort to make X more positive itself seems, ironically, negative. I'll ask Grok about that.

Do I belong in this rathole? I asked: 

If muting and blocking are to be counted as evidence [of] negativity and used against an account, isn't X itself doing something similar? The effort to make X more positive, judged by its own approach to evidence, seems negative. Analyze the hypocrisy and irony.

Grok conceded that there were "layers of irony and hypocrisy when analyzed critically":

Hypocrisy: Punishing Negativity with Negativity: By diminishing the reach of accounts that are frequently muted or blocked, X is essentially using a form of negativity (reducing visibility) to combat what it perceives as negative behavior. This could be seen as hypocritical because X is employing a method of suppression under the guise of promoting positivity. The platform is, in essence, creating a negative consequence for actions that are meant to maintain a user's positive experience, which contradicts the goal of fostering a more positive environment.

Irony: Counterproductive Positivity: The irony lies in the fact that the strategy to increase positivity on the platform might inadvertently lead to a form of censorship or suppression of diverse opinions. If users mute or block others because of differing views or controversial content, then penalizing the muted or blocked accounts for this could narrow the Overton window, potentially leading to a less diverse and more echo-chamber-like environment. This is ironic because while the aim is to make the platform more positive, it might instead foster a more restricted and less dynamic discourse, which could be seen as a negative outcome in the broader context of free speech and open dialogue.

Platform's Own Actions: The act of tweaking the algorithm to deboost or deverify accounts based on mute/block metrics can be viewed as ironic because X is essentially muting or blocking these accounts itself by reducing their visibility. This mirrors the very actions it's trying to mitigate, thus highlighting the irony in using one form of 'negativity' (algorithmic suppression) to combat another (user-initiated muting/blocking).

Analysis: This strategy might encourage users to self-censor or only post content that aligns with mainstream or inoffensive views to avoid being muted or blocked, which could lead to what has been referred to as "toxic positivity" - where only agreeably positive or non-controversial content thrives. This could stifle genuine interaction and debate, which are fundamental to a healthy social discourse.

"Toxic positivity" — that's a good phrase to remember. A hell of a lot better than "unregretted user-seconds."

The policy also raises questions about the freedom of users to curate their own experiences on the platform. By penalizing those who are muted or blocked, X might be seen as overstepping into users' personal management of their social media environment, which could be perceived as an ironic twist on the principle of user autonomy and freedom of expression....

ADDED: The phrase "toxic positivity" — which I'd forgotten — grabbed my attention in December 2020. I'd found the term in a WaPo article called "As stay-at-home restrictions rise, here are ways to cope," which said:

Although a positive mind-set can be a valuable coping skill, experts caution against going overboard. Such an approach — known as “toxic positivity” — can be harmful to yourself or others. Research has shown that accepting negative emotions is more beneficial to mental health than avoiding or dismissing them. So, next time you find yourself wanting to tell someone to “look on the bright side,” try instead to acknowledge their pain and ask what would be helpful....