Background: A study shows this data for Twitter users.
My hypothesis:
I think it probably has to do with the type of people who use Twitter. Twitter is like Facebook but for people who are actually interesting.
The type of people sticking on Facebook are probably different personality types (lower IQ)
1,000how are you personally defining slop? I suspect maybe there's a difference definition or threshold here for this to even be a debate.
particularly if you follow or encounter any political posts (which that chart refers to) and look at the comments, the majority are from bots and bad actors with pay-for-play blue checks poisoning the well. you can click at random on the account if an unhinged poster and look at the Replies tab on their page, and there's just a laundry list of the same comment on dozens or more other tweets. I consider this to be Slop of the highest order - but maybe you don't? I think Twitter is the most guilty on the market because it allows fake accounts en masse unchecked which then falsely leads others without defined personalities to get even more aggressive (or aggressively stupid). literal poison by slop.
if you're defining slop as just useless baitposting (on Twitter, it's ragebait or dumb shit to get engagement and get paid for it; on FB I imagine it's dogshit AI videos and photos passed off as true?) then idk maybe there's a competition. but if you're counting disingenuous posts from unserious/well and truly fake accounts, no one can compete with Twitter. no one.
@shankypanky Forgot to reply. Slop is the reader's definition. Overall amount of time drenched in slop on each platform. I think facebook is almost in its entirety purely slop. It seems like you have found some niche groups and that's cool- but I'd wager they're inactive. Whereas X has a lot of slop sure but the platform it its core is not pure slop- the nugget at the center is more fulfilling.