The notion that we can connect, reconnect, and converse widely and openly using technology is, at its core, and inspiring concept. Over the last decade of observing, collecting, and utilizing data from social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Reddit, etc., I initially found many of these platforms to be full of promise and potential (I'm a perpetual optimist - no apologies.).
Over time, several events began to crack my veil of inspiration, including the 2015 Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data scandal, the 2016 US Presidential election, the 2018 anti-Muslim riots in Sri Lanka, and others. They showed that dangerous, sometimes deadly outcomes can result from manipulation and bad actors leveraging social media. I've also become more skeptical of their management teams' long-term strategies to ensure peaceful, productive usage and policing violent/offensive content. Obvious benefits aside, I've become much more in tune with the dangers they present in polarizing, misinforming, and negatively impacting our mental health and well-being.
But why is social media so effective in polarizing us in the first place?
Echo Chambers
Over the years, customers, colleagues and friends often ask what I perceive to be the greatest dangers of social media on society. My first response was generally that they create "echo chambers" of thought. To increase engagement and usage, social media platforms use complex algorithms to deliver content users are likely to agree with - even if it makes them angry. By doing so, I believed, users would become isolated with other likeminded users, who they then interact with to further confirm their beliefs. Over time, this isolation creates polarization.
However, researchers have had difficulty confirming the echo chamber assumption with data. Studies have found that social media has actually increased our discourse and interaction with those of opposing views. In fact, we are more likely to interact online with people we disagree with than in person!
Conflict and Identity
A new study published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) offers an evolved perspective on why social media usage contributes to polarization.
While social networks may be contributing to increased discourse and interaction with others we disagree with, it's often not rational deliberation with the intent to learn new ideas or solve problems. It's more contentious and conflictive. As the study states, "users may not be engaging in good faith attempts at seeing things through other perspectives." As we engage in contentious discourse more often, our identity associated with our contentious perspectives harden, as does our anger and distrust for the "other side." Kind of puts a dent in the “…one Nation, under God, with Liberty and Justice for All” idea, doesn’t it?
So what's next?
According to another study conducted this summer, nearly half of Americans expect a civil war in the coming few years, and one in five now believes political violence is justified. That...terrifies me. There are ways to turn down the volume, and potentially restore some of the promise these platforms had in their early days (again, optimism). Rachel Kleinfeld, a senior fellow in the Carnegie’s Endowment's Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program, offers a few suggestions:
Occasionally disagree with your own party or position - publicly. It makes us more influential and open to others.
Just be kinder on social media. As my mother always used to say, "if you can't say anything nice to someone..."
Downplay the fringes and highlight the median. Heck, we've built an entire software platform on this notion.
Avoid repeating misinformation, even to debunk it. Because of how these platforms are engineered, repetition creates visibility.
Combating polarization starts with recognizing it, understanding some of it is being created and amplified outside of our control, and having a desire to avoid civil war and political violence. I hope we all can at least agree on that. 😊☮️😊