We all watch the news daily, in one way or another. But, the definition of news is rapidly evolving. Increasingly, people get their news from non-mainstream sources, particularly social media. This happens so much so that those sources have almost become mainstream news sources themselves. Platforms not made exclusively for propping up serious headlines, and which allow anyone to contribute, naturally differ from their traditional counterparts. The real question here is: how? And what effects does this have?
Well, it’s first and foremost important to take a look at the way the information is delivered to users. Platforms like Facebook, Tiktok, Twitter, and Youtube, as we all know, have algorithms that feed users assortments of content, which aren’t decided randomly. Since platforms want to keep users engaged, they naturally try to show users content they’re interested in. But, this can affect a user’s perception and introduces theories of people being lead down rabbit holes of content, polarizing them further. Boston University uses Facebook’s structure as an example, with its emphasis on sharing information almost exclusively between those in close circles, leading to, “filter bubbles,” of information sharing. Users who are close to one another, and thus, likely possess similar ideologies and backgrounds, continue to share that info, letting those ideas develop without oppositional challenge. This is to say that, when your ideas go unchallenged to even the slightest degree, polarization can occur. That leads you down winding roads of misinformation, consuming endless amounts of the same fake news.
Political polarization in itself has been increasing for years throughout the US, and even on the global scale. The trend seemingly never ceases, with both articles from decades ago and articles from today highlighting the same trend of correlative growth. When you introduce algorithmic, user-based platforms like the ones prevalent on popular social media apps, it only seems like the trend will keep on. The obvious negatives of extremism and its resulting violence and incivility are valid causes for concern.
Moreover, the algorithms themselves, and the idea of users interacting, can call into question how the environments of those platforms affect their user bases. One example of this is Twitter, now known as X. Prior to its purchase by Elon Musk, and its subsequent rebranding, Pews Research reported that 47 percent of Democrat voters perceived the app as “very good,” for democracy, while only 17 percent of Republican voters said the same. However, after the purchase, that number changed to only 24 percent for Democrats, and went up to 43 for Republicans. The specifics of the shift and its conditions are beside the point here. Interactive platforms can and have majorly shifted. This goes to show that, unlike one-way media, these platforms move forward in inconsistent ways. Some argue that this is a positive effect, and natural in communicative and open spaces, while others wonder if it may contribute to the polarization we see.
The concerns we hold can’t be certain, especially with such a revolutionary method of communication. It seems like a no-brainer that we should be looking for unfiltered facts, and not misinformation or opinions. However, we are all human, and when people find themselves capable of making a difference; of finding more deeply authentic commentary and speech, they will inevitably seek it out. Despite how natural such an instinct is, we must carry the thought that what we see is real. Perhaps the greater burden at hand is that it doesn’t just change how we see things; it turns our very words into a change in the things we see.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/
