In around 2010, social media appeared in all of our lives. And ever since then, different societies around the world have become more and more polarised.
In America, the country was split directly in half as Donald Trump became President of the United States. In Brazil, the country was also split down the middle as the country elected controversial present Jair Bolasanaro. On the other side of the planet, India has seen increased political polarisation.
Why is it that so many democratic societies seem to be tearing themselves into two separate tribes? Why does it feel like each of our countries are now split into two distinct “teams”?
What one factor is consistent amongst these societies from different parts of the world with radically different cultures? Social media. Social media appeared, and then societies became more politically polarised. Is this a coincidence? Unlikely.
It’s true that political polarisation has happened throughout history, before the invention of social media, and that there are many possible factors that cause political polarisation. Yet the effects of social media on politics may be far more impactful than you previously believed.
This is how social media splits societies in half.
The Political Filter Bubble
“We retreat into our own bubbles, … especially our social media feeds, surrounded by people who look like us and share the same political outlook and never challenge our assumptions. … And increasingly, we become so secure in our bubbles that we start accepting only information, whether it’s true or not, that fits our opinions, instead of basing our opinions on the evidence that is out there” – Former President Barak Obama
Online, we live in filter bubbles. The content we consume and the content we see is tailored by algorithms to us, personally. While political echo chambers have always occurred in the real world, political filter bubbles are entirely new.
Watch one politically left-wing video on Youtube and you’ll be recommended other similar videos for weeks afterwards. Politically right-wing videos, however, will be hidden from your eyes.
Youtube wants you spend as much time on their platform as possible, and to do this, they recommend videos you are likely to watch. Which videos are you most likely to watch? Videos you agree with.
Listening to a video of someone saying things we agree with brings us positive emotions. Listening to someone from the other side of the political spectrum, saying things we disagree with, makes us frustrated, mad and disappointed – so we avoid this content.
Human beings across the entire planet interact with social media in exactly this way. It’s natural for humans to seek positive emotions rather than negative ones. Whether they’re in India, Brazil, France or Argentina, people tend to consume political content on social media in exactly the same way.
On Twitter, people usually follow users they agree with. This leaves users with a Twitter feed absolutely filled with people who think just a they do. Conservatives retweet conservatives. Liberals retweet liberals. And there’s almost no crossover.
Just as you become the average of the 5 people you surround yourself with, you also become the average of every piece of political content you’ve consumed that year. Algorithms on social media create a kind of “gravitational pull” towards either the left-wing or right-wing filter bubble, and almost everybody ends up inside one of these bubbles (usually without any awareness that this has happened. After all, online filter bubbles are invisible)
The algorithms on social media continually recommend political content we agree with to get us to click more and more, then inevitably, our own political beliefs become stronger and more calcified. We become increasingly sure that our political views are correct, and that those on the opposite side are wrong, have false information, have questionable character or are just plain stupid.
It’s not only that the algorithms change to suit your beliefs, but also that your beliefs change to suit the algorithms.
All of this creates two distinct “tribes”. Human beings, who have evolved to live in a tribal environment, have all of their tribal mechanisms triggered by these filter bubbles. Emotionally, we begin to feel hate towards the “other” tribe and we feel a need to please and get along with “our'” tribe.
People inside these bubbles often stop discussing politics on an issue-by-issue basis, instead, they reflexively take the same position as those in their own “tribe” on any given issue. A left-leaning individual might be a Gay Rights Advocate, in support of universal healthcare and be passionately anti-war. Yet if this individual steps out of line on a single issue, trans-rights for example, their tribe will immediately scorn them and often assume that this individual is in the opposing tribe.
“We have created tools that are ripping apart the social fabric of how society works” – Former Facebook Exec
Two Separate Realities
If you’re a left-winger, all the evidence you see is completely compelling. The other side are racists, homophobes, greedy, they’re the worst people in the world and you have all the facts and evidence to back that up. Yet somebody living in the next house, a right-winger, is living in an entirely different reality, who see an entirely different set of facts to base their beliefs on” Jonathan Haidt
When social media algorithms split a society in half politically, two separate realities are created. Each of these realities not only have their own opinions, but also their own facts, statistic, narratives and even definitions of words.
In America, the word “Racism” has been split into two separate realities. Those entrenched inside the right-wing filter bubble believe that “Racism” is defined simply as any kind of discrimination based on race. While those inside the left-wing filter bubble believe “Racism” can only exist towards “marginalised minorities”. One reality believes that it’s possible to be racist towards white people. but the other reality does not.
It’s exceedingly difficult for those inside opposing political filter bubbles to communicate when they’re using different definitions for the exact same words.
Each of these two realities has it’s own narrative about the current situation in the world. The capitol hill riots in Washington D.C. showed us the effects filter bubbles (and echo chambers) in action.
“It’s terrible how this election was stolen. And I had to come here and do my patriotic duty”
The right-wing filter bubble believed that the US election was stolen from trump. The left-wing filter bubble believed that it wasn’t. No matter what the truth is, millions of people in America are living in different realities.
“What we saw in D.C. was like a Youtube comment thread come to life” – Sam Harris
When social media splits societies in half it doesn’t only effect large groups of people. A split is created through families, friendship groups and workplaces. A father and a daughter inside a family end up living in two separate realities created by algorithms on social media.
Journalists, academics and politicians and other apparently “smart” people are also affected by social media algorithms. These so called “smart” people aren’t necessarily anymore aware of the filter bubble’s effects than the “dumb” general public.
People with more education are more likely to follow political news. Therefore, people with more education can actually become mis-educated” – Eli Praiser, author of: “The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You”
Rewarded For Emotional Outbursts
On social media, emotional outbursts are rewarded. The more dramatic, the more obnoxiously one-sided and the more lacking in nuance, the more successful that content will be.
To post neutral, rational and calm content is a sure-fire way to get low view counts. In the social media environment, anybody attempting to deal with political issues in balanced and fair manner are almost entirely ignored.
This creates a dangerous and emotionally charged feedback loop where irrational and thoughtless points of view are amplified – which eventually spills off of the internet and out into the real world.
Even intelligent people end up more one-sided and less nuanced in the social media environment. When our tweet or comment receives a high number of likes, we feel accepted and noticed by the tribe. It’s human nature to bend your behaviour towards social approval. And it’s highly likely that what you believe to be your honest thoughts may be altered (even if only slightly), to become more lacking in nuance, more emotional and more appealing to our online tribe.
Asynchronous, text based communication also increases anger and the hostility online and empathy doesn’t come naturally when we’re not speaking face-to-face.
As is usually the case, people don’t notice how their thoughts and behaviour are being influenced by the technological environment they live in. They don’t notice that the social media environment has made them more hostile, angry and emotional than they otherwise would be.
It should be noted that all of these effects are present everywhere that social media exists which, in case you weren’t aware, is almost every country on the planet.
“If a swastika is drawn on a locker in a junior highschool in Illinois, everybody on the left will hear about it. And if an idiot holds up a sign that saying ‘patriotism is racism’, anywhere in America, everyone on the right will hear about it. So everyone is immersed in a river of outrage.” – Jonathan Haidt
The Digital Strawman
Those inside the left-wing or right-wing filter bubbles do not understand those on the other side. They believe those in the other bubble to be, naïve, uninformed, deluded, evil, small-minded or just plain stupid.
When discussing the arguments of those in the opposing political filter bubble, mischaracterised “strawman” arguments are used.
A table of strawman arguments
Inside political filter bubbles, high-quality arguments from the opposing side are hidden from view. It’s easy to believe that your views are correct when you’ve never heard any reasonable counter-arguments.
The only counter-arguments those in political filter bubbles know about are low-resolution and poor quality. To those inside these bubbles, it becomes apparently obvious which side is right and which is wrong. After all, the other side have such ridiculous counter-arguments.
Yet when real arguments are presented, who’s right and who’s wrong becomes much less obvious:
A strong right-wing argument about climate change: Technological innovation is the key to solving climate change. It’s unrealistic to think that we can convince countries, especially developing ones, to halt carbon emissions in the name of protecting the planet.
A strong left-wing argument about climate change: Endless growth on a limited planet isn’t a sustainable way to live. There are potential environmental “feedback loops” that could spiral out of control if we don’t make an effort to curb our CO2 emissions.
A strong right-wing argument about feminism: Men are more often homeless, do dangerous jobs, graduate less from university and get terrible deals in divorce court. Most men are not CEO’s and are not particularly privileged. Men are privileged in some areas, women are privileged in other areas. The idea of “the patriarchy” is simplistic and reductionist.
A strong left-wing argument about feminism: Women shouldn’t have to feel unsafe when walking home at night. Women should not be forced to be mothers, housewives and caretakers if they don’t want to. Women are capable of occupying positions of power and doing an excellent job.
A strong right-wing argument about wealth inequality: Wealth inequality is inevitable. We cannot fix poverty by simply handing out checks. Capitalism creates wealthy societies and the only way to achieve wealth equality is to make everyone equally poor.
A strong left-wing argument about wealth inequality: The richest people in the world hold more money than they could ever hope to spend themselves. And the top 1% constantly avoid paying the tax they owe to the society in which they made their profits. Too much wealth inequality creates unstable societies.
Many of those inside political filter bubbles live in a reality where half of the arguments presented above don’t exist. Just think about it, when was the last time you saw anybody on social media discussing political issues with any kind of depth. Occasionally this happens, but the majority of the social media landscape is filled with strawman arguments of the opposing side.
Social media is a new technology. We don’t yet fully understand what it is and how to use it responsibly. If people become aware of the effects of political filter bubbles on social media, then perhaps they’ll become a more sophisticated political activist – one that engages in legitimate and fair discussion with those of opposing views.
If we don’t become aware of how social media splits societies in-half, then we can expect more polarisation, more violent protests and perhaps even civil war. Societies around the world: Brazil, France, Australia, Argentina, the UK and America. Everyone is inside the very same social media environment and similar political filter bubbles are present in every democratic society around the world.
It’s time that we began to understand how these political filter bubbles are affecting our own psychology and our societies.
