Burst Your Bubble

  Hello readers! This will be the last blog post from us running our #burstyourbubble campaign. We hope that this experience has been as eye opening for you as it has been for us! At the bottom of this post, we will compile a list of some of the links we have shared throughout the campaign, as a resource for anyone who wants easy access to them.   To conclude our campaign, here is an executive summary of what we have covered, week by week.   In the first week of #burstyourbubble, we gave an introduction of the topic, defining terms such as filter bubbles themselves, ideological polarization, affective polarization, as well as discussed the ways that people consume news through social media.   For our second week we focused on facts and figures and posted eye opening statistics and points of reference. We discussed the discrepancies in news consumption based on factors such as class, race, income, education and gender. Some highlights include that only 22%...

  In order to combat filter bubbles and the polarisation that they can cause, there are a number of actions that can be taken by individual social media users. Since the presence of these filter bubbles are often a result of algorithmic recommendations by the platform, the way in which the platform is utilised can result in different outcomes. In this post we will have a look at what we can do as users of social media in order to minimise the presence of filter bubbles in our own experience, as well as polarisation as a whole. In terms of what can be done to alter the way the algorithm selects content for our feeds, we can change the data that is used by these platforms. Cookies are a tracker that stores data about what you view, search for and click on when browsing social media and the wider internet. Many websites now ask for permission to store and use cookies, with many giving a choice to opt out. Deleting or blocking the use of cookies means that there will be less data inp...

 As discussed in our previous post, filter bubbles may be less widespread than feared. Despite that, there is still a popular belief that social media contributes to increasing polarization. This suggests that there are other factors at play beyond filter bubbles. Another leading explanation also points to social media algorithms and the logics of these platforms. These algorithms are designed to maximise time spent on the platform, increasing the platform’s advertising revenue and market value. In order to do this, algorithms promote posts which attract the most engagement as measured in likes, views, shares, or time spent watching. However, the content that is the most engaging according to these metrics is consistently more extreme, partisan, and emotional (Hasell, 2020). This could be because partisan users tend to be more engaged on social media, and are more likely to share content, giving them more of an influence on what is seen as most popular. Extreme partisan content is ...

This week, we’ll be discussing some of the criticism of filter bubbles as a concept and exploring other ways that social media can contribute to polarization. With the rise of social media, filter bubbles and echo chambers have become a major concern. They are frequently blamed for increasing polarization and extremism online. However, there is surprisingly little evidence that they are as common as feared. In fact, there is evidence of the opposite! Studies have consistently found that we actually see more political disagreement on social media!  Social media sites can allow us to see more diverse opinions without us even trying. Most people’s online networks are based primarily on non-political connections. Our friends are mainly people we know through work, school, and hobbies, not people who share our political views. Social media also allows us to stay in contact with people outside our close circle. These people are more likely to have different life experiences and consequen...

  Welcome back to the second part of our facts and figures section of our campaign! For our second post this week, we at #burstyourbubble want to share with you some more illuminating points of reference and statistics! This time around, we will use several different academic papers – Dubois, E., & Blank, G. (2018). The echo chamber is overstated: The moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information, Communication & Society, 21(5), 729–745, Dvir-Gvirsman, S., Tsfati, Y., & Menchen-Trevino, E. (2016). The extent and nature of ideological selective exposure online: Combining survey responses with actual web log data from the 2013 Israeli elections. New Media & Society, 18(5), 857–87, Fletcher, R., Robertson, C. T., & Nielsen, R. K. (2021b). How many people live in politically partisan online news echo chambers in different countries?, and Kalogeropoulos, A., & Nielsen, R. K. (2018). Social inequalities in news consumption. Oxford: Reuters...

Now that we've explained how polarisation and filter bubbles work, you may want to know how common they are and hence, why it is so crucial to be informed on this subject. In this week's blog posts, we will provide you with some facts and figures about polarisation and filter bubbles, so that you are aware of how easily they can arise and just how at risk we are of falling victim to them, especially if we are using social media as out main source of news. Reuters Digital News Report in 2022, revealed that a huge 57% of people now receive news through their social media accounts. Over half of the people participating in this survey, were absorbing news on their feed and classifying it as one of their daily news sources now. Although this may seem to be great, and in many ways, it is, as over half of those surveyed were engaging with news content, this figure can also have some consequences attached. Because these users can follow the news sources they so wish and engage with the...