Are Filter Bubbles Overstated?
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 consequently different political views. As social media sites are built to encourage self-expression and sharing, there is a high chance they will repost some political content. This means that we are likely to unintentionally see opinions we disagree with.
Similarly, although we might try to avoid news we don’t like, it is actually quite difficult to do so. The recommendation algorithms are not perfect, often showing us content we’re not interested in. Sites do allow us to block certain users and key words, but it is likely that some posts will slip through the cracks.
In many ways, then, it could be argued that social media is less of an echo chamber than offline media. Most people who mainly read newspapers or watch TV stick to the same few sources. In their everyday conversations, they may only speak to people nearby who are more likely to share their experiences and opinions. Just like in a filter bubble, this could lead to a narrowed worldview.
However, it is important to note that filter bubbles and echo chambers do still exist for a minority of people, especially those who are politically motivated. Some people do use social media specifically for politics, only following those they agree with. Therefore, they are less likely to see disagreeable content inadvertently. A recent study by Fletcher et al. found that in most countries, only 5% of people are in an echo chamber online. This is a fairly low proportion, but it still represents millions of people in the UK alone and even more worldwide.
Social media also allows those with extreme views to find one another and gather in isolated communities more easily than ever before. These forums can be particularly dangerous, reinforcing and strengthening extreme views amongst their users with sometimes violent consequences. This means that although filter bubbles may not affect a majority of people, they may have an outsized impact on the few they do affect.
It is nevertheless still important to understand how social media algorithms work. Although they may not generate total filter bubbles for everyone, they still have a huge and increasingly important impact on what news we see.
Despite the evidence that filter bubbles are not as widespread as feared, people still view social media as very polarized. Why might this be? In my next post, I will explore some of the other possible explanations for this perception. Be sure to stay tuned across all our platforms.
To find out more about this topic, check out these articles:
Comments
Post a Comment