Other Explanations for Increasing Polarization Online
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 also typically more emotional, provoking strong feelings of anger and anxiety. People are more likely to share this content out of a need to highlight injustice.
The prioritisation of this type of content means that you are more likely to see extreme rather than moderate content. This may lead us to falsely believe that extreme views are more popular than they are in reality. When presented with an extreme example from the other side of the political spectrum, people are more likely to perceive high polarization regardless of the reality (Yang et al., 2016).
The perception of high polarization can in turn lead to very real polarization. When presented with extreme examples of your political opponents, you may begin to identify more strongly with your own ‘side’ in order to distance yourself. It may also generate a more negative view of your opponents, increasing affective polarization.
Social media content creators are also aware that divisive content attracts more attention and engagement. As a result, they are incentivised to post more of this type of content. In some cases, this is driven by a desire for notoriety but it can also be financially rewarding on monetised platforms. It is particularly popular for social media users to mock their political enemies online. A recent study by Rathje et al. (2021) found that posts which mention the political out-group attract the most engagement. This type of content often mocks or attacks political enemies, painting them in a stereotypically negative light. You may have seen this yourself online with the popularity of cringe compilations and reaction videos on YouTube. These videos do not always engage productively with political arguments, instead preferring to attack and caricature enemies.
It may be that increased exposure to extreme views from either side is a more widespread and pressing problem on social media than isolation from opposing views in filter bubbles. In order to tackle increasing polarization, it may be necessary to address the underlying logics of social media platforms. A drive to maximise engagement is difficult, perhaps impossible, to disentangle from these polarizing effects.
Do you think you see more divisive content on social media? Does this change how you view the other 'side'?
Read more about this topic in these articles:
Comments
Post a Comment