Social Media Divides Us
Society is more polarized than ever before, and there is no way of avoiding it. So how did we arrive at this extreme state of collective frenzy? We seem to have forgotten to maintain a polite conversation on diverse issues — especially politics. Today the popular trend is to jump right into irrational and radical conclusions which only bring dissatisfaction and resenting behaviour to the table. Thus, worst of all is the complacency of the institutions to prompt this cultish behaviour. Though I consider myself an optimist holding trust in the good-will of our humanity; these are some of my sincere thoughts on the role of social media and its divisiveness.
Social media has been around for over ten years at this point of time and has altered the whole industry with its colossal businesses, plus taking a direct effect in our daily lives. Popular platforms such as Facebook and Twitter allow us to interact with each other and share different views in a matter of seconds.
There is no doubt these recent set of tools have served great benefit by making communication easier. However, there is a flip side to the coin, like the friend that laughs behind your back — these can have a pernicious effect to society as a whole with the propagation of fake news, the destructive effect on people’s mental health and the polarizing outcome on society — the main focus of this writing. Worst of all is the political bias and overt one-sided censorship perpetuated by ‘liberal’ members of Big Tech corporations.
So, the idea that we can communicate with each other through an established number of characters by keeping it simple and concise seems quite appealing for some to engage in an argument. Yet as we’ve seen countless times, particularly today, most online debates start with both sides showing a reluctancy to hearing out new ideas and, finally ends up with a pointless exchange of rebukes — which only brings us to a thick brick wall. This idea certainly polarizes our society in having civil and nuanced discussions about complex topics: mask-wearing, race, gun control and so on.
That said, this is not a new idea that has sparked in late unfortunate events. There is scientific proof from back in 2012, during the presidential election, and data shows how both Democrats and Republicans do not interact with each other in online debates. The Pew Research Center and the Social Media Research Foundation show charts that only 0.65% of connections are between the two sides of the political spectrum.
A clear example of “filter bubbles” — social media algorithms only show us content that aligns to our beliefs based on our online interests. Therefore, the user goes down the rabbit hole of distorting reality; an inconspicuous bias based on selective daily content assembled through algorithmic engineering created by algorithmic engineering. Hence the general online user is therefore rarely exposed to opposing views creating confrontational discussions. One example, a user could solely enter the labyrinth of anti-vaccine propaganda, once that individual grows an interest on that topic, the more information he’ll find, and may perceive it as objective information.
Next time you consider engaging with someone you disagree with massively, take a step back and grasp how unbeneficial the probable outcome would be. The majority of people who oppose your views will be unwilling to hear out what you have to offer -that’s the sad reality. The one-to-one conversation is the most viable option we possess– we share, we express our disagreements and remark the things we agree on — finally at the end of the day we’ll leave satisfied and without our eyes gauged out.
