Melbourne, Oct 17 (The Conversation) Tim Berners-Lee envisioned the world wide web as a tool for easier communication, widespread knowledge access, and reinforced democracy and connection. Unfortunately, rather than uniting us, it seems to be splintering societies into smaller, often hostile, factions. The prevalent blame rests on online echo chambers and filter bubbles, which highlight content aligned with users' existing beliefs.
Nevertheless, recent research contests these ideas. A 2022 study led by Dana demonstrated that social media users frequently interact with opposing content, even deliberately seeking it out. This tendency to engage with disagreeable posts, such as "rage bait," may boost the platform's income, but socially, it incites negative outcomes like "affective polarisation." This form of polarization makes us favor those with similar views and harbor resentment for those with differing opinions, a global phenomenon on the rise.
To curb this polarisation, altering social media platforms' financial structures is imperative, though it requires governmental intervention alongside societal shifts.
Reinforcement of Online Views Social media use has been linked with growing affective polarisation. Online interactions can influence one's opinions, even on previously neutral topics. Admired influencers, for example, can sway views on unfamiliar issues, gradually dividing users into ideologically opposing "partisan sorting" groups.
Research shows that social media encounters can form new opinions and searches for additional information often reinforce these new views through similar language. Heightened emotional states have been associated with increased susceptibility to false or misleading content.
The Economics of Polarising Content Divisive and emotionally charged posts garner significant engagement on social platforms, fueling the platforms' revenue through increased shares, likes, and comments. This cycle is exacerbated by how platforms prioritize such content, a strategy designed to boost advertising income. Reports have indicated that certain reactions, like emoji responses indicating anger, have historically been weighted more heavily than simple "likes". Studies suggest that platforms thrive financially from promoting such engaging yet divisive content.
Charting a New Course The trajectory of social media is not fixed. Users are spending less time on social media; a Financial Times report noted a 10% reduction in user engagement by users aged 16 and older since 2022. Moreover, there's a shift from mainstream platforms to those aligning more closely with individual political views, such as BlueSky and Truth Social. While this migration might not resolve polarization, it indicates a discontent with current platforms.
Social media-induced polarization bears real costs, affecting governmental spending on mental health and policing. In Australia, the influence of online hate and misinformation has been evident in events like neo-Nazi marches and cancellations concerning the LGBTQIA+ community due to threats.
Individuals maintaining a presence on social media can work toward reducing polarization by fostering tolerance for diverse views. Users should avoid promoting content likely to provoke outrage, thereby minimizing platform algorithms' signals.
The primary issue, however, is structural, necessitating a fundamental shift in how online activities are economically incentivized. Encouraging balanced conversations and discouraging rage baiting requires likely governmental action. Historically, harmful products have prompted regulation and taxation. Applying similar strategies to social media platforms could reshape this digital landscape, fostering a world where diverse opinions coexist without ostracization. (The Conversation)
(Only the headline of this report may have been reworked by Editorji; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)