The increase of social media over the past few decades has been influential in so many ways, causing the way people live their lives to change entirely. The ability to meet new friends, access to unlimited sources of information, and endless social media platforms all allow for people to connect to others and the world. Connection between people is something to be celebrated, unless there is the potential that those connections online could impact reality. I would argue that this potential is already occurring. While having the potential to do good, social media inadvertently causes issues, furthering political polarization in the United States.
Yascha Mounk makes a great point in his book the Identity Trap while discussing Foucault’s work. Mounk claims Foucault, “would have abhorred the ways in which big social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook have transformed public debate into a modern-day panopticon” (Mounk, 2023). His reasoning stems from social media users fear of making a mistake being punished if they don’t follow the many rules upheld on online communities. This is a great synopsis of a major issue social media has caused in regards to polarization. Instead of promoting education and discourse when a person shares their views, or even makes an ignorant statement, they are automatically criticized. Oftentimes the criticism is harsh, unrelenting, and completely counterintuitive. Whether a person refrains from posting due to fear, or if they post and are automatically attacked, further division is created, and people miss out on the opportunity for positive debate.
Another major way that social media escalates the issue of political polarization is by enforcing platforms that promote confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is the tendency for people to acknowledge and accept the information that they see that supports the beliefs they already hold. On some of the most popular social media platforms (Twitter, Instagram, and Tik Tok) false information is readily available and spreads at alarmingly fast rates. The issue is that people aren’t taking the time to fact check information before reposting. Furthermore, the false information posted is oftentimes extremely emotionally provoking to content consumers. The obligation to “speak up” about issues in the world is easily navigated by reposting on social media without checking the sources and information. Confirmation bias comes into play when people actively choose to believe this false information when they’re presented with opposing views, because they hold their views so strongly and are flooded with them daily on these different platforms. One study by Sasahara et al. (2021) shows these effects claiming, “social media exposure also influences the thought process and developing a network of choice by un-following people of a different mindset, leading to homogenous communities and echo chambers.”
Constantly consuming social media content that supports one’s views and contains false information becomes an even bigger issue because it prevents people from seeing that United States citizens are not as divided as they think. According to Rachel Kleinfeld, Americans are more emotionally polarized (affective polarization) than they are ideologically polarized, which is harming democracy in the United States. Kleinfeld suggests that this issue stems from false beliefs about the policy beliefs of those in opposing political parties. Kleinfeld also argues that all media, not just social media, play a role in this issue. Further research examines this false division, with the term Perception Gap being used to describe how, “Americans have a deeply distorted understanding of each other.” Research shows there is a disproportionate showing of political content on social media from those with “a more distorted understanding of the other side, further adding to the problem.” To overcome the Perception Gap, Story Corps gives three possible solutions: recognizing one’s echo chamber, promote humanity, and participate in dialogue with those who have different beliefs.
As previously mentioned, social media allows for connections, but it doesn’t encourage connections between people holding different viewpoints. Again, this isn’t to say that social media is the cause of polarization, but a contributing factor that should be acknowledged in the hopes that it could potentially be used for the opposite effect. The prevalence of social media in American society has the potential for people from different parties to reach each other and engage in civil discussions. Such discussion could be the key to showing people from different parities they aren’t as different as they think, hopefully promoting civil discourse and a sense of respect that could unify American citizens. On a more individual level, people should be more aware of how they interact on social platforms to avoid contributing to divisive content. Fact checking, researching, and engaging with those holding different political views are a few ways that people can connect on a larger scale and in a positive manner.
I think it is interesting that due to algorithms only showing people what they are interested in, it creates a confirmation bias. I am curious to know if creating the opposite, occasionally showing people something against their algorithm, would increase people watching other sources of media than just those that further their own beliefs. However, this may not work if people just scroll past what they do not agree with.