One Way Social Media Increases Polarization (And It's Not Algorithms)
A new study suggests that social media would increase political polarization even without algorithms that favor extreme content.
Facebook's algorithms were pushing the most extreme content to the top of news feeds, we now know thanks to a whistleblower. New research shows that even without those algorithms our social media feeds become more politically polarized due to our own choices.
"Polarized information ecosystems can reorganize social networks via information cascades," published this month in PNAS, found "that polarization is driven to a large extent by unfollowing, which can gradually—and inadvertently—produce homogeneous online networks, known to reduce exposure to challenging information and encourage outgroup hostility."
In other words, since we're more likely to unfollow people whom we disagree with, our networks are becoming more polarized over time.
A summary of the study published by SciTechDaily noted how this could explain the spread of fake news.
The research team advocates for further investigation into how these trends may contribute to the spread and consumption of “fake news” and misinformation, and how inaccurate news fuels political division among the public. For example, the study suggests that people who consume and share fake news might be inadvertently isolating themselves from everyone else who follows mainstream sources. This should be explored further.
One way to make sure you're not contributing to this polarization is to intentionally follow people you normally disagree with. This doesn't mean you should follow people who engage in trollish behavior, but you can find genuine truth-seekers across the political spectrum.
Also Check Out…
What Happens to Democracy When Local Journalism Dries Up? The end result is disastrous.
It’s not just watchdog journalism that suffers when news organizations shrink or die. The decline affects civic engagement and political polarization, too. Studies show that people who live in areas with poor local news coverage are less likely to vote, and when they do, they are more likely to do so strictly along party lines. To put it bluntly, the demise of local news poses the kind of danger to our democracy that should have alarm sirens screeching across the land.
WHAT THE GOP DOES TO ITS OWN DISSENTERS: After January 6, Peter Meijer thought he could help lead the Republican Party away from an abyss. Now he laughs at his own naïveté.
On the House floor, moments before the vote, Meijer approached a member who appeared on the verge of a breakdown. He asked his new colleague if he was okay. The member responded that he was not; that no matter his belief in the legitimacy of the election, he could no longer vote to certify the results, because he feared for his family’s safety. “Remember, this wasn’t a hypothetical. You were casting that vote after seeing with your own two eyes what some of these people are capable of,” Meijer says. “If they’re willing to come after you inside the U.S. Capitol, what will they do when you’re at home with your kids?”
Inside Trump's hunt for "disloyal" Republicans
Trump is tapping his national network of allies to identify Republicans who were "weak" in 2020 because they refused to go along with his efforts to overturn the election. No office has proven too small.
Wisconsin Conservative Group Finds ‘No Evidence Of Widespread Fraud’ In 2020 Election
A 10-month-long review of Wisconsin’s 2020 election conducted by a conservative group in the state found no signs of widespread or significant election fraud, according to a new report of its findings, further disproving continued baseless allegations of election fraud as the battleground state undergoes a contentious partisan election audit.