Social Media and Social Polarization
- Polarization and Echo Chambers: Social media platforms, intended to connect people, have instead amplified societal divisions. Echo chambers, where users reinforce their own beliefs and avoid differing opinions, contribute to online polarization and hinder critical thinking.
- Misinformation and Drama: Social media thrives on sensationalism, often misrepresenting information to garner attention. This leads to misinformation, conspiracy theories, and heated, baseless debates that further divide society.
- Harassment and Anonymity: Anonymity on social platforms encourages users to engage in cyberbullying, harassment, and doxxing, which not only damages reputations but also raises concerns about online safety.
Social media and other online platforms have been around for over a decade and have left a deep impression on human behavior, where netizens either come together in harmony or display malicious intentions, souring the meta environment. Social media platforms, like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, were developed with the sole purpose of bridging gaps between individuals who live miles apart from one another and also to amplify social interaction among them. However, each endeavor comes with its setbacks, and now, the critics argue that these platforms may be building a wall of differences instead.
In the 21st century, with every piece of media at our fingertips: news is accessed through smartphones more often than TVs, which has developed into a severe content consumption. Scandals, political debates, and celebrity extravaganzas are covered by media agencies and even social media influencers, so much so, that all kinds of private information and feelings are displayed raw for an internet audience to feast on a chaotic rendition of media coverage, at times. This forces content consumers to align themselves with opinions that are black and white, rather than gray.
Without all the due evidence, no one has a “rightful” opinion on a social matter. In the contemporary epoch, media capitalizes on drama and people’s reactions, no matter the cost, so even without proper coverage of a situation, they sometimes take it upon themselves to exaggerate or misinterpret incidents to garner a higher viewership. People’s opinions on overall drama stem from the fact that they have free access to loads of information, which gives them the innate response to form opinions about it and align themselves with what they think is right.
The intense and often baseless debates on social media have deeply divided society. Many individuals lack the critical thinking necessary to grasp the complexity of social and political ideas, leading to widespread misinterpretation. This fosters hatred and polarizes people along political, religious, and ethnic lines. In Pakistan, religious extremism has been exacerbated by the negative use of social media, which amplifies divisive rhetoric and fuels societal tensions, further contributing to the fragmentation of the nation.
People who marinate in their opinions via echo chambers tend to contribute significantly to online polarization. Their opinions bounce off the chamber walls like a boomerang and re-instill their isolated beliefs. They lack the stomach to digest opinions adverse to theirs and end up causing a ruckus in meta spaces because of their stubbornness and can only tolerate surrounding themselves in places with like-minded individuals. Instead of participating in intelligent discussions and having their beliefs challenged, they refuse to look at the reality and facts of things.
Phillip Fernbach, a professor at the University of Colorado specializing in cognitive research, stated, “When we’re arguing about these complicated issues, as individuals we don’t know that much about them.” People argue and debate on online forums as if they possess knowledge about every detail, notion, and intention. Fernbach further elaborates on the nature of this behavior, “when we’re part of a community that has a particular position, just by participating in that community, we tend to feel like we have a better understanding of that issue than we do.”. These online debaters do not consider the bigger picture which is the misrepresentation of information.
It is cruel that anonymity gives courage to users to bully and ruin online careers and reputations. Some go further to attack in even more vicious ways and dox a person’s private address and other personal information to enforce a twisted sense of justice or just to get their way with them.
Some users take to the internet to spread fallacies and rumors about others, leading to conspiracy theories, fake news, and propaganda. Misrepresenting the essence of people and spreading fire about it on digital spaces always leads to a divide, where netizens either defend the individual being attacked or double down on them. Misinformation thrives on agitating people and developing a sensitive reaction, to see them lash out and fan the flames further and immortalize the drama in the social media landscape.
Take the example of Barack Obama’s wife, Michelle Obama. Because of one altered picture, half of the internet sphere believes she was once a man and transitioned into a woman. Even though it has been fact-checked, people do not hesitate to bring it up in discussions, going on to border-line harassing and cyberbullying the Obamas.
It is cruel that anonymity gives courage to users to bully and ruin online careers and reputations. Some go further to attack in even more vicious ways and dox a person’s private address and other personal information to enforce a twisted sense of justice or just to get their way with them. Not only harassing famous personalities but hounding other internet users for different beliefs, manifests bad blood and not only makes users think twice about sharing their ideas but also questions their safety on the internet. The purpose of online spaces is to provide comfort and a safe environment for exchanging different ideas and expressing an identity.
Nonetheless, some factors affect it in such a way that it ends up pitting one against the other, polarizing the online environment, such as the mobilization of people’s emotions, misrepresentation and exaggeration of information, the superiority of opinion, and the vices of users. To remedy this, experts have recommended reducing screen time and engagement with negative content online. “The negative opinions that it invokes or perspectives that it pushes us towards having, it’s not healthy for society in general but for us as individuals,” says Toby Hopp, a digital media researcher at the University of Colorado.
The author is a freelance writer with a strong passion for social justice, politics, and research.
