Abstract
Political polarization has recently become a serious issue in many democratic societies. Numerous scholars point to the increasing role of digital platforms as one of the most significant factors standing behind the phenomenon. At the same time, social media are believed to be primarily the tools that should not prioritize any type of information underpinning political views. Nevertheless, the most powerful platforms have created sophisticated algorithms and censorship mechanisms that may substantially alter the public’s perception of multiple issues. The essay analyzes various aspects that determine the significance of the above-mentioned innovations’ influence on public opinion formation.
Introduction
There are numerous social issues that are underpinned by the growing role of digital platforms. The abundance of online content authors nowadays makes people with different views dependent primarily on the sources of information that comfort them. Thus, people have become more inclined to reject any portions of information that may question their holistic approaches to specific issues. At the same time, online information tends to be one-sided, which gradually diminishes the chances of finding a compromise. Therefore, current news feed algorithms and severe censorship are used extensively to form public opinion and accelerate political polarization.
It can significantly undermine the functioning of various social institutions that have proven to be instrumental in developing a sophisticated democracy. Moreover, businessmen who control social media have developed sophisticated censorship systems that reflect their values and political views. Given millions of voters’ remarkable variety in political views, the phenomenon was destined to cause tensions and undermine the perceived sustainability of specific online platforms.
The Increasing Role of Social Media
The Internet, in general, has become highly structured and polarized and is no longer underpinned by the peaceful coexistence of narrow-topic forums exploring practical issues or encouraging discussion. Moreover, Bail et al. (2018) state that even traditional media have become dependent on Facebook and Twitter as news sources and public opinions. However, some people argue that the influence of social media cannot be compared to the impact of TV channels that receive remarkable funding.
Although this may be true, the public is more interested in interactive and engaging online communication with real people. Thus, despite all the sponsors and funds that are allocated by political parties to traditional information distribution channels, social media have started to dominate the formation of public opinion. This fact allows people to control the feed algorithms to manipulate the political views of millions.
Many citizens currently rely on large volumes of information to develop a particular stance on the issue. Therefore, the speed of information transmission has become instrumental in gaining a competitive edge, which is already the focus of various political parties and activists. One of the most controversial issues concerning the reliance on social media as a crucial new source is the ability of the authors to post multiple materials without fact-checking them. Therefore, the point of view and the perception of certain news presented by the author of the first post that appeared online tends to form public opinion.
People’s conscience is designed in a way that prioritizes the first information that is delivered to it. Whenever new contradicting evidence occurs, the psychological reaction implies rejection. This mechanism is used to help citizens develop holistic approaches to certain issues and act accordingly. At the same time, people can perform certain crucial decisions immediately after they acquire specific information in the modern world. The speed of decision-making has become a valuable characteristic that determines successful people. Nevertheless, in case new contradicting information is then delivered to such a person, a painful psychological reaction takes place that initially seeks to provide a rationale for the decisions that have, in fact, proven to be significantly less useful.
Social media, unlike traditional media, do not feel obliged to hold the responsible for the materials they publish. Online authors often claim that they repost the data that has been acquired by other types of media. Therefore, in order to maintain the audience’s loyalty, they do not offer various clarifications concerning the fake information they sometimes post. At the same time, average citizens follow numerous celebrities, influencers, and news accounts, making it extremely hard to remember the information posted by each author. Therefore, the general audience rarely blames specific online authors for sharing fake news. Moreover, people nowadays have become dependent on the quantity, not quality, of the information they consume, especially if it is presented in an entertaining form. Thus, social media have accelerated the dramatic shift in how news and information are consumed, which has made it easier for activists and lobbyists to manipulate public opinion.
Lack of Counter-Attitudinal News
The Internet has changed significantly since the 1990s and 2000s, with search engines and algorithms determining the trends and providing the news. For example, Levy (2021) claims that social media algorithms avoid recommending counter-attitudinal news and any other type of content. On the other hand, some may argue that the potential introduction of various perspectives in news coverage is a less significant political factor than income and background. Although this may be true, the US presidential elections primarily depend on a few communities with a large number of people ready to change party allegiance. Thus, several political phenomena that determine US politics can be manipulated by people deciding to censor particular types of news.
Developing and implementing the numerous frameworks that underpin efficient news program creation have become a complex undertaking that requires substantial efforts and resources. Therefore, the media companies have become reliant on large and reliable sponsors that are willing to provide finance on a regular basis. Thus, a vicious cycle has been created that implies a constant influx of money coming from certain lobbyists in return for a specific emphasis in the news coverage. Moreover, sometimes this slight focus and prioritization may eventually become a powerful and convincing manipulation algorithm.
Many professionals working on TV channels representing completely different political views rapidly change their workplace. Moreover, money continues to top the list of the most significant factors. Therefore, traditional media has long been associated with certain political parties. For instance, an average citizen knows the notable sponsors of specific TV channels. Thus, traditional media are no longer perceived as trustful unbiased, and reliable sources of information. The rapidly expanding social media platforms gave hope to people in the 2000s that the abundance of new authors would automatically lead to increased objectivity of news coverage and critical analysis.
Nevertheless, emerging evidence suggests that such expectations used to be overly optimistic. Despite the remarkable ad revenues from businesses, social media platforms have also become reliant on the inflow of money that is allocated to manipulate public opinion. The efficiency of the method has long been praised by various political analysts, as sophisticated marketing tools help influence the political views of a particular demographic group in a specific community. Therefore, the return on the initial investments has proven to be extremely high in political campaigns.
Programmers
There is an apparent lack of variety in the social media market. Facebook and Twitter dominate data collection, analysis, and provision in most regions of the world. For example, Yarchi et al. (2021) underline that particular social media contribute to the polarization of society by encouraging prevailing contexts. In contrast, some may argue that social media provide primarily a platform, while people’s preferences are formed by their online interests and news.
Although this may be true, several IT specialists still have remarkable influence over the selection of topics for discussion and censorship of perspectives they personally do not approve of. Thus, a single group of IT specialists who tend to be on the far left of the political spectrum can ban a person, a point of view, or even a topic for discussion in any region of the world.
Numerous demographic groups in Canada and the US have actively demonstrated that they disapprove of such an attitude in recent years. The lack of platforms that can allow everyone to raise reasonable concerns about specific policies seriously irritates a significant part of the population. When some conservatives are ready to protest, millions are ready to join them in the streets. Therefore, it is essential to include all demographic groups in various forms of public discussion, which is necessary for finding a compromise.
Analysis
Public discussion has always been considered instrumental for a well-functioning democracy. At the same time, a wide range of policymakers has discovered the remarkable power of digital tools that ensures rapid transformation of public opinion. The control over an influential TV channel can currently be less significant than popularity on social media. Moreover, the active discussion that follows every political statement on Facebook or Twitter can be channeled in a way that can multiply the original effect. Thus, a new regulatory system is needed that hinders the chances of severe political content censorship underpinning current algorithms.
Whenever censorship occurs, only people with the “right” stance are given a chance to provide a rationale, which significantly decreases the number of available solutions for certain nationwide problems. Moreover, such control over social media creates an illusion that the majority of the population agrees with specific issues supported by censors. It leads to the rapid marginalization of large parts of the population who may partially disagree with certain minor issues but lack the ability to provide reasonable arguments for the development of a sustainable, universally approved solution.
Conclusion
People with opposing political views currently do not need to interact on a daily basis and try to avoid counter-attitudinal news online, which leads to numerous misunderstandings and unwillingness to cooperate. Therefore, numerous current political tensions that undermine the functioning of various countries due to a lack of dialogue can be avoided by ensuring that social media platforms are neutral. The only alternative is the development and establishment of new social media that will be chosen by people who feel oppressed on Twitter and Facebook, which will further exacerbate political polarization.
References
Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W., Bumpus, J. P., Chen, H., Hunzaker, M. F., Lee, J., Mann, M., Merhout, F., & Volfovsky, A. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(37), 9216–9221. Web.
Levy, R. E. (2021). Social media, news consumption, and polarization: Evidence from a field experiment. American Economic Review, 111(3), 831–870. Web.
Yarchi, M., Baden, C., & Kligler-Vilenchik, N. (2021). Political polarization on the digital sphere: A cross-platform, over-time analysis of interactional, positional, and affective polarization on social media. Political Communication, 38(1-2), 98–139. Web.