{"id":3969,"date":"2020-12-08T12:52:21","date_gmt":"2020-12-08T12:52:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=3969"},"modified":"2020-12-08T12:52:21","modified_gmt":"2020-12-08T12:52:21","slug":"social-media-is-making-a-bad-political-situation-worse","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=3969","title":{"rendered":"Social media is making a bad political situation worse"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

\n\n“it\u2019s often difficult to understand which comes first: a polarized situation or the social media that aggravates that situation. Rather, it\u2019s become a self-reinforcing system.”
…
“Animosity toward members of opposing parties is very high even though our divisions over policy preferences don\u2019t appear to have grown, according to new research published in Science<\/em> magazine<\/a>. The paper brings together a number of different studies on the topic and is written by scholars from six disciplines who found that, these days, we\u2019re more likely to hate the opposing side and consider them to be \u201cdifferent,\u201d \u201cdislikable,\u201d and \u201cimmoral.\u201d The result is a \u201cpolitical sectarianism\u201d in which one\u2019s party identity seems to come first, before policy, religion, or common ground. Political identity, in turn, shapes our other views instead of the other way around. For example, after seeing a clip of Donald Trump espousing a liberal policy, followers exhibited a more liberal attitude, according to the paper, which presumes Democrats would do the same for their political leaders.” 
…
“The results of this kind of alignment are disastrous for a functioning democracy. As the researchers argue, \u201cholding opposing partisans in contempt on the basis of their identity alone precludes innovative cross-party solutions and mutually beneficial compromises.\u201d”
…
“Then there\u2019s distrust \u2014 encouraged by the president \u2014 of facts and journalism organizations, which are necessary to protect democracy. A series of Pew Research Center polls<\/a> shows that Republicans rely on and trust fewer news sites for politics than they used to, with Fox News, Trump\u2019s mouthpiece and a fount of disinformation, being one of few sources they regularly read and believe. However, research by Andy Guess<\/a>, assistant professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton University, looks at web traffic rather than people\u2019s survey responses to reveal that there\u2019s considerable and consistent overlap in media consumption between the parties, except among a smaller set of extremists. This suggests many people might be reading the same sources but coming to totally different conclusions. Wildly divergent interpretations of the same news is a more difficult problem to fix.” 
…
“Hyperpartisanship, tense societal factors, and divergent news diets \u2014 or at least divergent interpretations of the news \u2014 are then fed back through social media, which is likely amplifying our divisions. We don\u2019t know exactly how the social media algorithms work that select what information we see because the technology is a black box controlled by the respective social media company that built it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What we do know is that Facebook has put less of an emphasis on news and more on engagement, and that posts with strong, emotional language have more engagement. We also know Facebook has continually<\/a> promoted Groups since 2016<\/a>, which can function as their own echo chambers, even without algorithmic help. YouTube, whose algorithms like other platforms were designed to make people spend more time on the site, has been shown to radicalize people<\/a> through inflammatory messaging. Most recently, it has been awash in election misinformation<\/a>.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“The share of Americans who often get their news from social media grew 10 percentage points to 28 percent last year, according to Pew. Those who mainly get their news that way were also less informed about current events<\/a> and more likely to have been exposed to conspiracy theories.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“A new study from the University of Virginia<\/a> found increased Facebook usage among conservatives is associated with reading more conservative sites than they normally do. The effect was less dramatic among liberals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The study\u2019s authors conjectured that the way Facebook works might have something to do with this outcome. In addition to algorithms favoring engagement, the very structure of Facebook limits who we talk to: You have to \u201cfriend\u201d others to see their posts, meaning you\u2019re less likely to see people outside of your real-life friends and family, who are more likely to have similar lives and viewpoints. Facebook also tweaked its algorithms<\/a> after the 2016 election to promote posts from friends and family and show far fewer posts from news outlets, which likely further contributed to filter bubbles and division.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Research highlighted in the Wall Street Journal<\/a> suggests that people on social media do see opposing viewpoints. But since sites like Facebook are calibrated to highlight posts that elicit reactions, we\u2019re seeing the most acerbic of opposing views, which can lead people to be even more repelled by them. The result is even more entrenched viewpoints and more polarization.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“\u201cIt\u2019s not just a matter of coming into contact with the other side,\u201d Pariser told Recode about how his conception of filter bubbles has changed since he first coined the term. \u201cIt\u2019s doing so in a way that leads us to greater understanding.\u201d”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.vox.com\/recode\/21534345\/polarization-election-social-media-filter-bubble<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“it\u2019s often difficult to understand which comes first: a polarized situation or the social media that aggravates that situation. Rather, it\u2019s become a self-reinforcing system.”<\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“Animosity toward members of opposing parties is very high even though our divisions over policy preferences don\u2019t appear to have grown, according to new research published in Science magazine. The paper brings together a number of different studies on the topic and is written by scholars from six disciplines who found that, these days, we\u2019re more likely to hate the opposing side and consider them to be \u201cdifferent,\u201d \u201cdislikable,\u201d and \u201cimmoral.\u201d The result is a \u201cpolitical sectarianism\u201d in which one\u2019s party identity seems to come first, before policy, religion, or common ground. Political identity, in turn, shapes our other views instead of the other way around. For example, after seeing a clip of Donald Trump espousing a liberal policy, followers exhibited a more liberal attitude, according to the paper, which presumes Democrats would do the same for their political leaders.” <\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“The results of this kind of alignment are disastrous for a functioning democracy. As the researchers argue, \u201cholding opposing partisans in contempt on the basis of their identity alone precludes innovative cross-party solutions and mutually beneficial compromises.\u201d”<\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“Then there\u2019s distrust \u2014 encouraged by the president \u2014 of facts and journalism organizations, which are necessary to protect democracy. A series of Pew Research Center polls shows that Republicans rely on and trust fewer news sites for politics than they used to, with Fox News, Trump\u2019s mouthpiece and a fount of disinformation, being one of few sources they regularly read and believe. However, research by Andy Guess, assistant professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton University, looks at web traffic rather than people\u2019s survey responses to reveal that there\u2019s considerable and consistent overlap in media consumption between the parties, except among a smaller set of extremists. This suggests many people might be reading the same sources but coming to totally different conclusions. Wildly divergent interpretations of the same news is a more difficult problem to fix.” <\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“Hyperpartisanship, tense societal factors, and divergent news diets \u2014 or at least divergent interpretations of the news \u2014 are then fed back through social media, which is likely amplifying our divisions. We don\u2019t know exactly how the social media algorithms work that select what information we see because the technology is a black box controlled by the respective social media company that built it.
\nWhat we do know is that Facebook has put less of an emphasis on news and more on engagement, and that posts with strong, emotional language have more engagement. We also know Facebook has continually promoted Groups since 2016, which can function as their own echo chambers, even without algorithmic help. YouTube, whose algorithms like other platforms were designed to make people spend more time on the site, has been shown to radicalize people through inflammatory messaging. Most recently, it has been awash in election misinformation.”<\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“The share of Americans who often get their news from social media grew 10 percentage points to 28 percent last year, according to Pew. Those who mainly get their news that way were also less informed about current events and more likely to have been exposed to conspiracy theories.” <\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“A new study from the University of Virginia found increased Facebook usage among conservatives is associated with reading more conservative sites than they normally do. The effect was less dramatic among liberals.<\/p>\n

The study\u2019s authors conjectured that the way Facebook works might have something to do with this outcome. In addition to algorithms favoring engagement, the very structure of Facebook limits who we talk to: You have to \u201cfriend\u201d others to see their posts, meaning you\u2019re less likely to see people outside of your real-life friends and family, who are more likely to have similar lives and viewpoints. Facebook also tweaked its algorithms after the 2016 election to promote posts from friends and family and show far fewer posts from news outlets, which likely further contributed to filter bubbles and division.”<\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“Research highlighted in the Wall Street Journal suggests that people on social media do see opposing viewpoints. But since sites like Facebook are calibrated to highlight posts that elicit reactions, we\u2019re seeing the most acerbic of opposing views, which can lead people to be even more repelled by them. The result is even more entrenched viewpoints and more polarization.” <\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“\u201cIt\u2019s not just a matter of coming into contact with the other side,\u201d Pariser told Recode about how his conception of filter bubbles has changed since he first coined the term. \u201cIt\u2019s doing so in a way that leads us to greater understanding.\u201d”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[489,328],"class_list":["post-3969","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-article-share","tag-polarization","tag-social-media"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3969","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3969"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3969\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3970,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3969\/revisions\/3970"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3969"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3969"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3969"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}