Introduction
The well-being of a society largely depends on how many people adhere to shared political preferences. It is not about forcing people to have one opinion, like in totalitarian states. On the contrary, a significant percentage of citizens with moderate political views indicates a healthy society. Simultaneously, the trend of political segregation, when a large portion of the population adheres to the extreme right and extreme left views is an undesirable situation.
The influence of social media has become more significant in recent years. US citizens today trust social media more than traditional media. Moreover, traditional media in the United States are also becoming increasingly polarized. Political segregation in the US is increased by social media for three reasons: they spread disinformation, strive for monetization, and support unfair political competition. The consequences of growing political segregation include lack of constructive dialogue, undermined democratic foundations, and distortion of non-political relations between people. The most effective way to fix the problem is by enacting laws regulating social media, and targeting agents who spread disinformation.
Facts Regarding the Problem
Social media does increase political segregation in US society. As a rule, various agents deliberately use unfair practices that lead to political polarization. Tucker et al. note that types of political disinformation include fake news, rumors, knowingly false information, unintentionally false information, politically distorted information, and ‘hyperparty’ news. Researchers note that disinformation producers are independent trolls, hired trolls, bots, fake news, and conspiracy theorists (Tucker et al. 22).
Troll farms can be hired by parties that work to undermine democratic values. For example, the Russian state, which meddled in the US 2016 election, still remains the primary employer of troll farms and an investor of disinformation practices (Howard et al. 3). These agents have different purposes: some of them claim to be apolitical – independent trolls and fake news, while hired trolls and bots intend to urge Internet discussions towards a particular direction.
The analysis of communication changes on Twitter shows that online activity, leading to the political polarization of society, has been observed for a long time. According to Garimella and Weber, who analyzed followership, retweets, and hashtag fanaticism, “online polarization has indeed increased by 10-20% over the past eight years from 2017” (528). A study by Conover et al. conducted ahead of the 2010 Congressional elections found that “a network of political retweets exhibits a highly segregated party structure with minimal connections between the left and right users” (Conover et al. 89). Hong and Kim also found that politicians who expressed extreme ideological positions had more Twitter followers (777). According to scientists, this trend indicates that social networks contribute to the strengthening of political extremism. Therefore, political polarization is relevant for Twitter, where politics is one of the most discussed topics.
Interestingly, most social media platforms did not immediately become the target of disinformation campaigns. Individual trolls, whose goal was to provoke users to receive emotional satisfaction and publish fake news to discredit the media, initially chose Twitter as the leading platform for their aggressive and provocative messages. Noteworthy, Bail et al say the “of those invited to follow a Twitter bot, 64.9% of Democrats and 57.2% of Republicans accepted our invitation,” proving the popularity of bots (9219). Then, after troll farms and fake news agents appeared, the main percentage of fake information began to show up on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Twitter.
Opposing Viewpoints
Probably not everyone will agree that political segregation is a negative phenomenon. Some people with very radical opinions believe that they have the right to freedom of expression, which is one of the fundamental liberties protected by the Constitution. On the one hand, the freedom of expression is really guaranteed by law. But, on the other hand, I can’t entirely agree with this point of view since the essence of freedom of expression is to analyze information before expressing opinions. Only through careful analysis and synthesis of information, and verification of facts, personal opinion can be of value for the development of civil society. Otherwise, subjective opinion has no social value and may even pose a threat. In other words, freedom of expression must be limited by the utilitarian principle of the greater good.
Further, perhaps some people adhere to libertarianism and believe that the state should give business complete freedom. On the one hand, this idea is sensible, since the increased regulation of business is the sign of totalitarian states. Since companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter are private companies, people may think that the state has no right to obstruct their development. However, even the most extreme modern libertarians will agree that business must be corporately responsible.
This responsibility can be expressed in the payment of taxes (another vital aspect for social giants’ businesses), the implementation of environmentally friendly practices, proper working conditions, and compensations for employees. Moreover, any business must benefit society and cannot set its priorities, namely increased revenues and market share, above society’s interests. Hence, if other companies are subject to these laws, why should social media be an exception? There is no reason for that; therefore, social media organizations should as soon as possible become subjects of public relations that are governed by general law and subject to general rules.
Causes
Given the above, one of the main reasons for aggravating political segregation is the spread of disinformation in social media. Agents listed by Tucker et al., stakeholders from foreign states and politicians with extreme ideological positions intentionally or unintentionally contribute to society’s political polarization. After the Congress held hearings related to Mark Zuckerberg’s participation in the Cambridge Analytica scandal, most media experts concluded that the main reason for false information being spread on social networks is the lack of legislation (“Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg testifies to US Congress”). Social media has incredible influence and power, but they are subject to laws that were developed for other businesses so far. Even the statutes for official media do not regulate social media.
The spread of disinformation is a consequence of the initial tendency towards polarization in US society. Blankenhorn lists fourteen reasons associated with political polarization outside of social media (126). These reasons are the end of the Cold War, the rise of identity-group politics, growing religious diversity, increasing racial and ethnic diversity, the passing of the Greatest Generation, geographical sorting, political party sorting, new rules for Congress – the weakening of ‘regular order’ (Blankenhorn 126).
Other reasons include new rules for political parties, new political donors, new political districts (gerrymandering), the spread of media ghettoes, the decline of journalistic responsibility, and the growing influence of certain ways of thinking about each other. Noteworthy, the proliferation of ‘media ghettoes’ “reinforces the new politics, such that the most reliable way to succeed in either domain is to be the most noisesome, outrageous, and polarizing” (Blankenhorn 126). Such a variety of prerequisites for political segregation indicates that the problem requires complex solutions.
Another reason why social media increase political segregation is their nature. The Netflix documentary, The Social Dilemma, details how social networks use algorithms to grab and consume our attention (Liedtke and Myers, para. 3). These algorithms’ main task is monetization, which is provided by the number of ads viewed by users. The most chilling quote from the documentary is, “Social media is business. If you are not paying for the product, then you are the product” (“The Social Dilemma”).
In these simple words, the main character of the film explains the nature of social networks. But what does monetization have to do with the political segregation of society? The point is that radical groups expressing politically polarized views and opinions are much better at attracting and retaining users’ attention. Therefore, it is beneficial for the owners of social networks that such groups continue to exist, despite the apparent threat they pose to society.
Another aggravating factor that contributes to the polarizing effect of social media is political games. Previously, political censorship was used to control traditional media, whose activities were strictly regulated by law. Traditional media bear a colossal responsibility compared to social media. Therefore, it is much easier for political players to use social media. Cambridge Analytica, commissioned by Donald Trump, developed algorithms for fake news, which targeted the required percentage of undecided voters, which was the reason for Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 elections. Notably, the Netflix documentary “Great Hack” reveals all the details of the scandal (Cadwalladr, para. 5).
According to the experts cited in the film, Cambridge Analytica used PSYOP techniques – US military psychologists use them to end armed conflicts – to convince voters in 21 countries, including the US, to vote for a sponsored party or candidate (“The Great Hack”). Cambridge Analytica also used these disinformation technologies to influence Brexit and fuel civil conflicts in several countries.
Consequences
The main consequence of political segregation and polarization is the lack of constructive dialogue. A divided society is incapable of debate, and members of that society are not ready to approve of the integrity of the opponent’s point of view (Conover et al. 90). They will instead be inclined to believe in misinforming polarizing messages in social media. Dialogue between the parties is the basis for optimal decisions regarding the country’s economic and political course. Assuming that Congress members behave like most ordinary people, political segregation and polarization would exacerbate the problems associated with forming a majority that votes for new laws and regulations.
Under the pressure of current trends, politicians are forced, if not of their own free will, to make more radical statements, which creates a vicious circle (Hong and Kim 777). This state of affairs freezes creative ways of development when the parties agree and reach a win-win situation in which the interests and well-being of all participants are considered and problems are solved for mutual benefit.
Besides the lack of constructive dialogue, one unfortunate feature of political segregation is destructive dialogue, including hate speech of various gradations. In a polarized society, the parties spend all their strength to prove their point of view, which they consider to be the only correct one (Conover et al. 90). It leads to a constant struggle for power and a lack of opportunities, time, and space to develop alternative solutions. Therefore, destructive dialogue paralyzes the state and leads it to economic stagnation.
Political segregation affects the personal and economic relations of citizens. Iyengar et al. note that “the percentage of Americans who would be somewhat or very unhappy if their child married someone of the opposite party has increased by about 35 percentage points over the last 50 years, with Republicans especially sensitive to cross-party marriage” (136). Similar tendencies are observed when choosing a partner for marriage, friendship and dating.
Noteworthy, according to Iyengar et al. “dating profiles typically did not report political affiliation prior to the 2016 presidential election (24.6% of women and 16.5% of men); after the 2016 presidential election, these figures increased to 68% and 47%, respectively” (137). The consequences of political partisanship affect labor and economic relations. Employers demonstrate a better inclination to hire supporters of their political camp, while small businesses tend to make discounts for those who support their political ideology (Iyengar et al. 138). Moreover, people tend to draw conclusions about the country’s wellness, depending on whether their party is currently ruling.
Political polarization, enhanced through social media, has many consequences that undermine the foundations of democracy. Segregation results in a lack of dialogue and the lack of constructive solutions that it could bring (Conover et al. 90). Modern politics of social media imply a constant violation of citizens’ rights and freedoms. For instance, freedom of expression is greatly hampered by the flourishing fake news algorithms (“The Social Dilemma”). Social media violates personal data law and cannot be held liable for this (“The Great Hack”). Social media promotes the voluntary or organized formation of radical groups with criminal intent (“The Great Hack,” Howard et al. 3). The current alignment of social media forces leads to hatred and indulgence of weaknesses.
Pragmatic Solutions
The fight against political polarization will be successful if it starts with the battle against listed by Tucker et al. agents destroying the information field. For example, a ban can be applied on information distributed by specific IP addresses or groups in social media. In case of proof of guilt, the persons and companies have to bear responsibility for disseminating disinformation, which led to severe consequences (for example, the death of people during demonstrations or armed conflicts that arose based on political issues).
Conover et al. found that polarization tendencies did not apply to the communication of a particular user category. This category was characterized as a “politically heterogeneous cluster of users” – people with different views who exchanged opinions more quickly and intensively than users who retweeted (89). Such observation can provide a good basis for recommendations on combating disinformation. In particular, the group of users, who keep analyzing and testing political news, represents the democratic society and should receive protection. Since the rights of this category of citizens are most violated by bots, trolls, and fake news, stopping their activities will be the first and main step to protect this group of users, who can be called the basis of civil society.
Then, the third recommendation is to develop and adopt laws at the local and federal level that regulate the activities and content of social media. The introduction of such laws is highly justified since social media today have a higher level of trust than traditional media but do not bear any responsibility for the consequences of their activities. In particular, the new package of laws should cover such areas as a ban on content that promotes political segregation and polarization, a ban on radical groups included in federal lists, and a ban on the use of algorithms targeted to increase the monetization of social media continuously. These laws should primarily regard the activities of the most popular social platforms, which have more than 5 million subscribers.
Therefore, the owners and employees of companies working on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, and in popular messengers such as TicToc, Snapchat, WhatsApp, Viber, Telegram, Skype can be brought to justice.
Conclusion
Thus, social media are increasing political polarization due to several main reasons: they spread disinformation, they benefit from polarizing tendencies in US society, they strive for monetization, and they support unfair political competition. The consequences of growing political segregation are the absence of constructive dialogue, a destructive dialogue that paralyzes the state, undermining of the democratic foundations, destruction of civil society, and distortion of non-political relations between people. The most effective way to fix the problem is to enact laws regulating social media businesses, and target agents who spread disinformation.
Works Cited
Bail, Christopher A., et al. “Exposure to Opposing Views on Social Media Can Increase Political Polarization.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 115, no. 37, 2018, pp. 9216-9221.
Blankenhorn, David. “The Top 14 Causes of Political Polarization.” The American Interest, vol. 16, no. 1, 2018, pp. 126.
Cadwalladr, Carol. “The Great Hack: The Film that Goes Behind the Scenes of the Facebook Data Scandal.” The Guardian. 2019. Web.
Conover, Michael, et al. “Political Polarization on Twitter.” Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, vol. 5, no. 1, 2011, pp. 89-96.
Garimella, Venkata R. K., and Ingmar Weber. “A Long-Term Analysis of Polarization on Twitter.” Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, vol. 11, no. 1, 2017, pp. 528-531.
“Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg Testifies to US Congress over Cambridge Analytica Scandal.” DW. 2018. Web.
Hong, Sounman, and Sun Hyoung Kim. “Political Polarization on Twitter: Implications for the Use of Social Media in Digital Governments.” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 33, no. 4, 2016, pp. 777-782.
Howard, Philip N., et al. “The IRA, Social Media and Political Polarization in the United States, 2012-2018.” Computational Propaganda Research Project, vol. 1, no. 1, 2019, pp. 1-48.
Iyengar, Shanto, et al. “The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States.” Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 22, no. 1, 2019, pp. 129-146.
Liedtke, Michael, and Amanda Myers. “Netflix Film Dissects a Technology-Driven Social Dilemma.” ABC News. 2020. Web.
“The Great Hack: Official Trailer Netflix.” YouTube, uploaded by Netflix. 2019. Web.
“The Social Dilemma: Official Trailer Netflix.” YouTube, uploaded by Netflix. 2020. Web.
Tucker, Joshua A., et al. “Social Media, Political Polarization, and Political Disinformation: A Review of the Scientific Literature.” Hewlett Foundation, vol. 1, no. 1, 2018, pp. 1-95.