A year since insurrection: Power to the people, or power to the platform?
CARLY KABOT: The pro-Trump insurrection at the U.S. The Capitol on January 6, 2021, provoked a national debate over the impact of social media platforms in exacerbating political polarization in the United States. Nearly a year ago, political polarization nearly destroyed American democracy. As we approach the anniversary of the deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, we face a daunting reality that little has changed since that fateful day. The digital age is revolutionizing democracy— the power of the platform continues to grow beyond the imaginable, changing the way citizens interact with institutions, ideas, and most importantly, each other. Without urgent action on the role of social media platforms in political polarization, January 6 will likely only be the beginning of a "democratic collapse.”
As Cass R. Sunstein explains in #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media, the “proliferation of communications options” connects citizens with like-minded people, allowing them to filter what and who they see on their social media feeds. While these digital groups can serve as spaces for activism, innovation, and community-building, they can also become hubs of extremism, hatred, and mis- and disinformation. Personalization leads to profit, and the “power to create one’s very own echo chamber” can “diminish individual freedom and endanger self-government itself.”
No matter what one’s view–– despite how racist, xenophobic, sexist, or homophobic that idea might be—there is almost always another user who shares it. Social media can bring together voting rights activists, but it can also bring together people who have lost faith in U.S. electoral systems so much that they were willing to storm the U.S. Capitol to stop ‘election fraud.’ Citizens can choose their truth, and baseless claims get reconfirmed until they cannot possibly be false. The role of social media in fostering the partisan divide is a ‘chicken-and-egg’ problem: a more politically polarized public wants their feed to reflect their views, and their feed creates a more politically polarized public…
The polarization of American politics did not begin with the Trump administration— and such bitter, blinding hatred has not ended under Biden's leadership, either. For four years, former President Trump weaponized social media to delegitimize democratic institutions, ideals, and norms, undermining the credibility of those who threatened his power. By the end of Trump's presidency, he had made 30,573 false or misleading claims. Yet, coming from the highest office, supporters did not hesitate to take fiction for fact, leading to a complete breakdown of trust towards anyone who challenged Trump.
However, while Trump loudly condoned far-right extremism, PEW Research has been tracking this phenomenon of political polarization for over decades. From 1994 to 2017, "the divide had shifted towards the two extremes of the consistently liberal/conservative scale.” While Americans have become increasingly polarized on some of today's most pressing challenges, from the environment to the economy, the most shocking finding from the study is the dramatic divergence of values between Democrats and Republicans. 81% of Democrats and Republicans "find those belonging to the other party equally unfavorable," with a 28 percentage point increase in 'very unfavorable' compared to 1994. This 23-year period coincides with the massive growth of social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube. Americans who often get their news from social media jumped ten percentage points to 28% from 2018 to 2019.
Despite Facebook's repeated refusal to acknowledge their role in the January 6 insurrection, including rejecting their own Oversight Board's recommendations, as election conspiracy theories from fringe movements like the Proud Boys and QAnon proliferated across social media platforms. "Online activism became real-world violence," provoking a nationwide debate on the moral responsibility of social media companies. Facebook's whistle-blower Frances Haugen's assertion that Facebook puts profits before people is a call for direly needed accountability in a digital world, where failure can, and has been, fatal. Trump and his doggedly loyal supporters will be ready when the polls open on November 5, 2024. Subversion will— and has already—begin far in advance on feeds, chat rooms, and alt-right websites. Unfortunately, social media companies do not have the luxury of time: the fate of American democracy hangs in the balance.
At the center of this debate is the role of social media algorithms, which refer to how social media designers have coded information flows to users. Users' feeds are shaped by what they like, click on, and share, resulting in feeds that significantly limit exposure to diverse content. For example, based on a study of 17,000 Americans, Facebook's content-ranking algorithm reduces "exposure to news outlets offering viewpoints contrary to their own.” As Sunstein explains, "Your Twitter feed will be restricted to what you want to see, and your Facebook friends will be a small subset of humanity.” Sunstein emphasizes that candidates like Trump took advantage of social media algorithms to enforce group polarization, producing echo chambers by constantly stressing how popular he was. For example, insisting over a million people attended his inauguration when the numbers were closer to 250,000.
However, while the government points fingers at social media companies, tech giants wave them right back, instead blaming the “political and media environment” as Mark Zuckerberg said while testifying before a U.S. House subcommittee last March. What they fail to realize is that the more time we waste assigning blame, the more politically polarized our nation can become, and the closer we inch towards democratic collapse.
January 6 demonstrated how social media algorithms designed to maximize user engagement could threaten democracy: Of Trump's 100 most popular Tweets, 36 contained election lies. Multiple of these tweets had over one million likes and 100,000 retweets. Social media algorithms reinforce existing perspectives, "making mutual understanding more difficult," preventing America from solving "the problems that society faces together.” Gridlock and dysfunction in Congress reflect our growing inability— or unwillingness— to empathize across the aisle. Algorithms are, of course, not the sole factor of political polarization. However, the center slowly disappears when a user's feed only shows them what they want to see.
According to a report from NYU Stern's Center for Business and Human Rights, there are four critical consequences of extreme partisan divisiveness: "declining trust in fellow citizens and major institutions, erosion of democratic norms like respect for elections; loss of faith in the existence of commonly held facts; and political violence.” Analyzing the relationship between social media and political polarization, the report recognizes that while Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are not the source of "partisan animosity," social media "intensifies divisiveness.”
Regardless of the root cause of political polarization, we are in deep trouble. For the first time, the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance listed the U.S. as a backsliding’ democracy this December. On-trend with a global shift towards more authoritarian regimes, the U.S. has challenging work ahead to restore its place as the ‘beacon of democracy.’ Here are five ways America can begin addressing the impact of social media on political polarization:
Make polarization on social media a national priority: President Biden must initiate a “broad government response” to address political polarization on social media. President Biden should reframe the dialogue on social media and democracy as a bipartisan national security issue, cooperating with Congress, other government agencies, and civil society to better integrate the digital world into our national agenda.
Modify algorithms to depolarize social media platforms: Social media designers should modify their algorithms to depolarize their platforms to protect against the “the erosion of trust in democratic norms, and the undermining of commonly held facts.” Companies like Facebook often temporarily modify algorithms in times of crisis to reduce the proliferation of divisive content, but these changes should be permanent. In addition, social media companies must do a better job of centering the values of a democratic society at the center of their algorithms. To achieve this, social media companies should form coalitions with civil society groups focussing on hate speech, technology, and democracy, helping designers better identify content that fuels polarization.
Increase transparency of algorithms with outside researchers: For social media companies to be most effective in ethically depolarizing their platforms, they must increase transparency about “what they’re doing, how they’re doing it, and what content might potentially get blocked in the process.” By promoting transparency, social media companies can better hold themselves accountable for creating positive change online, countering the narrative that social media companies are manipulating politics for profit. The “data deficit” on how social media algorithms work prevents outside researchers from making fact-based recommendations for improvements and obstructs users from adequately evaluating progress.
Include civil society in policymaking on social media and democracy: Given the shared responsibility of social media designers and users, depolarizing social media platforms will take unprecedented collaboration, communication, and coordination among all stakeholders. While President Biden should take advantage of his bully pulpit to bring urgently needed attention to streamlining depolarization efforts, this cannot turn into a conversation between government and big tech companies— when citizens are bearing the brunt of the dysfunction produced by political polarization. Instead, social media companies should strengthen engagement with civil society groups “that can help identify sources of dis- and misinformation related to elections, public health, and patterns of discrimination.” When modifying algorithms, including the recommendations of diverse voices will be vital in reducing offensive, harmful content that furthers political polarization.
Adapt media and information literacy education: Educators must adapt media and information literacy education to reflect our increasingly digital world, giving users the tools they need to harness the power of social media for good. Democracy is only as strong as its citizens. Educational institutions must prepare the next generation to make informed decisions about their actions on the social media platforms that are likely already integral to their identities. If history is the country’s past, social media is the nation’s future— it is time for the curriculum to acknowledge that historical literacy and digital literacy are essential to a functioning democracy. Beyond reforming media and information literacy education to include curriculum on issues such as recognizing mis- and disinformation and algorithm design, educational institutions must empower students to practice civil discourse online. Centering curriculum on civil discourse on the impacts of social media on democracy can begin transforming the digital world into a space for inclusive, open-minded, and productive dialogue.
The first step in depolarizing our divided nation is educating the current and future generation of social media users on how, together, each click contributes to the fall or rise of American democracy. The choice is, literally, in our hands. Underestimating the power of social media has and will continue to be fatal— for those who have tragically lost their lives to extremist violence and for American self-government.
Carly Kabot is the Editor-in-Chief of On the Record. She is a junior studying International Politics and Religion, Ethics, and World Affairs in the School of Foreign Service.