"You May Also Like": Why Social Media Increases Political And Social Division

"You May Also Like": Why Social Media Increases Political And Social Division

Social media sites further group think and echo chambers
323
views

No one wants to think of themselves as ignorant or uninformed. Certainly no one wants to believe that they live in an echo chamber. There are a lot of people who like to imagine themselves as being someone who listens to multiple viewpoints in order to get the full picture, and then draw their own conclusions. There are of course many people who do this, but I think it’s fair to say that most of the people who say that they do that are deluding themselves. People are more insulated from alternative viewpoints than many would like to admit, and social media may very well be contributing to this problem.

Social media platforms are a means of interacting with people on a greater scale and with greater frequency than what’s possible with real life interactions. So one would think that by using Facebook, and seeing posts by your Facebook friends, many of whom undoubtedly think differently and hold different viewpoints than you, you would be better informed and more well-rounded in terms of knowledge of issues. This actually is not what happens, and it’s not because people only associate with people who agree with them (although that’s part of it). The problem is the algorithm that sites like Facebook use to determine what appears in the person’s feed. The basic premise of the algorithm is to show the user what they may also like, as opposed to something new that they may not like. It is set up in such a way that the content you like is the type of content that presents itself in your feed, with greater frequency the more you like it, leaving the user effectively insulated from opposing viewpoints. If you like Donald Trump for example, and you constantly like pro Trump articles and pro Trump Facebook posts, eventually you won’t see anything critical of Trump, because Facebook won’t be presenting it to you. The same is true of people who liked Hillary, or subscribe to any particular viewpoint or hold any kind of bias.

Of course this cannot be entirely blamed on technology. The person also bears responsibility for not seeking out alternative points of view. But social media sites are furthering the problem. It is perhaps true that in a society where social interaction increasingly takes place online as opposed to in person, this problem is resulting in greater group think and greater perpetuation of echo chambers than what was typical in the past. This could help explain why the political climate appears to be so unusually divided and hostile. There was always a degree of hostility between the two sides of the political spectrum, but in the past decade it has reached a boiling point. This problem would not be as significant if people were exposed to alternative viewpoints, and aside from people seeking them out, fixing the way social media sites like Facebook present people with information would be a good way to lessen the political divide.

Cover Image Credit: upload.wikimedia.org

Popular Right Now

I'm A Woman And You Can't Convince Me Breastfeeding In Public Is OK In 2019

Sorry, not sorry.

55307
views

Lately, I have seen so many people going off on social media about how people shouldn't be upset with mothers breastfeeding in public. You know what? I disagree.

There's a huge difference between being modest while breastfeeding and just being straight up careless, trashy and disrespectful to those around you. Why don't you try popping out a boob without a baby attached to it and see how long it takes for you to get arrested for public indecency? Strange how that works, right?

So many people talking about it bring up the point of how we shouldn't "sexualize" breastfeeding and seeing a woman's breasts while doing so. Actually, all of these people are missing the point. It's not sexual, it's just purely immodest and disrespectful.

If you see a girl in a shirt cut too low, you call her a slut. If you see a celebrity post a nude photo, you call them immodest and a terrible role model. What makes you think that pulling out a breast in the middle of public is different, regardless of what you're doing with it?

If I'm eating in a restaurant, I would be disgusted if the person at the table next to me had their bare feet out while they were eating. It's just not appropriate. Neither is pulling out your breast for the entire general public to see.

Nobody asked you to put a blanket over your kid's head to feed them. Nobody asked you to go feed them in a dirty bathroom. But you don't need to basically be topless to feed your kid. Growing up, I watched my mom feed my younger siblings in public. She never shied away from it, but the way she did it was always tasteful and never drew attention. She would cover herself up while doing it. She would make sure that nothing inappropriate could be seen. She was lowkey about it.

Mindblowing, right? Wait, you can actually breastfeed in public and not have to show everyone what you're doing? What a revolutionary idea!

There is nothing wrong with feeding your baby. It's something you need to do, it's a part of life. But there is definitely something wrong with thinking it's fine to expose yourself to the entire world while doing it. Nobody wants to see it. Nobody cares if you're feeding your kid. Nobody cares if you're trying to make some sort of weird "feminist" statement by showing them your boobs.

Cover up. Be modest. Be mindful. Be respectful. Don't want to see my boobs? Good, I don't want to see yours either. Hard to believe, I know.

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

Trump Hasn't Nicknamed Pelosi or AOC. What's The Deal?

These two women aren't receiving the usual treatment and it begs the question: why?

54
views

Our Commander in Chief has been known to give out derogatory nicknames to those in the capital that he doesn't like very much. EG: "Pocahontas" for Elizabeth Warren, "Crooked" Hillary. I mean, for goodness sake's, there's a Wikipedia article with a comprehensive list of Trump's mean nicknames and who they belong to.

While Wikipedia does include names used on Nancy Pelosi, all of the nicknames still include her own name, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez doesn't even make the list. While the internet has adoringly dubbed her AOC, Trump himself hasn't felt the urge to demean her with a nickname.

So, what gives? Why do Pelosi and AOC get spared the derogatory nickname?

(Also, remember that in no way is this normal.)

I may be making a giant assumption, but it seems to be, that Trump's nicknames are meant to demean and belittle the receivers of them. So, by giving both Bernie and Hillary nicknames during the course of the election, he associated them with those traits and demeaned them in the public eye.

Nancy Pelosi and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez aren't people that Trump can easily belittle. The reasons for why are varied and speculative, but it seems that Trump has found these to be more difficult to harass in front of the public. It could be because of mass public support for them, but Bernie Sanders and Hilary were both moderately popular in the eyes of the media and general citizenship.

In my mind, that narrows it down to two things. Either Trump does not view Pelosi or AOC as threats, or... he is afraid to nickname them.

It seems insane that Trump would not view the two as a threat, given their very public statements regarding his policies. Pelosi and Cortez are threats, but big enough ones that Trump is afraid of their retaliation in the political scheme, and therefore, it's too dangerous to give them nicknames.

But now we can see through him. If he can't demean these two strong women for his own political gain, what can he do?

Related Content

Facebook Comments