One of the most common complaints about social media is about filter bubbles — the idea that, because you choose your own universe of friends or accounts on platforms like Twitter and Facebook, you risk cocooning yourself in a world of likeminded perspectives. Conservatives only hear from fellow conservatives, the argument goes, liberals from fellow liberals, and everyone ends up with hardened, more extreme positions. The result: increased political polarization.
But this new paper from NYU’s Pablo Barberá argues that that’s not true. The core of his argument: Social media encourages connections between people with weak ties — not just your best friends, for instance, but also your high school classmates, that guy you met on a business trip who friended you, and the local guy you heard was funny on Twitter. Those people tend to be “more politically heterogeneous than citizens’ immediate personal networks,” which exposes you to more perspectives, not fewer.
I apply this method to measure the ideological positions of millions of individuals in Germany, Spain, and the United States over time, as well as the ideological composition of their personal networks. Results from this panel design show that most social media users are embedded in ideologically diverse networks, and that exposure to political diversity has a positive effect on political moderation…Contrary to conventional wisdom, my analysis provides evidence that social media usage reduces mass political polarization.
This is just one paper, but it adds to a growing body of knowledge that shows that the connection between media consumption and political polarization is much more complicated than conventional wisdom has it. Add this to Alan Abramowitz’s work showing that knowing more about politics correlated with more extreme views on both left and right and Pew’s findings that show viewers of one cable news network are more likely to watch other cable news channels. (In other words, regular Fox News viewers are more likely to watch MSNBC than the average American, and vice versa.) The filter bubble narrative is more complicated than it seems. Barberá:
Contrary to a growing body of work that suggests that the Internet functions as an “echo chamber,” where citizens are primarily exposed to like-minded political views, my findings demonstrate that most social media users receive information from a diversity of viewpoints…I have provided empirical evidence from a panel design showing that exposure to political diversity on social media has a positive effect on political moderation, and that it reduces mass political polarization.
"How Social Media Reduces Mass Political Polarization", my new paper. Comments welcome! http://t.co/SEFovMY3pt pic.twitter.com/n6tRUuyXzo
— Pablo Barberá (@p_barbera) October 20, 2014
3 comments:
yes, you can freely exchange job-related know-hows and tips regardless of his/her political views, but your political view is also affected and even moderated by the people you happen to meet on the social media? I don’t think so.
Not proven by research cited and I am skeptical.
Of course there is an increase in exposure to those with diametrically opposed views online & via social media, but 99.9% of the time it leads to people digging in, and hating each other more. I know, I’ve been there. Where’s the study that shows: a) people actually actively seek out, actively, opposite political views online; b) AND do so in a spirit of communication, open-mindedness, and willingness to move to another political position. What? No study? There should be, because I guarantee it will show that .0001% of people actually do this — actively seek out opposite view AND in a spirit of finding common ground. Just. Does Not. Happen.
Trackbacks:
Leave a comment