Most of us have grown weary of hearing about all the negative effects of social media. Most of us know that social media feeds us the content we engage with more often, and most of us know that seemingly common beliefs online are rarely reflective of the majority opinion. But if we understand these things, why is it that social media is where political violence and polarization seem to be flourishing the most?
First, we have to understand how polarization happens. Sometimes, polarization describes friction between groups over a particular issue or ideology. Today, however, affective polarization, a separation due to identity and relationships, is increasing. Any form of polarization inhibits communication and compromise, but affective polarization also decays trust, empathy, and positive relationship-building. This happens for several reasons. When there are fewer options presented to people, these options become increasingly extreme and hyper-partisan. When groups have little interaction with each other, limited knowledge allows biases to form more quickly. When this tension increases, opposing groups become more isolated from each other, they start to view their belonging to a group as a piece of their identity, and affective polarization takes hold. Affective polarization lends itself well to politics because political topics are already full of controversy. Our growing tendency towards identity politics makes political issues feel deeply personal, allowing political disagreements to become effectively polarizing.
Political polarization is not unique to social media, but it is making it worse. Social scientists at the University of Amsterdam ran an experiment to figure out why this is the case. They used 500 AI models in place of real-life users, assigning each one an identity and a belief system. The researchers ran three trials, each with 10,000 cycles. For each cycle, the AI users could follow another user, repost content, or post something original based on a random selection of articles. Each trial had the same result: polarization, extremism, and separation along political lines. Even when the algorithm was modified to show users content that they would disagree with, political polarization ensued. The AI models were trained on real online behavior, so the study may very well be a reflection of our current social media environment, rather than a clear marker of social media’s inherent divisiveness.
Still, no change to the algorithm’s system could save the trial from the reality we already understand about social media: unique, sensational videos gain more traction than safe, mainstream content does. This truth transcends specific platforms and communities; from celebrity chefs to gamers to eleven-year-olds posting about skincare, success on social media relies on originality. To stay profitable, social media companies need to amplify entertaining content, no matter how horrific or shocking it may be. Even if algorithms expose users to a wider range of opinions, divisive viewpoints make for more engaging content, so it’s no surprise that extremism has proliferated on social media platforms.
As History teacher Topi Dasgupta put it, “[On social media,] you don't have the ability to think or have feelings, and feelings are what connect us. Maybe there are ways for the tool to be used to connect and mobilize, but in terms of real relationality, it’s not the best tool for that.” Affective polarization thrives where communication is minimal and misinformed biases are rampant. Knowing that, it’s no wonder that polarization, especially the political kind, has reached new heights on social media. This year alone, the murders of Minnesota state representative Melissa Hortman and political commentator Charlie Kirk painfully remind us that the political polarization we see online will not stay on our screens forever. For things to change, all of us need to hold ourselves accountable for the way we engage with social media. According to Davis Keeffe-Jones ’27, “We need to talk to each other more. I think we need to open more dialogue with each other, and I think that we’re in this situation because we don’t talk to each other.” Get outside, talk with someone you disagree with, and above all, remember that all of us have much more in common than we think.