Social media algorithms are exceptionally good at learning what we like to see and then bombarding our feed with similar content. While this can be helpful when adopting a new hobby or keeping up with pop culture, algorithms are detrimental in the political sphere — especially in fostering polarization.
A Gallup poll shows that 80 percent of American adults believe the country is divided on the most important values. However, the general public’s belief that there is a major partisan division in this country is a misconception — Americans remain largely unified on most core values. In fact, the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that about nine in 10 adults believe that the right to vote, the right to equal protection under the law and the right to privacy are essential.
This common ground can also be reached on policy. A YouGov survey identified over 100 current policy proposals with bipartisan support, or over 50 percent approval from both Democrats and Republicans. Notable examples from this list include increasing funding for grants for sustainable farming practices, legalizing abortion in instances of rape or to protect the life of the mother, reducing federal taxes on small businesses and families making less than $100,000 per year and raising the federal hourly minimum wage from $7.25 to $9.
So why do Americans feel so divided? The answer comes back to social media.
While social media can be an excellent platform for genuine political activists to spread awareness and engage in meaningful conversations, its intrinsic purpose to increase engagement often overpowers any productive agenda. When cultivating an online identity, users default to the performative nature of social media, fragmenting themselves and creating a highlight reel. This also applies when users incorporate their political views into their digital identity: like any other aspect of social media, politics can become fragmented and performative.
Performative activism is inherently attention-seeking, as it is used to elicit “rage bait” or seek out praise from mutuals whose beliefs align with those of the user. In this sense, political conversations center around left versus right ideologies, rather than policy and finding common ground. Instead of fostering meaningful dialogue, users target each other’s political identities and the productive political conversation ceases to exist.
This can be seen in the recent online turmoil that was unleashed after the death of Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative activist and social media personality.
When I opened Instagram on Sept. 10, my feed was flooded with the news of his murder. Kirk’s “fans” emphasized their grief in their Instagram stories, while those who disliked Kirk took this as an opportunity to comment about a sense of relief, the need for gun control or the irony of the news.
But all these posts accomplished was helping me identify whether the people I follow’s political ideologies leaned left or right — they didn’t provide any substantial commentary on politics. This was their intent, after all: to feed into their digital identity. In cases like these, people can feel a tangible political polarization through their phone screens.
Unlike Instagram, when I opened TikTok, I wasn’t exposed to any of Kirk’s fans. This is because the algorithm has learned that I don’t want to view posts that support right-leaning political ideologies based on my limited interactions with them.
Thus, algorithms are another aspect of social media that creates tension between parties and furthers the perception of extreme polarization. Algorithms learn what users like and dislike by analyzing the time spent on videos and users’ actions such as liking, commenting and sharing.
As discussed in another recent column, the algorithm pushes out content it deems the user will like based on their past interactions. While its goal is to keep users on the app for as long as possible by providing them with this content, it ultimately reinforces their beliefs and confirms their biases, as users are shown content that aligns solely with their existing views and are not presented with differing perspectives. Because of this, when the algorithm occasionally slips up and content from the opposing party pops up on our feed, it can feel like we’re in “enemy territory.”
Over half of the U.S. population gets their news from social media. This news is filtered through algorithms to appeal to users’ own views. This leaves users even more indoctrinated due to misinformation and disinformation, combined with divisively targeted rhetoric.
For example, in 2020, when Donald Trump falsely claimed there was voter fraud, social media amplified his message by turning “Stop the Steal” into a trend. CNN reported that Stop the Steal “swept across inboxes, Facebook pages and Twitter like an out-of-control virus, spreading misinformation and violent rhetoric.”
Another part of this issue lies in the condensed format of social media content. Often, short clips of long videos are taken out of context and circulated throughout social media. People exposed to these videos are not getting the whole story, but they will likely base their opinions upon it.
Moreover, people are more likely to watch the shortened clip than the full video because apps like TikTok started the trend of short-form content. Other apps like Instagram and YouTube then followed with their own versions, “reels” and “shorts.”
Short-form content is the new norm — people want and expect to obtain information quickly. This cultivates a culture where people aren’t giving their attention to full articles, but relying only on headlines for information, which can be just as misleading as a false statement or an out-of-context video clip. Because of this, people are not sufficiently educated on politics to make informed decisions, and this lack of education is primarily attributed to the influence of social media, which fosters political illiteracy.
The constant tension between the left and right on social media makes it seem like we are more divided than ever. Social media gives people a platform to spread misinformation, validate users’ preconceived beliefs and sensationalize extremists. When division is the trend and social media is our life, perceived division becomes intertwined with reality.
Natalie Pappalardo is a junior majoring in English.
Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.