Social\nmedia platforms have created a new avenue for expression and also education.\nThe revolutionary communication technology has permeated every aspect of the\ndigitally connected world. Allowing for individuals to connect, create and\ncommunicate with others from anywhere in the world. This in turn allowed for\nusers to find others with similar tastes and interests to them and gather,\ncreating large online groups for discussion and discourse to take place. This\nnatural sorting of people into categories is further reinforced by social media\nplatforms like Facebook and Twitter using algorithms to organise the vast\namount of content. This function is implemented to show users content that is\nmost likely to resonate and keep them engaged with the site. Although an\nimportant time saver in the attention economy a side effect of this function\ncauses the development of echo chambers, in which users are only exposed to\nthoughts, ideas and content that do not challenge their current beliefs and\nconfirm their own already established biases. The most obvious example of this\npolarising people to both extremes of the left and right politically. In this\nconference paper I will be discussing the issues surrounding social media\nplatforms and their contribution to increased levels of developing echo\nchambers and confirmation bias, and discussing how and why this is important\nespecially in the context of political discussion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Social\nmedia platforms like Facebook and Twitter have had a strong influence in\ncreating online Echo Chambers by showing specific content to specific users\nbased on the content they have shown interest in. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The\ndevelopment of echo chambers begins through the behavioural process of users\nbeing more likely to stay engaged with content that reinforces views they agree\nwith. This happens because \u201cinformation or media messages that challenge\npeople\u2019s beliefs typically create dissonance, which is unpleasant and something\nmost people want to avoid. The result of selective exposure is a reinforcement\nof individuals\u2019 own beliefs.\u201d (Karlsen, Steen-Johnsen, Wolleb\u00e6k, &\nEnjolras, 2017).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This effect\nis exasperated when it comes to political bias as users are more susceptible to\nsubconscious confirmation bias. This also happens because typically when a user\nengages with a community that shares a view on a single issue it can become\ndifficult to go against the grain as bringing up valid counter points can lead\nto alienation and exclusion from the group. This is effect isn’t just caused by\na group mentality but by something within human behavioural patterns that\nsuggest that \u201cwhen it comes to explicitly political issues, individuals are\nclearly more likely to pass on information that they have received from\nideologically similar sources than to pass on information that they have\nreceived from dissimilar sources.\u201d (Barber\u00e1, Jost, Nagler, Tucker, &\nBonneau, 2015)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Due to the\nexpansive nature of the internet and the possibilities that have been opened up\nby the change in internet dynamics described as web 2.0. Users now have the\noption of adapting their online environment to their own personal preferences,\nincreasing the behavioural rut many people fall into that leads them to seek\nout information that confirms their existing bias. The idea that users are\nresistant to information that goes against their own established views is\nreinforced when Garret states that \u201cawareness of other views is further\nenhanced by the fact that individuals tend to spend more time examining\ninformation sources that include opinion challenges. This is not to say that\npeople are persuaded by this content\u2014to the contrary, other studies have\nsuggested that the additional time is spent critiquing the other\nperspectives\u2014but the process does help to ensure political awareness.\u201d (2009).\nThis suggests that even when users are confronted with opposing ideas they are\nmore likely to scrutinise it with bias and react to it in a way that\nstrengthens their own current views on issues. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Although\nthis behavioural pattern is an inherently human thing to do, the content\nalgorithms developed into social media and the internet have added more\nmomentum behind the issue. As Flaxman, Goel, & Rao \u201cshowed that articles\nfound via social media or web-search engines are indeed associated with higher\nideological segregation than those an individual reads by directly visiting\nnews sites.\u201d and this sort of behaviour can be seen happening before social\nmedia was around Flaxman, Goel, & Rao also suggest \u201cthat the vast majority\nof online news consumption mimicked traditional offline reading habits, with\nindividuals directly visiting the home pages of their favourite, typically\nmainstream, news outlets.\u201d (2016).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These are a\nfew of the ways that echo chambers online have begun to crop up and grow in\nsize. This sort of behaviour has been around since before social media and the\ninternet but combination alongside algorithmic technologies unintended side\neffects which only exasperate the issue echo chamber communities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Echo\nchambers not only have an effect on the shaping of communities online but the\ncontent created by those communities. As they are more likely to follow within\nthe lines of what is considered acceptable in any particular community. This\ncan lead to the limiting of creativity and turning the community itself into a\nrabbit hole in which casual participants are turned off by the extremism that\ncan be produced.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There\u2019s two\ntypes of users that exist within an echo chamber community environment. The\nfirst is the partisan user who primarily consume and perpetuate content in\ntheir own community, the gatekeeper. Gatekeepers are \u201cusers who are bipartisan\nconsumers but partisan producers. These users lie in-between the two opposed\ncommunities in network terms, but side with one in content terms.\u201d(Garimella,\nDe Francisci Morales, Gionis, & Mathioudakis, 2018). Also discussed in\ntheir work is how bipartisan users are effected in the dynamics of separate\nconflicting echo chambers that they are invested within, \u201cOverall, bipartisan\nusers pay a price in terms of network centrality, community connection, and\nendorsements from other users (retweets, favourites). This is the first study\nto show the price of being bipartisan, especially in the context of political\ndiscussions forming echo chambers. This result highlights a worrying aspect of\necho chambers, as it suggests the existence of latent phenomena that\neffectively stifle mediation between the two sides.\u201d (Garimella, De Francisci\nMorales, Gionis, & Mathioudakis, 2018).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Even if a\nuser decides to actively attempt to ensure they are not in an echo chamber the\nalgorithms put in place can stop them from manually sorting content in a way\nthat they\u2019d like. There is a form of cognitive dissonance in which users\nbelieve that they are not in an online echo chamber but after a study done that\nmade a select group follow opposing content creators the \u201cresults reveal a\ndisconnect between belief and action. Participants who are asked to find their\naccounts in a sampled social network where nodes are coloured by inferred\npolitical ideology tend to increase their belief in how ideologically-cocooned\nthey really are, but the political diversity of who they choose to follow on\nTwitter actually decreases several weeks after treatment.\u201d (Gillani, Yuan,\nSaveski, Vosoughi, & Roy, 2018).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
People are\nmore willing to accept falsehoods or propaganda as the truth because of a form\nof peer pressure that is described by Khosravinik \u201cThe essence of Social Media\nis credibility gained by visibility\/popularity as popularity equates commercial\ngain regardless of the consequences. This may work fine within commercial\ndomains but when a similar logic is applied to the sphere of politics the\nresults could be disastrous.\u201d (2017). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
This\ncreates an effect where people are more likely to accept information because it\nhas been accepted by so many other people who have already established\nthemselves to be likeminded in the sense that they are involved within the same\ncommunity. Bessi sums up this phenomena again by explaining how deceptive\ncontent can be perpetuated to masses who are already in agreement. \u201cBeing\ninfluenced by confirmation bias and selective exposure, they join virtual\npolarized communities wherein they reinforce their pre-existing beliefs.\u201d\n(2016)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Echo\nchambers can change the way content is received and how credible it is\nperceived to be on an informational basis through the sheer number of people\nwho also agree with the partisan issues it may be perpetuating. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The\nformation of echo chambers in such a great volume is dangerous to the fabric of\nsociety. Modern society is full of diversity and while this is something that\ngives strength, the polarisation of many groups can lead to the fragmentation\nof society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This\nfragmentation occurs not only because of the algorithmic content delivery\nsystems put in place, but because of the self-selection that many users engage\nin to refine the content placed in front of them. T\u00f6rnberg proposes that \u201cThe\npossibility of self-segregation can therefore affect not only what the\nsegregated users see, but also what perspectives non-segregated users are\nexposed to. This can occur as subtle and complex network dynamics of the\ninteraction structure of social media can play into the diffusion dynamics, in\nways that are not necessarily even understood by the developers of the media\nplatforms.\u201d (2018)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The\nfragmentation of society into different groups could have drastic effects on\nthe stability of democracy as discussed by Dubois & Blank \u201cThere are two\nconcerns about segmentation when it comes to political information and news.\nThe first is a divide between those who are informed and those who are not\ninformed about politics. The second is political polarization among those who\nexhibit at least minimal political interest or awareness. Since democratic\npolitical systems require people talk to each other to work out compromises\nand\/or to become informed, the emergence of an echo chamber could have serious\nnegative consequences.\u201d (2018).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
O\u2019Hara\n& Stevens also discuss some of the consequences that could come about if\necho chambers are allowed to develop in the way that they currently are.\n\u201cFirst, there will be social fragmentation, as diverse groups polarise. Second,\npeople will use available technology to create information goods tailored to\nthemselves, rather than creating goods that are valuable for many people.\nThird, satisfaction of preferences will be taken as definitive of people\u2019s\nwell-being, ruling out alternative conceptions that take into account the\npossibility of extra value being provided by heterogeneous influences\u201d (2015).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Although\nthe solution to this problem is not as easy as changing inner workings of a\nsocial media platform to show a balance of content to users as this would\nresult in platforms losing users to other platforms willing to only show\nacceptable content. Munson & Resnick highlight that fact when discussing\nthis issue \u201cFrom the perspective of website operators trying to attract and\nretain users, this is unlikely to be a desirable trade-off. It is unlikely to\nbe sufficient challenge to satisfy diversity-seeking individuals, and would\nleave them vulnerable to losing challenge-averse individuals to competitors who\noffer 100% agreeable items all the time (and hence need no highlighting).\u201d (2010)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These are a\nfew of the issues that highlight why discussing the rise of many different\nonline echo chambers is damaging to the overall fabric of society. As people\ncan segregate themselves, they are cut off from hearing arguments that might\nalter their perception on political issues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Echo\nchambers have become an important issue because they are creating a rift\nbetween individuals in society. These individuals who before would have to\ndiscuss their opinions with others around them in the real world who may not\nhave the same opinion. Whereas now individuals can recede into an echo chamber\nonline where their values and beliefs are not challenged and potentially pushed\nor lured into extremist views.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When people\nbecome so convinced and wrapped up in their ideology through an echo chamber\nthe possibility of becoming and extreme advocate can occur. Although the online\nfunctions of being able to block or mute people are not feasible in the real\nworld when in a heavy debate. This can lead to increased tensions between\nopposing groups.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A fair\nsuggestion to solving this problem involves showing users things from the past\nor things that they may have in common with another person. Grevet, Terveen,\n& Gilbert \u201csuggest opportunities to make weak ties more resilient. Calling\nattention to past interactions and shared interests could make common ground\nvisible during arguments. These strategies, such as knowing when to step away,\npoint to constant negotiations evolving around disagreements.\u201d (2014).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Online and\noffline behaviours of these groups often affect each other in surprising ways\nfor example Bright describes how \u201cparties which are more politically successful\noffline are also typically more disconnected online, and it is significant\nbecause it shows that online fragmentation is not purely a result of decisions\nmade by individuals online; the offline context has an impact.\u201d (2016).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Also\ndespite efforts to dampen the impact of political polarisation it seems that\nsimply exposing people to opposing viewpoints is not the optimal solution as it\nonly drives people to become more entrenched in their established views. In a\nfield experiment \u201cthat offered a large group of Democrats and Republicans\nfinancial compensation to follow bots that retweeted messages by elected\nofficials and opinion leaders with opposing political views. Republican\nparticipants expressed substantially more conservative views after following a\nliberal Twitter bot, whereas Democrats\u2019 attitudes became slightly more liberal\nafter following a conservative Twitter bot.\u201d (Bail et al., 2018)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A major\nexample of the effect echo chambers can have on the real world is primed in the\nidea of fake news. Due to many people not having the time to comb through all\nparts of every information, this leaves an opportunity for those with the trust\nand reputation to alter stories in a way to fit a particular narrative. Bakir\n& McStay suggest that the only way is to focus on the economic system\nunderlying this process. \u201cWhile a laudable variety of solutions to the deeply\nsocially and democratically problematic contemporary fake news phenomenon have\nbeen proposed, each faces specific obstacles to achieving widespread\nimplementation and impact. While we recognise the need for all these solutions\nto take root, our recommendation, to focus on digital advertising, addresses\nthe contemporary phenomenon at its economic heart.\u201d (2018)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These are a\nfew of the ways that echo chambers online can have an effect offline. Most\nevident in the political and news segment of society. Although the effects of\nthis phenomena can be seen before the rise of social media it has certainly increased\nthe speed and intensity at which people are becoming more and more segregated\nfrom their local community.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In this\nconference paper I have endeavoured to discuss how echo chambers have begun to\nform more rapidly and why it is such an important issue to address. Echo\nchambers as an effect have been exasperated as a result of social media and it\nis having an ultimately negative effect. Social media platforms have indeed\ncreated a vast wealth of content to learn from or be entertained, but\nunderneath the systems are changing society in a way that could be catastrophic\nin still yet unknown ways.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
References<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Bail, C. A.,\nArgyle, L. P., Brown, T. W., Bumpus, J. P., Chen, H., Hunzaker, M. B. F., \u2026\nVolfovsky, A. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase\npolitical polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences<\/em>,\n115<\/em>(37), 9216\u20139221. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1073\/pnas.1804840115<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Bakir, V.,\n& McStay, A. (2018). Fake News and The Economy of Emotions: Problems,\ncauses, solutions. Digital Journalism<\/em>, 6<\/em>(2), 154\u2013175. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/21670811.2017.1345645<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Barber\u00e1, P.,\nJost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A., & Bonneau, R. (2015). Tweeting From\nLeft to Right: Is Online Political Communication More Than an Echo Chamber? Psychological\nScience<\/em>, 26<\/em>(10), 1531\u20131542. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0956797615594620<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Bessi, A.\n(2016). Personality traits and echo chambers on facebook. Computers in Human\nBehavior<\/em>, 65<\/em>, 319\u2013324. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.chb.2016.08.016<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Bright, J.\n(2016). Explaining the Emergence of Echo Chambers on Social Media: The Role of\nIdeology and Extremism. SSRN Electronic Journal<\/em>. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2139\/ssrn.2839728<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Dubois, E.,\n& Blank, G. (2018). The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect\nof political interest and diverse media. Information, Communication &\nSociety<\/em>, 21<\/em>(5), 729\u2013745. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/1369118X.2018.1428656<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Flaxman, S.,\nGoel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016). Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Online\nNews Consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly<\/em>, 80<\/em>(S1), 298\u2013320. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/poq\/nfw006<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Garimella, K.,\nDe Francisci Morales, G., Gionis, A., & Mathioudakis, M. (2018). Political\nDiscourse on Social Media: Echo Chambers, Gatekeepers, and the Price of\nBipartisanship. Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference on World\nWide Web – WWW \u201918<\/em>, 913\u2013922. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/3178876.3186139<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Garrett, R. K.\n(2009). Echo chambers online?: Politically motivated selective exposure among\nInternet news users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication<\/em>, 14<\/em>(2),\n265\u2013285. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1083-6101.2009.01440.x<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Gillani, N.,\nYuan, A., Saveski, M., Vosoughi, S., & Roy, D. (2018). Me, My Echo Chamber,\nand I: Introspection on Social Media Polarization. Proceedings of the 2018\nWorld Wide Web Conference on World Wide Web – WWW \u201918<\/em>, 823\u2013831. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/3178876.3186130<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Grevet, C.,\nTerveen, L. G., & Gilbert, E. (2014). Managing political differences in\nsocial media. Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported\nCooperative Work & Social Computing – CSCW \u201914<\/em>, 1400\u20131408. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/2531602.2531676<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Karlsen, R.,\nSteen-Johnsen, K., Wolleb\u00e6k, D., & Enjolras, B. (2017). Echo chamber and\ntrench warfare dynamics in online debates. European Journal of Communication<\/em>,\n32<\/em>(3), 257\u2013273. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0267323117695734<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Khosravinik, M.\n(2017). Right Wing Populism in the West: Social Media Discourse and Echo\nChambers. Insight Turkey<\/em>, 19<\/em>(3), 53\u201368. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.25253\/99.2017193.04<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Munson, S. A.,\n& Resnick, P. (2010). Presenting diverse political opinions: how and how\nmuch. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Human Factors in\nComputing Systems – CHI \u201910<\/em>, 1457. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/1753326.1753543<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n O\u2019Hara, K.,\n& Stevens, D. (2015). Echo Chambers and Online Radicalism: Assessing the\nInternet\u2019s Complicity in Violent Extremism: The Internet\u2019s Complicity in\nViolent Extremism. Policy & Internet<\/em>, 7<\/em>(4), 401\u2013422. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/poi3.88<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Ridings, C. M.,\n& Gefen, D. (2006). Virtual Community Attraction: Why People Hang Out\nOnline. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication<\/em>, 10<\/em>(1), 00\u201300. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1083-6101.2004.tb00229.x<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n T\u00f6rnberg, P.\n(2018). Echo chambers and viral misinformation: Modeling fake news as complex\ncontagion. PLOS ONE<\/em>, 13<\/em>(9), e0203958. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1371\/journal.pone.0203958<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Social media platforms have created a new avenue for expression and also education. The revolutionary communication technology has permeated every aspect of the digitally connected world. Allowing for individuals to connect, create and communicate with others from anywhere in the world. This in turn allowed for users to find others with similar tastes and interests… Continue reading The Societal Effects of Online Echo Chambers<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-244","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-social"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/244","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=244"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/244\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":248,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/244\/revisions\/248"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=244"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=244"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=244"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}