Abstract

The means with which we communicate with others has a direct impact on our behaviour both individually and as a wider society. In western politics much is being made of the increasingly polarised nature of our society, with a breakdown of discussion and compromise underpinning many of the more sensational headlines. This paper explores how, through manipulation by the powerful and influential, social media platforms such as Twitter (now X but referred to as Twitter throughout this paper) have served to further the divide between the political left and right. It further examines how echo chambers and filter bubbles entrench our own biases, while online anonymity allows action with minimal consequence, leading to abusive behaviours, the unfettered spreading of misinformation, and the further marginalisation of vulnerable groups.

 

Introduction

The use of social media is almost unavoidable in modern society. Platforms such as Twitter have become a critical part in how we communicate with friends, keep up to date with news and current events, contact companies for assistance, and engage with others who share our interests or hobbies. Yet despite technology bringing us closer together by allowing near-instant communication with almost anyone around the world, western politics have become increasingly polarised and fractured, and discussions between the left and the right ever more volatile. This paper calls into question the suitableness of Twitter as a platform for political discussion and debate. It identifies how effective the platform can be at affecting societal change, examines the harmful effect filter bubbles and echo-chambers have on entrenching our own biases and “othering” those with dissenting ideas, and explores the selfish motivations behind those who manipulate the platform for their own personal gain.

 

The “Global Town Square”

Since its launch in 2006, Twitter has established itself in the eyes of its executives, and those of the public, as a “global town square” (Lorenz, 2023), an online space for netizens around the world to socialize, discuss, and debate the broader societal issues of our time. Sookup (2006) echoes this idea, suggesting that online platforms like Twitter function as an extension of Oldenburg’s concept of a “third place”. Perhaps in spite of recent changes to the platform by current owner Elon Musk, such as stopping the enforcement of their misinformation policy and laying off their moderation team (Stokel-Walker, 2022), the platform still attracts millions of daily visitors, from famous celebrities and politicians to ordinary members of the public, each of whom can read, share and post their own bite-sized contributions to the never-ending online discussion. While using the platform as a networked public for civic participation may sound appealing, in practice such discussions on Twitter quickly devolve into arguments, abuse and the sharing of dis/misinformation. In the UK alone, over 3000 offensive tweets are sent to Members of Parliament every day (Lynch et al., 2022). Scientists are targets of abuse and death threats for their work on COVID-19 vaccinations and prevention (Stokel-Walker, 2022). Individuals and corporations post literal fake news and misleading memes for “insane profit”, either in the form of money or political clout, and Twitter’s moderators are unable or unwilling to remove these posts either because they can’t keep up with how many there are, or because they drive high user engagement and, therefore, are highly lucrative. (Church et al., 2023). The more clicks and impressions a tweet gets, no matter how controversial, the more Twitter can charge advertisers, and the bigger an audience the user can advertise their own income streams to. As a result of this increased spread of harmful misinformation, marginalised groups, such as women, LGBTQ+ and racialized individuals, are subject to “unprecedented levels of online abuse” (Galpin & Vernon, 2023). On the surface, one might explain Twitter’s inappropriateness for nuanced debate by its character limit. As a micro-blogging platform, users are restricted to posts of 280 characters. Despite this being double the original 140-character limit, this is simply not enough room to fully explore and discuss societal topics, which by their nature are often complex. They also require at least some understanding of the subject being discussed, which is not a guarantee on Twitter as anyone can reply, anonymously, to nearly any tweet regardless of their level of expertise. This explanation is insufficient, however, as we see similar abuse and disinformation campaigns, and similar arguments between users, on other social media platforms such as Facebook which does not have the same limitation on post length (Church et al., 2023). We must instead explore other factors, some of which Twitter shares with other platforms, to find the answer.

 

ABCs: Algorithms, Bubbles and Chambers

One of the advantages Twitter and Web 2.0 platforms have over more traditional communities is the ability to instantly search for information using keywords and hashtags, and then share it and engage with others from around the world who share a similar interest. Users are also given tools to filter out keywords and topics that they do not wish to see. By utilising these tools, users manipulate the content that they see, creating a filter bubble where views contrary to the users’ are often filtered out. At the same time, Twitter itself is remembering every search term, every tweet viewed, every post, retweet, and hashtag, and further manipulating what information is shown based on what it thinks the user wants to see. This creates an algorithmic echo chamber, and both it and the filter bubble contribute to a user’s confirmation bias, exposure to views and opinions that they agree with that further reinforce them while limiting exposure to dissenting opinions. This is reinforced further given the partisan nature of more traditional media sources, such as newspapers and commercial television news networks, which slant their coverage to suit whichever political agenda they are choosing to push. Research is split over whether social media filter bubbles and echo chambers are driving societal polarisation. Hampton & Wellman (2018) argue that echo-chambers existed pre-social media, and these online filtered communities “pale in comparison to historical examples of insular traditional communities.” Bruns (2022) is even more blunt, calling online filter bubbles and echo chambers “the dumbest metaphor on the Internet” and dismisses them as a cause of societal fracturing entirely. These opinions, however, were written prior to both the COVID-19 pandemic where a measurable decline in vaccination rates was attributed to anti-vaccine groups and echo chambers promoting conspiracy theories and alternate treatments such as Hydroxychloroquine (Interian et al., 2022), and the rise of the AI-generated Deepfake and its use in creating and disseminating damaging misinformation (Salman et al., 2023). They also fail to address the sheer volume of misinformation on these platforms, the inability and/or reluctance of the platform owners to remove it, and the speed with which new content can be generated, accessed, and shared digitally on a global scale. With no clear consensus, and technology continuing to rapidly evolve, further research will be required to explore how the information we consume, fake or otherwise, and the interactions we have with others on social media shape us both individually, and as a collective.

 

Media Manipulation and Influencers

While academics argue over algorithms, powerful figures such as politicians continue to utilise Twitter and other social media platforms to push their own agendas and affect societal change. An obvious example would be former US President Donald J. Trump, whose regular and unorthodox behaviours and use of Twitter to spread “alternative facts” regularly made even mainstream news headlines, further amplifying their reach and perceived relevance (Woodward, 2021). Throughout his presidency, and with the world watching the so-called “most powerful person in the world”, Trump amplified and shared posts and conspiracy theories from alt-right fringe groups containing misinformation that supported him (Dale, 2020), dismissed any fact-checked news or criticism casting him in a bad light as “fake news” (Blake, 2018), and cast aspersions on the validity of the federal election which contributed, allegedly, to the January 6^th Insurrection at the Capitol (Dreisbach, 2022). This authoritarian strategy of communication is deliberate, and research shows that the way we communicate, particularly on digital platforms, have a lasting effect on how we think (Ott & Hoelscher, 2023). Such a disregard for the truth, combined with the profligacy of misinformation posted to the former President’s millions of Twitter followers, helped to usher in a new era of Post-Truth Politics, where the truth is irrelevant and online abuse is used by partisan followers and bad actors to delegitimise facts and push false narratives (Galpin & Vernon, 2023). This is further exemplified by the bombastic, performative nature of politicians in the US House of Representatives, particularly of the so-called MAGA Wing of the Republican party, which led to Republican lawmaker Ken Buck vacate his position, calling Congress “dysfunctional” and lambasting his colleagues for their performative tactics, saying “We’ve taken impeachment and we’ve made it into a social media issue as opposed to a constitutional concept” (Wang & Svitek, 2024). While not the only recent instances of Post-Truth Politics having real-world consequences, the Jan 6^th Insurrection and the resignation in disgust of a Republican colleague highlight how the behaviour of individual politicians is changing as a direct result of the importance of appealing to their social media audience.

To suggest that Twitter has only had a negative impact on society, however, would be erroneous. In the same way social media platforms allow people who share interests to engage with each other, so too does it bring together advocates and those who share similar sentiments but who perhaps lack the ability, or confidence, to air their concerns offline. The #MeToo movement, “shifted public consciousness about the pervasiveness of sexual violence on a global scale” and resulted not only in the arrest of numerous perpetrators of sexual violence but also generated a wider discussion, understanding, and acknowledgement of “consent, rape-culture, rape myths and victim-blaming” (Loney-Howes et al., 2020). Such affective publics are not without their detractors, however, and users rallying behind a hashtag, particularly when it involves a deeply personal or sensitive topic, can leave advocates vulnerable to ridicule and abuse from anonymous trolls, dissenting members of the public or, worse, celebrities and people with influence over a large following. One such influencer, former kickboxer and self-proclaimed misogynist Andrew Tate, pushes back against feminist movements such as #MeToo, promoting male supremacy and suggesting that as a result of online advocacy women are now unfairly advantaged over men. His online popularity, especially amongst teenage followers, has seen an increase in sexist and misogynistic behaviours both on social media platforms and in Australian classrooms (Wescott et al., 2023). The reinstatement of Tate’s Twitter account by owner Elon Musk, previously banned for problematic comments he made, means that both he and Twitter can continue to influence, and profit from, his legions of followers around the world despite currently being under arrest and awaiting trial in Romania for alleged rape and human trafficking charges, and extradition to the UK on further charges of sexual assault. In a further example of social media toxicity having a real-world consequence, after his arrest Tate’s followers engaged in an online harassment campaign against the accusers, causing two of them to go into hiding (Winsor, 2023). It is worth mentioning that, at the time of publication, Tate denies all charges.

 

Conclusion

It would be naïve to suggest that the current schisms in western politics can be entirely attributed to social media platforms like Twitter. To argue that the content we expose ourselves to, whether we choose it ourselves or have an algorithm choose for us, has no bearing on our thought processes and behaviours is equally absurd. Surrounding ourselves with people whose opinions align with our own and hiding ideas that challenge us will of course reinforce that opinion. And in joining these networks and communities we further expose ourselves either to hyper-partisanship or misinformation, particularly now with AI generated memes and Deepfakes working to blur the lines between the fictional world view we’re constructing in our minds and reality. Yet even if we do choose to seek a dissenting voice for balance, the character limit imposed by Twitter does not allow for a reasoned discussion. Instead, such “debates” will often devolve into crude memes, single-line slogans, and ad hominem attacks. Quite why we seem largely incapable of civility on Twitter is beyond the scope of this paper, perhaps the addictive nature of social media or the dopamine and adrenaline rush we receive when we think we’ve won an argument are a factor. Further research into this is required. Twitter has demonstrated that it is capable of mobilising advocates against injustices, #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter are just two examples of movements that have affected a positive change in society, challenging our wider beliefs and perceptions and, largely, making the world a better place. Yet while it remains as lucrative and profitable as it is for corporations and politicians to exploit Twitter and other social media platforms with misinformation and controversial content for personal gain it is difficult to see Twitter having a net-positive effect on our political discourse, and on society as a whole.

 

References

Blake, A. (2018, July 13). Trump denies he said something that he said on a tape everyone has heard. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/07/13/trump-denies-he-said-something-that-he-said-on-a-tape-that-everyone-has-heard/

Bruns, A. (2022). Echo chambers? Filter bubbles? The misleading metaphors that obscure the real problem. In Perez-Escolar, M & Noguera-Vivo, J (eds.), Hate speech and polarization in participatory society (pp. 33-48). Routledge.

Church, K., Schoene, A., Ortega, J., Chandrasekar, R. & Kordoni, V. (2023). Emerging trends: Unfair, biased, addictive, dangerous, deadly, and insanely profitable. Natural Language Engineering, 29(2), 483-508. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1351324922000481

Dale, D. (2020, August 31). Fact check: Trump shares White nationalist’s video in retweet falsely blaming Black Lives Matter for 2019 subway assault. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/31/politics/fact-check-trump-subway-assault-black-lives-matter-antifa/index.html

Dreisbach, T. (2022, July 13). How Trump’s ‘will be wild’ tweet drew rioters to the Capitol on Jan. 6. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2022/07/13/1111341161/how-trumps-will-be-wild-tweet-drew-rioters-to-the-capitol-on-jan-6

Galpin, C. & Vernon, P. (2023). Post-truth politics as discursive violence: Online abuse, the public sphere and the figure of the “expert”. British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/13691481231202641

Hampton, K. & Wellman, B. (2018). Lost and Saved… Again: The Moral Panic about the Loss of Community Takes Hold of Social Media. Contemporary Sociology, 47(6), 643-651. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094306118805415

Interian, R., Marzo, R., Mendoza, I. & Ribeiro, C. (2022). Network polarization, filter bubbles, and echo chambers: an annotated review of measures and reduction methods. International Transactions in Operation Research 30(6), 3122-3158. https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.13224

Loney-Howes, R., Mendes, K., Fernández, R., Fileborn, B. & Puente, S. (2020). Digital footprints of #MeToo. Feminist Media Studies 22(6), 1345-1362. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2021.1886142

Lorenz, T. (2023, July 7). How Twitter lost its place as the global town square. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/07/07/twitter-dead-musk-tiktok-public-square/

Lynch, P., Sherlock, P. & Bradshaw, P. (2022, November 10). Scale of abuse of politicians on Twitter revealed. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-63330885

Ott, B. & Hoelscher, C. (2023). The Digital Authoritarian: On the Evolution and Spread of Toxic Leadership. World 4(4), 726-744. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2021.1886142

Salman, S., Shamsi, J. & Qureshi, R. (2023). Deep Fake Generation and Detection: Issues, Challenges, and Solutions. IT Professional, 25(1), 52-59. https://doi.org/10.1109/MITP.2022.3230353

Sookup, C. (2006). Computer-mediated communication as a virtual third place: building Oldenburg’s great good places on the world wide web. New Medias & Society, 8(3), 421-440. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444806061953

Stokel-Walker, C. (2022, December 20). Twitter changed science – what happens now it’s in turmoil? Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04506-6

Wang, A. & Svitek, P. (2024, March 12). Rep. Ken Buck says he will not serve out rest of term, narrowing GOP majority. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/12/ken-buck-leaving-congress/

Wescott, S., Roberts, S. & Zhao, X. (2023). The problem of anti-feminist ‘manfluencer’ Andrew Tate in Australian schools: women teachers’ experiences of resurgent male supremacy. Gender and Education 36(2), 167-182. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2023.2292622

Winsor, M. (2023, July 15). Andrew Tate accusers forced into hiding after online harassment from ‘troll army’, lawyer says. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/International/andrew-tate-accusers-online-harassment/story?id=100569030

Woodward, C. (2021, January 17). Deceptions in the time of the ‘alternative facts’ president. Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-capitol-siege-politics-coronavirus-pandemic-elections-69cafecdde291c5211daf9ffd0f2ad05