Thesis statement：

The social media platform Twitter has played a key role in driving the global spread of social movements, enabling different regions and groups to access information and organize action quickly. However, these platforms’ algorithmic recommendation mechanisms and user-customized information flows simultaneously exacerbate the spread of filter bubbles and misinformation, exposing users to content from a single perspective, weakening the rational basis of public discussion, and affecting the authenticity and diversity of social movements.

Introduction：

With the spread of social media around the world, platforms such as Twitter have played an important role in driving social movements. Through its instant information dissemination function, Twitter can quickly disseminate the core issues and action plans of social movements, so that different regions and groups can receive relevant information and participate in a short time. Take #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo, for example, which have leveraged the viral nature of Twitter to spark social discussion and political action across the globe. However, as the platform’s algorithms become smarter, Twitter not only increases the speed at which information spreads but also introduces the problem of filter bubbles and misinformation. Users receive customized information feeds that immerse them in content from a single perspective, which weakens the rational basis of public discussion and affects the authenticity and diversity of social movements. This article will explore the positive role of Twitter in social movements and its negative effects, and I will first analyze how Twitter drives social movements through the rapid dissemination of information. It then explores how Twitter’s algorithms contributed to an information bubble that led to the polarization of public opinion. Finally, the impact of the spread of disinformation on social movements is discussed, emphasizing how it weakens the authenticity of movements. Through these analyses, this paper aims to reveal the dual role of social media in social movements and calls for improved platform management mechanisms to promote rational and pluralistic public discussion. 

Twitter promotes the efficiency of information dissemination in social movements

As the core platform of social media, Twitter has become a communication tool that cannot be ignored in modern social movements due to its instantaneity and universality of information transmission. In contrast to traditional media reports, Twitter’s structure allows information to be posted and reposted within seconds, enabling unprecedented speed of transmission. It builds a huge information network through hashtags, retweets and follow systems, enabling users to participate in global discussions across geographical and cultural restrictions in a very short time (Hampton, 2015). This immediacy is evident in multiple social movements, such as the #BlackLivesMatter (BLM) movement, where bystanders posted videos of police violence that swept the world in a matter of hours, quickly transforming BLM from a local American protest to the centre of a global conversation about racial justice. Twitter’s hashtag mechanism not only helps users focus on specific issues but also organizes dispersed individual experiences into visual collective expressions, greatly enhancing the cohesion and dissemination of public opinion. At the same time, Twitter’s multilingual hashtags and visual elements, such as pictures and videos, help reduce cultural differences, allowing non-English speaking users to quickly understand events and engage with them. In the #MeToo movement, derivative hashtags such as “#BalanceTonPorc” (French) have shown how Twitter can effectively transfer the movement’s ideas from the English context to different linguistic contexts, inspiring global demands for gender equality. At the same time, Twitter’s recommendation algorithm plays an important role in information dissemination. By analyzing user behaviour data such as likes, retweets, and time spent on the site, Twitter continuously pushes content to users that they may be interested in, thus forming a focusing mechanism for hot topics. Emotionally intense content, especially tweets that contain expressions of anger, fear, hope, etc., are more likely to be identified and recommended at the top by algorithms that help trigger emotional resonance in users and translate it into offline action. In the case of BLM, the outrage over George Floyd’s death was repeatedly cited and retweeted on Twitter, prompting users to take their protests offline. The #MeToo movement has demonstrated Twitter’s potential as an effective public, a safe space for countless victims to tell their personal stories, allowing otherwise unspeakable pain to be expressed, an accumulation of emotions that not only drives social resonance but also creates enduring political pressure. In short, the role of Twitter in social movements is not only a platform for information release but also constitutes a networked public sphere. Although there are still problems in this field such as unequal distribution of discourse power and consciousness, but its undeniable driving force in social change has been widely validated (Benkler et al., 2015).

How does the Twitter algorithm exacerbate information bubbles and polarization

Although Twitter shows great value in communication efficiency, the algorithmic mechanism behind it inevitably leads to the problem of “information bubble” and “opinion polarization”, which poses a challenge to public rationality in social movements. By tracking users’ interests, preferences, interactions and social networks, Twitter creates a personalized flow of information for users, which is ostensibly designed to enhance the user experience but creates a one-way flow of information. Hampton (2015) pointed out that new communication technologies have enhanced the “persistence” and “extensiveness” of community connections, but such connections are often selective, and users are more inclined to interact with people with the same views, thus exacerbating the trend of information homogenization. In the browsing process, users are constantly exposed to content that is consistent with their own positions, and because the platform recommendation mechanism tends to push “known preferences” content, it is difficult for users to access different opinions and multiple viewpoints and eventually fall into the “echo chamber” where their own views are constantly strengthened. This “filter bubble” phenomenon breaks down the information exchange between different groups, and issues related to social movements are therefore more likely to be labelled and dualistic. Hampton and Wellman (2018) pointed out that social media makes people more likely to be pushed into a closed information environment, which suppresses rational discussion and intensification of information uniformity within the platform, which gradually weakens the diversity and rational foundation of the public in information transmission. Taking the US election as an example, Twitter users’ access to information on political topics gradually presents partisan division, with conservatives and liberals almost forming parallel worlds. Both sides constantly strengthen their views in the isolated information environment, demonizing and absolutizing opposing positions (Freelon et al., 2020). Similar trends have been seen in social movements, where both supporters and critics of BLM (Black Lives Matter) often see only information about their own positions, which not only weakens the space for dialogue, but also exacerbates social misunderstanding. For example, some false or exaggerated reports of violence at BLM protests spread quickly among conservative user circles, and the lack of a verification mechanism makes it difficult for information to be corrected. Twitter’s algorithmic system plays a role in this polarization, with its recommendation mechanism favouring fast-moving, highly interactive content, which tends to be emotional and polarizing. In social movements, algorithms therefore continuously push emotionally strong content, thus transforming individuals from rational discussants into emotional participants, and public participation on Twitter gradually deviates from the original intention of rational debate and turns into emotional expression and confrontation of positions. In theory, the public sphere should be an open, inclusive and rational space. But on Twitter, because algorithms determine what people see, it’s easy to divide users into isolated “cliques.” The lack of communication among these “small circles” has led to issues related to social movements becoming more and more emotional and labeled in the process of spreading, ignoring the complexity of the issues themselves. While Twitter makes it easier for people to post opinions, its algorithms push information based on user preferences so that what everyone sees becomes more and more similar. Over time, people are only exposed to information that is consistent with their own views, and it is difficult to understand the views of other groups. This homogenization of information can weaken the public base of social movements, especially on issues where consensus is not easy to achieve and cooperation between different groups is required, making it harder to advance in such an environment.

How does false information undermine the credibility of social movements

In addition to the information bubble issue, another key challenge for Twitter in social movements is the rapid spread of disinformation. Due to the extremely low threshold of information release on Twitter, any user can post content in real time and be quickly forwarded. The lag of information review and fact-checking mechanism on the platform makes false information easily mixed into the narrative of the movement and causes substantial harm to the movement itself. Disinformation can not only mislead the public but can also be used as a tool against the movement, thus weakening the legitimacy and organization of social movements. During the COVID-19 epidemic, a large amount of false content about the origin of the virus and epidemic prevention policies spread on Twitter, such as the conspiracy theory about the “5G spread virus” spread globally through Twitter, although the scientific community quickly refuted the rumor, but its impact on some public psychology can not be completely reversed. The same phenomenon also appears in social movements. Take #BLM as an example, many false videos about protesters’ “beating, smashing, looting and burning” have been spread maliciously, and some even old videos have been re-edited and dubbed to pretend to be new events. This kind of information is quickly retweeted without timely refuting rumors, which not only increases public panic, but also is used to discredit the entire movement, affecting its international image and public support. Twitter’s censorship mechanism often relies on user reports and human reviews, and its efficiency lags far behind the speed of dissemination, making it difficult to reverse the impact of fake content even if it is removed after the fact. At present, the academic community also points out that social media is still in a passive stage in terms of false information identification and response and lacks systematic early warning mechanisms and real-time error correction means (Guo et al., 2020). To make matters more complicated, organized disinformation dissemination (such as “information jamming warfare” or “water army intervention”) often has a political purpose, interfering with the direction of social movements by controlling the narrative framework (Freelon et al., 2020). For example, in the #MeToo movement, there has been offensive content and fabricated rumors against female storytellers, which not only hit the parties but also made other potential speakers silent fear, inhibiting the expansion of the movement. According to research, false information is more likely to attract users’ attention and forward than true information, and its propagation speed is much faster than true news, which magnifies the influence of false information on sports (Vosoughi et al., 2018). The way false information spreads on Twitter is very consistent with the platform’s mechanisms for encouraging high interaction. Content with high impact and strong emotions is more likely to be recommended to more people. This makes it easier for people to focus on information that is hard to distinguish between true and false and carries strong emotions. Especially when the fake information contains emotional mobilization content such as fear or anger, users are more likely to repost the information in the heat of the moment, rather than calmly judging the truth. Such an emotion-driven way of communication will further make people ignore the authenticity of information. The damage that disinformation does to social movements doesn’t just make people lose trust, it also makes the focus of the issues blurred and even diverted. When public attention is diverted by the manipulation of disinformation, it is difficult to gain sustained attention to the unfair issues that were intended to be focused on. In the end, the narrative of the social movement is disturbed, the goal is blurred, and the energy of the movement is weakened. Therefore, how to improve information quality control while ensuring the free flow of information is a problem that Twitter needs to solve, and it is also about whether social media can truly become a force to promote social progress.

Conclusion：

In conclusion, Twitter as a global social media platform, has shown great influence in promoting social movements. Through hashtags, retweets, and personalized recommendations, Twitter has greatly increased the speed at which information spreads, enabling social movements to quickly gain traction, resonate with the public, and propel them into collective action. The success of campaigns such as #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo is a direct reflection of Twitter’s efficient communication and emotional mobilization. However, this efficiency also hides serious problems. While enhancing user participation, the platform algorithm also creates an information bubble, making the information isolation between different positions increasingly serious, and the public discussion space tends to be closed and polarized. More seriously, the rapid spread of false information on the platform not only misleads the public but also calls into question the legitimacy of social movements, affecting their achievements and sustainability. So, Twitter both fuels social movements and creates their vulnerabilities. To enhance the positive impact of social media in public affairs, platforms need to re-examine their algorithms and information management rules. Only by making content moderation more transparent, improving algorithms’ ability to make multiple recommendations, and establishing a trusted fact-checking system can social media truly take on the responsibility of promoting rational public discussion and social change. Future social movements cannot be separated from the support of social platforms, but more importantly, a reasonably structured, just and credible digital public space is needed.

References：

Benkler, Y., Roberts, H., Faris, R., Solow-Niederman, A., & Etling, B. (2015). Social Mobilization and the Networked Public Sphere: Mapping the SOPA-PIPA Debate. Political Communication, 32(4), 594–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2014.986349

Freelon, D., Marwick, A., & Kreiss, D. (2020javascript:Announcement.searchAnnouncements(‘2’)). False equivalencies: Online activism from left to right. Science, 369(6508), 1197–1201. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb2428

Guo, B., Ding, Y., Yao, L., Liang, Y., & Yu, Z. (Eds.). (2020). The Future of False Information Detection on Social Media: New Perspectives and Trends. ACM Computing Surveys, 53(4), 68-68:36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3393880

Hampton, K. N. (2015). Persistent and Pervasive Community. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(1), 101–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764215601714

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

Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The Spread of True and False News Online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aap9559