As we know, the development of ICT such as social networking has reduced the cost and time of production and transmission of information, which also includes political information. More and more citizens gather political information and engage in political discussions through social media. With more options, individuals may choose to consume only content that accords with their beliefs. It’s an argument worth considering deeply because it has long been believed that functioning democracies critically rely on voters who are exposed to and understand various political views. And The 2016 US presidential election aroused scholars’ deeper concerns about the impact of the filter bubble on democracy.
Some of the scholars believe that this development will increase the homogeneity of contents. The search engines, news aggregators, and social networks are increasingly personalizing content, potentially creating “filter bubbles” in which algorithms inadvertently amplify ideological segregation by automatically recommending content an individual is inclined to agree with. A particularly worrisome type of “filter bubble” is selective exposure to misinformation, or “fake news”. On the other side, some believe that social networks can increase exposure to different ideas, breaking individuals free from isolated news consumption patterns and increasing heterogeneity. Moreover, personalized recommendation systems increase within-user diversity. Different users may have different choices.
Guess, Nyhan, and Reifler (2015) discussed the worrying type of “echo chamber” or “filter bubble” – “fake news”. They found that during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, there is differential exposure to “fake news” websites and substantial selective exposure for a narrow subset of Americans with the most conservative information diets. What’s more, those website production and consumption tend to overwhelmingly support Trump. Besides, they noticed that the users of Facebook are more likely to consume fake news through this social platform. The results of this research show deep concern about what impact the filter bubble can have on the political process.
Seth Flaxman, Sharad Goel, Justin M. Rao (2016) found that online search engine and social media do contribute to ideological segregation. Many — or you can say nearly all—users exist in filter bubbles. This result kind of align with Guess et al’s study. However, they also found that these channels are associated with greater exposure to cross-cutting perspectives and the vast majority of online news consumption consisted of users seems to be driven primarily by direct browsing left- or right-leaning mainstream news sites. Their findings provide an empirical starting point for understanding how novel means of news consumption such as web search engine and social media, affect ideological polarization.
However, it also has some limitations. For example, they tend to focus mainly on the active political news consumers and miss those who are passive or inactive consumers, who may get most of their news via social media, and thus experience stronger effects of filter bubbles than those users who select their bias through choosing news publications directly.
Groshek & Koc-Michalska (2018), on the other hand, makes up for this limitation. They focused on not only the active users but also the passive and uncivil social media. And they tend to be more optimistic. They found that social media use seems not related to the cultivation of filter bubbles in communication networks according to their findings. Besides, there is almost no evidence for filter bubbles to affect populist political preference or increase the possibility of increased support for populist candidates.
Pablo Barberá (2014) also considered social media as the main research object and further explores the impact of news consumption through social media channel on political polarization. His argument is 2-fold. First, social media platforms like Facebook or Twitter increase incidental exposure to various political messages and amplify the importance of peer effects in political behavior by affecting the size and diversity of their communication networks. The Second and also his central hypothesis is that exposure to politically diverse information on social media will induce political moderation and reduce political extremism for most individuals. There are three main findings from his study. Firstly, most Twitter users in Germany, Spain, and the United States are exposed to a high degree of political diversity in their personal networks. Secondly, individuals who receive politically diverse messages become less extreme over time. Finally, survey data from these three countries proves that social media usage has a positive effect on political moderation. This opinion of social media use and filter bubbles of this study aligns with Groshek and Koc-Michalska’s study result and compete with Guess and Nyhan to a certain degree. And it explores the social media political opinion consumption and assesses the effects of exposure to different perspectives. Thus, it can be seen as a reverse extension of Guess and Nyhan’s statement on the effect of the filter bubble.
Whether the social media usage will lead to political polarization through filter bubbles is still controversial among scholars and need further investigation. With different study method and measuring tools, it is possible to get differential results. Future research could evaluate selective exposure to other forms of media including Twitter feeds and Facebook groups, internet forums, and more traditional media like talk radio and cable news.
Reference
Barberá, P. (2014). How social media reduces mass political polarization. Evidence from Germany, Spain, and the US. Job Market Paper, New York University, 46.
Flaxman, S., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public opinion quarterly, 80(S1), 298-320.
Groshek, J., & Koc-Michalska, K. (2017). Helping populism win? Social media use, filter bubbles, and support for populist presidential candidates in the 2016 US election campaign. Information, Communication & Society, 20(9), 1389-1407.
Guess, A., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2018). Selective Exposure to Misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 US presidential campaign. European Research Council.