The morning after the election, little sun shined down on campus. For many of Vanderbilt’s Democrats, the weather reflected the solemn mood arising from a harsh reality that America must face another four years with Donald Trump as president. One place was particularly chaotic – our phones. Following us everywhere we went, perhaps in our back pockets or bookbags, our phones housed an online battle between boastful Republicans and mourning Democrats. Regardless of political affiliation, it was impossible to go on social media without being bombarded with highly emotional posts. People crying, celebrating, angry, grateful, all flashed before my eyes as I swiped through my Instagram stories. Some expressed doubts about democracy and fear for the future of this country. Others glorified Trump and rejoiced in his much-awaited return to the presidency.
Instagram, a platform originally designed to connect others, has mutated into a political battleground. Today 64% of Americans believe social media has done more harm than good for democracy. Furthermore, 79% of Americans say the internet and social media are a cause of political division, and 69% say social media has made people talk about politics less civilly. Social networks have fueled polarization through the creation of echo chambers, the spread of misinformation, and the promotion of immorality.
It is human instinct to want to surround ourselves with like-minded individuals, as it creates a sense of safety and comfort. Social media plays into this instinct to the point where we are almost exclusively shown what we want to see and constantly have our political views affirmed. Leading up to the election, I immersed myself in an Instagram echo chamber filled with Kamala Harris supporters. While news articles, polls, and my professors all said the election was a toss-up, I wholeheartedly believed Kamala Harris would win. For months, Instagram fed me what I wanted to hear at a time when the future was unsettlingly ambiguous. I surrounded myself with those who wanted the same outcome as me, leading me to believe that my surroundings and the media I was consuming reflected the sentiments of the general population. Being so wrapped up in social media algorithms warps our perception of the world around us.
The day after the election, I was once again sucked into a slew of pro-Harris, anti-Trump posts urging me to hate the other side. The divisive us versus them mindset quickly spreads online, infiltrates our lives, and eats away at our compassion for others. I found myself walking around campus wondering if the people I passed voted for Harris or Trump, oversimplifying all the nuances of politics into one diluted question: were they with me or against me? The us versus them mindset is inherently destructive because it destroys our empathy, escalates tensions, and obstructs our problem-solving abilities. Constant othering whether by race, religion, class, nationality, region, gender, or sexuality, inhibits the productivity of our democracy. Regardless of who your “us” is, binary thinking is inherently divisive.
Today, the most combative posts online get the most attention. For example, rapper Milan Christopher posted on Instagram: “If you voted for Trump, I mean this in the most disrespectful way possible, I do not want anything to do with you…” This comment, whose primary purpose was to promote animosity, was liked, shared, and reposted by 100,000 people within 24 hours of its posting. Psychologists at Cambridge University conducted a study that found that posts “mocking those on the opposing side” garnered twice the engagement. Whether posted by celebrities, politicians, or everyday citizens online the presidential election became not who is most logical, but who is most extreme. Regardless of how you felt about Trump’s policies, it was hard to argue that he was boring. Social algorithms prey on your attention, and Trump caught viewers’ attention. Whether a video or photo makes you extremely angry or happy, it gets a reaction out of you and makes you more inclined to like, share, or comment. The primary interest of the corporate leaders of social media companies is to boost user engagement. Social media corporations do not prioritize the well-being of their users or the quality of the content spread on their platforms.
In the case of the election, over half of Americans say they frequently see political news online that is at least somewhat inaccurate, if not completely false. Furthermore, nearly 25% of Americans admitted they have shared fake political news online. As we get wrapped into whatever we are scrolling on, we allow anything that grabs our attention to dictate our feelings. Social media has shortened our attention spans to the point where people believe the ideal TikTok video is no more than 34 seconds and that anything longer is “stressful”. Such laziness especially among younger generations hinders their ability to conduct the research necessary to understand the election and politics, posing a threat to democratic participation.
What has happened to bipartisanship? Today, both parties play into the divisive social atmosphere fostered by social media. Americans agree on a lot more than we think. According to a CBS News poll, the majority of Americans broadly agree that inflation is serious, social welfare programs are resourceful, illegal immigration is a problem, and abortion should be legal in at least some cases. We will never eradicate the “other side” or convert them all to our view so compromise may be the only viable avenue for political progress. Politics are most productive when we play into discomfort, act on issues we agree on, and compromise on those we do not.
While social media has allowed for broader political discourse, it also breeds division in American society. It is our responsibility to recognize that not every post is factual and that many posts are created for the express purpose of inciting us to anger. Americans are dissatisfied with the status quo, but change cannot be found in echo chambers. Instead, it is found in the uncomfortable, and in conversations that frustrate us. First, find those issues on which you can agree with “them”, only then can you confront those issues where you don’t.
Photo via WikiCommons
