What do you think?
Rate this book
Breaking the Social Media Prism: How to Make Our Platforms Less Polarizing
A revealing look at how user behavior is powering deep social divisions online―and how we might yet defeat political tribalism on social media
In an era of increasing social isolation, platforms like Facebook and Twitter are among the most important tools we have to understand each other. We use social media as a mirror to decipher our place in society but, as Chris Bail explains, it functions more like a prism that distorts our identities, empowers status-seeking extremists, and renders moderates all but invisible. Breaking the Social Media Prism challenges common myths about echo chambers, foreign misinformation campaigns, and radicalizing algorithms, revealing that the solution to political tribalism lies deep inside ourselves.
Drawing on innovative online experiments and in-depth interviews with social media users from across the political spectrum, this book explains why stepping outside of our echo chambers can make us more polarized, not less. Bail takes you inside the minds of online extremists through vivid narratives that trace their lives on the platforms and off―detailing how they dominate public discourse at the expense of the moderate majority. Wherever you stand on the spectrum of user behavior and political opinion, he offers fresh solutions to counter political tribalism from the bottom up and the top down. He introduces new apps and bots to help readers avoid misperceptions and engage in better conversations with the other side. Finally, he explores what the virtual public square might look like if we could hit "reset" and redesign social media from scratch through a first-of-its-kind experiment on a new social media platform built for scientific research.
Providing data-driven recommendations for strengthening our social media connections, Breaking the Social Media Prism shows how to combat online polarization without deleting our accounts.
In an era of increasing social isolation, platforms like Facebook and Twitter are among the most important tools we have to understand each other. We use social media as a mirror to decipher our place in society but, as Chris Bail explains, it functions more like a prism that distorts our identities, empowers status-seeking extremists, and renders moderates all but invisible. Breaking the Social Media Prism challenges common myths about echo chambers, foreign misinformation campaigns, and radicalizing algorithms, revealing that the solution to political tribalism lies deep inside ourselves.
Drawing on innovative online experiments and in-depth interviews with social media users from across the political spectrum, this book explains why stepping outside of our echo chambers can make us more polarized, not less. Bail takes you inside the minds of online extremists through vivid narratives that trace their lives on the platforms and off―detailing how they dominate public discourse at the expense of the moderate majority. Wherever you stand on the spectrum of user behavior and political opinion, he offers fresh solutions to counter political tribalism from the bottom up and the top down. He introduces new apps and bots to help readers avoid misperceptions and engage in better conversations with the other side. Finally, he explores what the virtual public square might look like if we could hit "reset" and redesign social media from scratch through a first-of-its-kind experiment on a new social media platform built for scientific research.
Providing data-driven recommendations for strengthening our social media connections, Breaking the Social Media Prism shows how to combat online polarization without deleting our accounts.
240 pages, Hardcover
First published April 6, 2021
46 people are currently reading
1326 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 76 reviews
January 22, 2023
2nd read:
This is a must-read book, and this was my second time reading it. Christopher Bail is the head of Duke’s polarization lab, and they’ve done so much research into social media and political polarization. This book debunks so much nonsense about why we’re polarized and how effective misinformation is. It pains me that people keep spreading the narrative that social media is the sole cause of everything going on when the data doesn’t back it. The reality is that polarizing people are a small percentage of people online, and people aren’t so dumb that they fall for misinformation constantly.
Read this book. Educate yourself. Tell a friend.
1st read:
Many people don't realize it, but there is a lot of misinformation about the effects of social media when it comes to how it affects polarization via tribalism and fake news. It wasn't until recently that researchers like Chris Bail actually put in the work to research this topic, and it's all in this incredible book. I read a lot of books, and usually it takes me a week or two to get through each book, but this one had me hooked. I binged this entire book within 24 hours of it's launch.
Books like these are extremely important during times where we're extremely divided and find it difficult to have conversations about social issues and/or politics. Chris Bail and his team were curious if social media made people more extreme in their political views and how it affects moderates. They did a bunch of really interesting studies and even created their own app. The results are surprising because they debunk what you see from mainstream media or in documentaries like The Social Dilemma. Not only that, but Bail provides a bunch of practical solutions for how we can use social media in a better way.
This is a must-read book, and this was my second time reading it. Christopher Bail is the head of Duke’s polarization lab, and they’ve done so much research into social media and political polarization. This book debunks so much nonsense about why we’re polarized and how effective misinformation is. It pains me that people keep spreading the narrative that social media is the sole cause of everything going on when the data doesn’t back it. The reality is that polarizing people are a small percentage of people online, and people aren’t so dumb that they fall for misinformation constantly.
Read this book. Educate yourself. Tell a friend.
1st read:
Many people don't realize it, but there is a lot of misinformation about the effects of social media when it comes to how it affects polarization via tribalism and fake news. It wasn't until recently that researchers like Chris Bail actually put in the work to research this topic, and it's all in this incredible book. I read a lot of books, and usually it takes me a week or two to get through each book, but this one had me hooked. I binged this entire book within 24 hours of it's launch.
Books like these are extremely important during times where we're extremely divided and find it difficult to have conversations about social issues and/or politics. Chris Bail and his team were curious if social media made people more extreme in their political views and how it affects moderates. They did a bunch of really interesting studies and even created their own app. The results are surprising because they debunk what you see from mainstream media or in documentaries like The Social Dilemma. Not only that, but Bail provides a bunch of practical solutions for how we can use social media in a better way.
May 14, 2021
Chris makes important claims and points to important solution spaces (some of which we're actively exploring at Birdwatch). I agree with all of his product suggestions, but am skeptical of his complete attack on the Echo Chamber effect and cynicism against previous and current work being done in the field. In the end, it also isn't clear if he's advocating for bottom-up (user behavior) or top-down (platform redesign) solutions, and I wish it was better organized to be more effective on the people who should take action.
I'm also not entirely convinced it is successful as a book. It could use more rigorous editing (this has been a common flaw on books I've read recently: form bad puns to suboptimal chapter structures, to 50% of pages dedicated to notes). Could probably be just as effective as a long article on HBR, The Atlantic, or similar publications.
I'm also not entirely convinced it is successful as a book. It could use more rigorous editing (this has been a common flaw on books I've read recently: form bad puns to suboptimal chapter structures, to 50% of pages dedicated to notes). Could probably be just as effective as a long article on HBR, The Atlantic, or similar publications.
May 6, 2021
Shattering popular myths and in the process, uncovering some extraordinary revelations, Chris Bail’s enormously influential book, “Breaking The Social Media Prism” is a much needed antidote in, and, for bewildering times where fake news proliferates and political polarization runs amok on various social media platforms. People hurl abuse and vitriol in 280 characters at one another, and are even ready to severe painstakingly nurtured family ties just to keep alive the embers stoking their flaming ideologies. In fact, economists Keith Chen and Ryne Rohla after tracking the average length of time people spent at Thanksgiving dinner several weeks after the divisive 2016 presidential election found that Thanksgiving dinners were 30–50 minutes shorter if they were attended by a mix of people from Republican- and Democratic-leaning voting precincts. Bail is a professor of sociology and public policy at Duke University, and also the director of the Polarization Lab at Duke. Engaged in the study of ‘computational social science’, Bail and his team conduct studies on online political behavior. Some of the findings thrown up by their research is, putting it mildly, jaw dropping.
For example, the concept of ‘echo-chambers’ is most touted to be at the centre of all internet prejudices and biases that lead to online extremism. Hence the exhortations by social media experts for users to ‘step out of their echo-chambers.’ But what is it that exactly happens to/with a user when she does indeed step out of her echo-chamber? In a curious experiment, Bail and his team persuaded a randomly selected cohort of Republicans and Democrats to persistently listen to the views of their opponents. This was with an objective to ascertain changes in attitude towards opposing factions. The outcome of the experiment revealed an unfortunate trajectory. People who were even moderately conservative became staunchly conservative and mild libertarians became more entrenched in their dogmas.
As Bail elucidates, the phenomenon of ‘false polarization’ exacerbates existing fissures and frictions. The term itself can be defined to mean “the tendency for people to overestimate the amount of ideological difference between themselves and people from other political parties.” For example, a national survey by the Pew Research Center from 2018 found that 55 percent of Republicans thought of the Democratic Party as “extremely liberal” while a little over a third of Democrats described the GOP as “extremely conservative.” A close examination of the data revealed that people who relied on social media to keep abreast of current affairs were prone to substantially exaggerating the supposed ideological extremism of their opposition party members.
Further as Bail illustrates, this polarization also drags centrists further deep into hibernation mode. Alarmed and astonished by the extreme positions taken by extraordinarily aggressive people (Bail gives the example of an otherwise decent and impeccably well mannered man in real life who transforms into a filth spewing monster on social media. The man’s Twitter handle is replete with actual pictures of excrements, within each of which are placed studiously photoshopped images of prominent Democrats), these centrists shy away from expressing their valuable opinions and defer from contributing to all meaningful discourse. As Bail himself discloses, “70% of U.S. social media users never or rarely post or share about political, social issues according to this new report from Pew. A *STRONG MAJORITY* of Republicans with moderate views rarely or never post about politics.”
While Bail blames convoluted algorithms predominantly for creating a polarization effect, he argues that there is room for optimism. Bail and his team invited a random population to test out a new customized experimental social media platform called DiscussIt. The participants were informed that they would be chatting anonymously with someone else. What the participants were not informed was the fact that the invite code that given to them to access the platform paired them a member of a different political affiliation. The topics for discussion were also provided upfront such as immigration or gun control. Unlike the earlier failed experiment on echo chambers, people who used the anonymous chat app to talk about either gun control or immigration depolarized much more than people who didn’t. That effect was even stronger for Republicans.
Bail’s book is a treasure trove of details and information on seminal social science experiments. Some meriting especial mention include:
The discovery by sociologists Paul Lazarsfeld and Robert Merton of the principle of homophily. The two professors—who had been studying how new media technologies were shaping political beliefs—observed that people tend to form social connections with those who are similar to themselves. “Birds of a feather flock together.”
German sociologist Jürgen Habermas, groundbreaking study on the role played by throbbing, teeming and vibrant salons in laying the groundwork for the systems of mass communication that emerged in the twentieth century;
American Sociologist Erving Goffman’s amazing discovery that we read our social environments through a combination of verbal and nonverbal cues, including facial expressions, other types of body language, and tones of voice.
Bail concludes his book by offering three practical and easily implementable “strategies” for breaking the prism of social media and its harmful refraction: “First, we can learn to see the prism and understand how it distorts our identities, as well as those of other people. Second, we can learn to see ourselves through the prism and monitor how our behavior gives the prism its power. Finally, we can learn how to break the prism by changing these behaviors and discovering how to engage in more productive conversations with the other side.”
The most refreshing aspect of Bail’s book is the opportunity that it affords the reader for engaging in introspection. Everyone who is not a Jaron Lanier, (popularly and universally acclaimed as the father of Virtual reality who is now a social media apostate and a recluse living under a rock) and hence who automatically happens to be a social media user can relate to the concepts and ideas articulated by Bail. I myself got name called in a very incendiary vein a few days ago just for posting a clarificatory remark on the page of an acquaintance. That remark was, by no stretch of imagination, either a rebuke or a reprimand. A mild riposte perhaps. Such an unexpected jibe induced a spontaneous resolve never to post on that acquaintance’s wall henceforth. But on hindsight, there might have been a better manner in which I could have conveyed my thought process, not in terms of sincerity, but in terms of subtlety at least. But in line with the hope exuded by Bail in his book, there will come another opportunity.
For example, the concept of ‘echo-chambers’ is most touted to be at the centre of all internet prejudices and biases that lead to online extremism. Hence the exhortations by social media experts for users to ‘step out of their echo-chambers.’ But what is it that exactly happens to/with a user when she does indeed step out of her echo-chamber? In a curious experiment, Bail and his team persuaded a randomly selected cohort of Republicans and Democrats to persistently listen to the views of their opponents. This was with an objective to ascertain changes in attitude towards opposing factions. The outcome of the experiment revealed an unfortunate trajectory. People who were even moderately conservative became staunchly conservative and mild libertarians became more entrenched in their dogmas.
As Bail elucidates, the phenomenon of ‘false polarization’ exacerbates existing fissures and frictions. The term itself can be defined to mean “the tendency for people to overestimate the amount of ideological difference between themselves and people from other political parties.” For example, a national survey by the Pew Research Center from 2018 found that 55 percent of Republicans thought of the Democratic Party as “extremely liberal” while a little over a third of Democrats described the GOP as “extremely conservative.” A close examination of the data revealed that people who relied on social media to keep abreast of current affairs were prone to substantially exaggerating the supposed ideological extremism of their opposition party members.
Further as Bail illustrates, this polarization also drags centrists further deep into hibernation mode. Alarmed and astonished by the extreme positions taken by extraordinarily aggressive people (Bail gives the example of an otherwise decent and impeccably well mannered man in real life who transforms into a filth spewing monster on social media. The man’s Twitter handle is replete with actual pictures of excrements, within each of which are placed studiously photoshopped images of prominent Democrats), these centrists shy away from expressing their valuable opinions and defer from contributing to all meaningful discourse. As Bail himself discloses, “70% of U.S. social media users never or rarely post or share about political, social issues according to this new report from Pew. A *STRONG MAJORITY* of Republicans with moderate views rarely or never post about politics.”
While Bail blames convoluted algorithms predominantly for creating a polarization effect, he argues that there is room for optimism. Bail and his team invited a random population to test out a new customized experimental social media platform called DiscussIt. The participants were informed that they would be chatting anonymously with someone else. What the participants were not informed was the fact that the invite code that given to them to access the platform paired them a member of a different political affiliation. The topics for discussion were also provided upfront such as immigration or gun control. Unlike the earlier failed experiment on echo chambers, people who used the anonymous chat app to talk about either gun control or immigration depolarized much more than people who didn’t. That effect was even stronger for Republicans.
Bail’s book is a treasure trove of details and information on seminal social science experiments. Some meriting especial mention include:
The discovery by sociologists Paul Lazarsfeld and Robert Merton of the principle of homophily. The two professors—who had been studying how new media technologies were shaping political beliefs—observed that people tend to form social connections with those who are similar to themselves. “Birds of a feather flock together.”
German sociologist Jürgen Habermas, groundbreaking study on the role played by throbbing, teeming and vibrant salons in laying the groundwork for the systems of mass communication that emerged in the twentieth century;
American Sociologist Erving Goffman’s amazing discovery that we read our social environments through a combination of verbal and nonverbal cues, including facial expressions, other types of body language, and tones of voice.
Bail concludes his book by offering three practical and easily implementable “strategies” for breaking the prism of social media and its harmful refraction: “First, we can learn to see the prism and understand how it distorts our identities, as well as those of other people. Second, we can learn to see ourselves through the prism and monitor how our behavior gives the prism its power. Finally, we can learn how to break the prism by changing these behaviors and discovering how to engage in more productive conversations with the other side.”
The most refreshing aspect of Bail’s book is the opportunity that it affords the reader for engaging in introspection. Everyone who is not a Jaron Lanier, (popularly and universally acclaimed as the father of Virtual reality who is now a social media apostate and a recluse living under a rock) and hence who automatically happens to be a social media user can relate to the concepts and ideas articulated by Bail. I myself got name called in a very incendiary vein a few days ago just for posting a clarificatory remark on the page of an acquaintance. That remark was, by no stretch of imagination, either a rebuke or a reprimand. A mild riposte perhaps. Such an unexpected jibe induced a spontaneous resolve never to post on that acquaintance’s wall henceforth. But on hindsight, there might have been a better manner in which I could have conveyed my thought process, not in terms of sincerity, but in terms of subtlety at least. But in line with the hope exuded by Bail in his book, there will come another opportunity.
February 16, 2023
„The deeper source of our addiction to social media […] is that it makes so much easier for us to do what is all too human: perform different identities, observe how other people react, and update our presentation of self to make us feel like we belong”.
August 27, 2021
Helpful insights.
Could have been a great article.
Could have been a great article.
December 30, 2021
This was a helpful book in understanding what seems like a freight train (social media) driving us all toward civil war. I know, that's extreme. But don't we all see, if not participate in what seems to be increasingly vitriolic, over-sensitive, over-dramatic posting and commenting. When I look at social media I see crazy extreme people, but some of them have followers in the 100s of thousands or even millions. And I see reasonable people, being incredibly unreasonable, saying things I know they would never say to someone in person.
The concept of a prism - where light is refracted and distorted is a helpful one. The social landscape that we see on media is bent and only part of the picture. It's not the whole thing by far, but what's missing is the key. We see and post only what we want others to see and the vast majority of our lives which would give context and nuance is left out. As humans we are doing what we've always done, but now have this new crazy technology. What are we doing? We are creating identities for ourselves, rather than arguing ideas. We are scoring points for our tribe while we create digital versions of ourselves that are curated and severely truncated.
Those of us who have little to no status offline, are the loudest and most visible online. The vast majority of moderates in the middle have too much to lose offline, so they are careful, or quiet online. That amplifies the extreme voices who actually have few followers and it makes us all believe that everyone is WAY different than us and they are crazy. It's a false polarization that may become real if we continue down this road.
Add to this the echo chamber - the idea that we are only hearing voices from "our side" and how lack of exposure to other view points is the problem. This is true to some degree, but not the main issue. This book points out that when exposed to the extreme viewpoints outside our echo chambers, it actually causes us to be more polarized and dig in deeper and become more extreme on our own side.
So what's the solution? The author suggested looking outside our echo chambers, but avoiding the extremes. Find someone within reach of our views and share more information about ourselves. His altruism shines through when he suggests a social platform for the exchange of ideas that uses anonymity so that we don't immediately judge each other by our profiles. Good idea, but would it work? Other reformers are suggesting platforms rethink their algorithms and structurally fix the problems that lead to the amplification of extreme views.
What's clear is that we cannot go back. There is no future without social media. But I still believe the best way forward is to spend less time on it. Go talk to people. Have face to face conversations and discussions. Get to know people you will see, who think differently and build relationships so that when passionate discussions happen, we have something bigger and better we want to preserve and so restrain ourselves, or make amends quickly after.
Maybe that's naive, and our digital lives will outstrip our offline lives... but if social media is humans doing what we've always done, then the solution will likely be also doing what we've always done - living in relationship with real people. If we can figure out how to do that digitally, let's get busy with it.
The concept of a prism - where light is refracted and distorted is a helpful one. The social landscape that we see on media is bent and only part of the picture. It's not the whole thing by far, but what's missing is the key. We see and post only what we want others to see and the vast majority of our lives which would give context and nuance is left out. As humans we are doing what we've always done, but now have this new crazy technology. What are we doing? We are creating identities for ourselves, rather than arguing ideas. We are scoring points for our tribe while we create digital versions of ourselves that are curated and severely truncated.
Those of us who have little to no status offline, are the loudest and most visible online. The vast majority of moderates in the middle have too much to lose offline, so they are careful, or quiet online. That amplifies the extreme voices who actually have few followers and it makes us all believe that everyone is WAY different than us and they are crazy. It's a false polarization that may become real if we continue down this road.
Add to this the echo chamber - the idea that we are only hearing voices from "our side" and how lack of exposure to other view points is the problem. This is true to some degree, but not the main issue. This book points out that when exposed to the extreme viewpoints outside our echo chambers, it actually causes us to be more polarized and dig in deeper and become more extreme on our own side.
So what's the solution? The author suggested looking outside our echo chambers, but avoiding the extremes. Find someone within reach of our views and share more information about ourselves. His altruism shines through when he suggests a social platform for the exchange of ideas that uses anonymity so that we don't immediately judge each other by our profiles. Good idea, but would it work? Other reformers are suggesting platforms rethink their algorithms and structurally fix the problems that lead to the amplification of extreme views.
What's clear is that we cannot go back. There is no future without social media. But I still believe the best way forward is to spend less time on it. Go talk to people. Have face to face conversations and discussions. Get to know people you will see, who think differently and build relationships so that when passionate discussions happen, we have something bigger and better we want to preserve and so restrain ourselves, or make amends quickly after.
Maybe that's naive, and our digital lives will outstrip our offline lives... but if social media is humans doing what we've always done, then the solution will likely be also doing what we've always done - living in relationship with real people. If we can figure out how to do that digitally, let's get busy with it.
January 18, 2022
I learned something interesting from this book. I was quick to blame social media echo chambers and assumed if everybody just saw everything, polarization would reduce. More information and more light is a good thing. Turns out research does not support that. In fact, if you take even a very moderate Democrat or Republican and show them partisan content from the other side, they become further pulled to their predisposed side. You think they would be moderate and might be able to be pulled over. Turns out that is not true.
This book is interesting because it really gets at the root of the social media's appeal: it gives us a sense of self-worth. Therefore, social media is more like a prism that distorts our image into the way what we want it to be or the way that others want us to be. These tools and our use of them are driven by how they impact our status. At the end of the day then, it is not necessarily a question of our algorithms, misinformation, or echo chambers that drives a lot of our polarization. They don't help, but we are also responsible for our actions. We are not just victims of the system.
I do think that the author does let the social media companies off a little bit too easily as I do think they are an important piece of the puzzle. However, I do appreciate this take as a less negative perspective on social media than I normally read.
This book is interesting because it really gets at the root of the social media's appeal: it gives us a sense of self-worth. Therefore, social media is more like a prism that distorts our image into the way what we want it to be or the way that others want us to be. These tools and our use of them are driven by how they impact our status. At the end of the day then, it is not necessarily a question of our algorithms, misinformation, or echo chambers that drives a lot of our polarization. They don't help, but we are also responsible for our actions. We are not just victims of the system.
I do think that the author does let the social media companies off a little bit too easily as I do think they are an important piece of the puzzle. However, I do appreciate this take as a less negative perspective on social media than I normally read.
May 18, 2022
The most interesting part of this book was how getting people out of their echo chambers can actually increase polarization, despite our intuition that the opposite would occur. The research also seems to be well-designed. But the pros of this book stopped there for me.
While I appreciate that this book kept it short, there is a surprising amount of fluff and repetition. It felt like a quarter of the book was dedicated to recapping previous chapters or previewing upcoming ones.
Probably the most frustrating aspect of this book was the underlying assumption of the political duopoly. Yes, there is a wide spectrum of beliefs held by members of both major political parties. However, the focus of this book was on “reaching across the aisle” and striving towards moderate stances. This language itself reinforces the idea of “us vs them,” rather than highlighting the diversity of belief sets, many of which are not even represented by political leaders.
Finally, the final vision of a better social media was simply to make political conversations anonymous. This was very underwhelming considering that most social media accounts are already anonymous (especially on discussion-focused platforms like Reddit, which the author quickly dismissed based on the potential biases on one subreddit).
Overall, I share the same hope and goals as the author, but felt quite disappointed by their research and proposals.
While I appreciate that this book kept it short, there is a surprising amount of fluff and repetition. It felt like a quarter of the book was dedicated to recapping previous chapters or previewing upcoming ones.
Probably the most frustrating aspect of this book was the underlying assumption of the political duopoly. Yes, there is a wide spectrum of beliefs held by members of both major political parties. However, the focus of this book was on “reaching across the aisle” and striving towards moderate stances. This language itself reinforces the idea of “us vs them,” rather than highlighting the diversity of belief sets, many of which are not even represented by political leaders.
Finally, the final vision of a better social media was simply to make political conversations anonymous. This was very underwhelming considering that most social media accounts are already anonymous (especially on discussion-focused platforms like Reddit, which the author quickly dismissed based on the potential biases on one subreddit).
Overall, I share the same hope and goals as the author, but felt quite disappointed by their research and proposals.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 13, 2021
Zkráceně - přečetl jsem knížku a vy jí spíš asi nečtěte.
Velké sociální sítě a otázky jejich přínosnosti nebo možností regulace jsou teď v centru pozornosti nejen v Evropě (kde Evropský parlament teď pracuje na balíčku k digitálním službám a digitálním tržištím), ale všude po světě. Chris Bail se na ně a interakce lidí na nich zaměřuje, vedl i velmi štědrý výzkum na téma "polarizace lidí na sítích" - kde si mohli dovolit takové legrace jako postavit novou sociální síť jako experiment.
A pak o tom samozřejmě napsal knihu a já bych vám k ní rád něco řekl.
Prvně - echo chambers podle Baila existují jen relativně málo a jejich vliv je hrubě přeceněný. Základní předpoklad, že vše se vyřeší jen tím, že ukážete lidem "zprávy z druhé strany" nefunguje. Naopak, když umírněným demokratům/ republikánům ukazoval v rámci experimentu měsíc komunikaci "druhé strany", tak docházelo k jejich radikalizaci v rámci už existující skupiny, nikoliv tomu, že by pod vlivem informací posouvali do opačné skupiny nebo jí brali smířlivěji.
To je asi ta hlavní věc, která je na celé knize zajímavá. Echo chambers a jejich rozkladný vliv se staly jedním z hlavních témat hovoru "jak spravit sociální sítě". Problém podle Baila leží v soustavě trablů jinde.
a) sociální sítě už nejdou vypnout nebo nahradit. Nejenom, že nám dávají nějaké ty dopaminy hezkého obsahu, ale hlavně každý člověk má inherentně silnou potřebu nějaké socializace, budování obrazu a upravování tohoto obrazu a čistě praktické komunikace. Odejít zcela ze sítí znamená pro většinu lidí čistou ztrátu a propagace digitálního poustevnictví tak není cesta.
b) co se týče přímo politiky, tak sítě vyhraňují lidi. Extrémně zjednodušeně se zde jedná buď o pohyb "pod vlivem nepřátelské propagandy se radikalizuji" nebo "pod vlivem nepřátelské propagandy přestávám raději komunikovat a jdu k jiným tématům".
Tady je ale celý problém Bailovy knihy pro Evropu - on se celou dobu neustále pohybuje na škále "extrémní liberál - extrémní konzervativec", kterou 1:1 lepí na existující politické strany a mezi to pak vytváří kategorie "umírnění". Tohle schéma ale nemůžeme 1:1 otisknout prakticky nikam do Evropy. Nejen, že ta škála je přirozeně bohatší, ale důležitý efekt "sjednocování kolem lidí a vlajek" se pak rozpadá a Bailem popisované radikalizační manévry nedávají přesně smysl, identifikace jednotlivce se stranou taky třeba v Česku je málokdy generace budovaná záležitost.
c) na sítích se spíš než idee dlouhodobě projednávají identity, což je jak do velké míry nějak daný, tak to podporují i všechny "nové" (jakože od minimálně osmdesátých let) kampaňové triky a praktiky, které typicky hodně moc řeší co který politik dělá doma po práci či jak se obléká a ostatní lidi, který politiku řeší tohle přebírají. Zmenšuje se tak prostor pro idee, což je problém, protože drtivá většina ideí je ve skutečnosti mnohem méně kontroverzní (např. dokud na to nelepíte konkrétní obličeje, tak je pro jasnou většinu lidí klimatická změna reálný problém)
d) kde pak kniha ale jde do úplně divný vývrtky jsou doporučení a co s tím dál. TL:DR - sítě jsou založené z úplně jiných důvodů a nemůžou tak by design facilitovat lepší komunikaci (vesměs ten důvod jsou...peníze z reklam, překvapení) => založme nové sociální sítě, které budou podporovat demokratickou diskuzi, která bude anonymizovaná a lidé tam rádi časem přejdou. Kromě toho, že tohle je efekt který se nijak extra neděje (nejblíž je asi Reddit) tak se obávám, že řešení "uděláme si vlastní sítě, s demokratickou diskuzí a anonymitou" je po tom, co celou knihu řeší negativní i silně přeceňované efekty existujících sítí prostě úkrok stranou, který žádné reálné řešení nenese.
Ale jestli se z té knihy dá odnést nějaké poučení jistě tak je to (kromě toho, že dopad echo chambers či ruských kampaní se spíš přeceňuje) jednoznačně to, že je lepší se bavit o tématech než o lidech kteří je nesou.
Což je jakoby fajn rada, ale nejsem si jistej, jestli vůbec lze celou politickou hru přemazat a v konkrétních prostředích už to vůbec nejde. Například není jednoduše možné mluvit o politice ANO a vynechat Babiše a střet zájmů: protože to je ta politika ANO, nic moc víc v tom balíčku konzistentně není.
Velké sociální sítě a otázky jejich přínosnosti nebo možností regulace jsou teď v centru pozornosti nejen v Evropě (kde Evropský parlament teď pracuje na balíčku k digitálním službám a digitálním tržištím), ale všude po světě. Chris Bail se na ně a interakce lidí na nich zaměřuje, vedl i velmi štědrý výzkum na téma "polarizace lidí na sítích" - kde si mohli dovolit takové legrace jako postavit novou sociální síť jako experiment.
A pak o tom samozřejmě napsal knihu a já bych vám k ní rád něco řekl.
Prvně - echo chambers podle Baila existují jen relativně málo a jejich vliv je hrubě přeceněný. Základní předpoklad, že vše se vyřeší jen tím, že ukážete lidem "zprávy z druhé strany" nefunguje. Naopak, když umírněným demokratům/ republikánům ukazoval v rámci experimentu měsíc komunikaci "druhé strany", tak docházelo k jejich radikalizaci v rámci už existující skupiny, nikoliv tomu, že by pod vlivem informací posouvali do opačné skupiny nebo jí brali smířlivěji.
To je asi ta hlavní věc, která je na celé knize zajímavá. Echo chambers a jejich rozkladný vliv se staly jedním z hlavních témat hovoru "jak spravit sociální sítě". Problém podle Baila leží v soustavě trablů jinde.
a) sociální sítě už nejdou vypnout nebo nahradit. Nejenom, že nám dávají nějaké ty dopaminy hezkého obsahu, ale hlavně každý člověk má inherentně silnou potřebu nějaké socializace, budování obrazu a upravování tohoto obrazu a čistě praktické komunikace. Odejít zcela ze sítí znamená pro většinu lidí čistou ztrátu a propagace digitálního poustevnictví tak není cesta.
b) co se týče přímo politiky, tak sítě vyhraňují lidi. Extrémně zjednodušeně se zde jedná buď o pohyb "pod vlivem nepřátelské propagandy se radikalizuji" nebo "pod vlivem nepřátelské propagandy přestávám raději komunikovat a jdu k jiným tématům".
Tady je ale celý problém Bailovy knihy pro Evropu - on se celou dobu neustále pohybuje na škále "extrémní liberál - extrémní konzervativec", kterou 1:1 lepí na existující politické strany a mezi to pak vytváří kategorie "umírnění". Tohle schéma ale nemůžeme 1:1 otisknout prakticky nikam do Evropy. Nejen, že ta škála je přirozeně bohatší, ale důležitý efekt "sjednocování kolem lidí a vlajek" se pak rozpadá a Bailem popisované radikalizační manévry nedávají přesně smysl, identifikace jednotlivce se stranou taky třeba v Česku je málokdy generace budovaná záležitost.
c) na sítích se spíš než idee dlouhodobě projednávají identity, což je jak do velké míry nějak daný, tak to podporují i všechny "nové" (jakože od minimálně osmdesátých let) kampaňové triky a praktiky, které typicky hodně moc řeší co který politik dělá doma po práci či jak se obléká a ostatní lidi, který politiku řeší tohle přebírají. Zmenšuje se tak prostor pro idee, což je problém, protože drtivá většina ideí je ve skutečnosti mnohem méně kontroverzní (např. dokud na to nelepíte konkrétní obličeje, tak je pro jasnou většinu lidí klimatická změna reálný problém)
d) kde pak kniha ale jde do úplně divný vývrtky jsou doporučení a co s tím dál. TL:DR - sítě jsou založené z úplně jiných důvodů a nemůžou tak by design facilitovat lepší komunikaci (vesměs ten důvod jsou...peníze z reklam, překvapení) => založme nové sociální sítě, které budou podporovat demokratickou diskuzi, která bude anonymizovaná a lidé tam rádi časem přejdou. Kromě toho, že tohle je efekt který se nijak extra neděje (nejblíž je asi Reddit) tak se obávám, že řešení "uděláme si vlastní sítě, s demokratickou diskuzí a anonymitou" je po tom, co celou knihu řeší negativní i silně přeceňované efekty existujících sítí prostě úkrok stranou, který žádné reálné řešení nenese.
Ale jestli se z té knihy dá odnést nějaké poučení jistě tak je to (kromě toho, že dopad echo chambers či ruských kampaní se spíš přeceňuje) jednoznačně to, že je lepší se bavit o tématech než o lidech kteří je nesou.
Což je jakoby fajn rada, ale nejsem si jistej, jestli vůbec lze celou politickou hru přemazat a v konkrétních prostředích už to vůbec nejde. Například není jednoduše možné mluvit o politice ANO a vynechat Babiše a střet zájmů: protože to je ta politika ANO, nic moc víc v tom balíčku konzistentně není.
November 18, 2021
I was hoping this was more of a general look at social media but instead it was based around politics on social media. It didn’t tell me anything I didn’t already know so unfortunately it fell a little flat for me. I do like how even though this book was about politics it manages to stay independent without picking a “side”. It was relatively interesting and I think if you were someone that’s very into politics you will either love or hate this book because of that. I do wish that the studies that were talked about weren’t so detailed throughout the actual book and instead just gave the background and finding of the study and put a footnote to another page for people who were interested in learning more about the studies that he ran. I think that does add some more factual evidence to help his case in writing this book but for someone like me that HATED having to read study upon study in college... this gave me bad PTSD and flashbacks to those long gruesome hours of studying years ago lol.
May 9, 2024
Solid, quick read of a book. Really eye-opening research and anecdotes, written in a way that is really accessible to non-academic audiences. Good, insightful read! Really a reminder that there is indeed a "silent majority", not the silent majority often parroted on news platforms, but rather a silent majority of people whose opinions are never made known on social media. A great reminder that what we see online isn't the full picture. Most people would never say the sorts of things that they say online. Plus a majority of people online never speak their opinions at all in the first place, so online conversations are really dominated by a particularly extreme and opinionated community. Very insightful and solid read.
April 14, 2025
This book was very insightful and super helpful for understanding how our use of social media becomes a prism that facilitates political polarization and extremism. I found it particularly surprising that this prism causes us to see others’ views as very extreme while it blinds us to how extreme our own views are.
May 26, 2021
This was so interesting! Looking at a few recent studies as well as the author’s own major one on Libs and MAGA it really shoots down a lot of myths about social media. I’m so impressed by this, I really had no idea! Also the thread throughout it about identity over dopamine is 👌
November 12, 2021
A really interesting take on how social media refracts and distorts our individual and collective identities.
August 27, 2023
This book has some really interesting research and some very cool non-intuitive insights. This book went by in a breeze.
April 28, 2022
Solid and short book with counterintuitive points about social media, all backed by research. I will certainly be recommending this to those interested in politics and social media.
November 26, 2021
A good book that suffers from over-specification of the symptoms by the author. What he will have you believe is that the problem with social media is the dreaded "echo chamber", you know, the place where all of your biases and misconceptions about the "other side" get amplified and fed back to you. While I agree with the author on this point, I don't believe it is the only problem, nor the most likely to lead to real change.
He makes the case that most people believe that just getting more exposure to the other side's arguments will tend to bring people closer and cause them to be more open to their differences. However, as their research shows (research they spend too long describing in the minutest details) exposing people to point of view of the members of the opposing party actually drives them to become even more entrenched in their own echo chambers. In short, exposure therapy increases polarization. Oops!
This is not an original idea, but it is great that it was actually proven scientifically. Exposure to the arguments and ideas from the opposing groups actually provide people with an opportunity not to put themselves in other's shoes and consider their viewpoint, but rather to prove their loyalty and group membership by denying its merit vociferously, even to their own detriment. In "Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy", Vaidhyanathan writes:
At the end of the day, the solutions the author offers while novel, are unlikely to put a real dent on the problem, perhaps because he failed to properly account for the real reason a lot of these folks are on social media anyways, which is not to find a rich forum in which to become more educated about their beliefs, but to do quite the opposite: to proudly declare they are this or that type of tinfoil-hatter and damned the rest! It is very entertaining to boot, which adds to their value.
It did not totally convince me but it is a thought-provokig read nonetheless.
He makes the case that most people believe that just getting more exposure to the other side's arguments will tend to bring people closer and cause them to be more open to their differences. However, as their research shows (research they spend too long describing in the minutest details) exposing people to point of view of the members of the opposing party actually drives them to become even more entrenched in their own echo chambers. In short, exposure therapy increases polarization. Oops!
This is not an original idea, but it is great that it was actually proven scientifically. Exposure to the arguments and ideas from the opposing groups actually provide people with an opportunity not to put themselves in other's shoes and consider their viewpoint, but rather to prove their loyalty and group membership by denying its merit vociferously, even to their own detriment. In "Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy", Vaidhyanathan writes:
"By posting a story that solidifies membership in a group, the act generates social value. If the veracity of that post is questioned, sticking by it, defending it, and criticizing the critic further demonstrate group loyalty. This, again, has social value, even if it has many other costs. Even when we post and share demonstrably false stories and claims we do so to declare our affiliation, to assert that our social bonds mean more to us than the question of truth. This fact should give us pause. How can we train billions of people to value truth over their cultural membership when the question of truth holds little at stake for them and the question of social membership holds so much?"
At the end of the day, the solutions the author offers while novel, are unlikely to put a real dent on the problem, perhaps because he failed to properly account for the real reason a lot of these folks are on social media anyways, which is not to find a rich forum in which to become more educated about their beliefs, but to do quite the opposite: to proudly declare they are this or that type of tinfoil-hatter and damned the rest! It is very entertaining to boot, which adds to their value.
It did not totally convince me but it is a thought-provokig read nonetheless.
February 26, 2024
Author Chris Bail begins this book with a discussion of the "echo chamber" theory in which people interacting with the media enter a closed loop where they are only exposed to opinions and views that reflect their own, thus reinforcing their own beliefs rather than being challenged by outside views. The argument goes that things would be less polarized if people were exposed to outside viewpoints. As popular as this theory is, however, Bail argues that evidence produced by his own research lab demonstrates that the opposite effect seems to be more likely--that being exposed to views outside of a person's echo chamber results in a sort of doubling down on one's beliefs.
One of the contributing factors, he argues, is in-group/out-group mentality within the populace. Being loyal to ones "team" becomes more of a priority than making judgements based on factual evidence or even the pursuit of better information. He claims that it's not only our shortening attention spans that keep us glued to social media, but our ability to try on different hats (i.e. personas) in order to find groups to which we can feel we belong.
"Partisan warfare, it seemed, is often more about status signaling and bonding than persuading others."
He presents the example of a woman who initially aligned herself with the democratic party. However, she became disillusioned with the Obama presidency and made some mildly critical remarks about him on social media. Her posts spread quickly through conservative circles, and she gained likes and followers from those people. Over time, her comments became more extreme, until she found herself a staunch defender of Donald Trump. This example is supposed to demonstrate how the human need for seeking social approval from others can drive our behavior and political beliefs.
After presenting evidence to dispel the notion that simply exiting one's social media echo chamber will reduce polarization, we arrive at the crux of this book: the titular social media prism. This is the idea that all of this perceived polarization between "liberals" and "conservatives" is not real. Mass media and social media ramp up and amplify extremist voices which push the vast majority of Americans (most of whom hold more moderate views) into the margins. In turn, these moderates being exposed to these extremist views are more likely to become disillusioned with the political landscape and purposefully avoid participating.
Through numerous examples and studies, Bail demonstrates that, contrary to popular belief, taking people out of their "social media echo chamber" is counterproductive to de-polarization of political discourse. Even though political extremists make up a very small percentage of the populace, they contribute a disproportionally large amount of the political content we see online. This is why, he argues, it is important for people to recognize the "prism" and how it distorts reality. We must internalize the fact that the vocal minority are skewing public perception, stay conscious of how we present our own ideas and opinions on social media, be careful with how we interact with potential "extremist trolls" to avoid falling into the polarization traps, and to amplify more moderate voices. There is too much identity politics and tribalism and not enough open and frank discussion about the issues themselves. People get so wrapped up in the "us vs. them" that they fail to realize that we aren't as wildly different as it might seem.
Bail concludes the book by attempting to translate studies done by his own research group (and others) into some potential alternative solutions to this social media prism problem. For example, he suggests building a social media platform from the ground up which is oriented around the sharing of ideas using anonymity as a feature.
To be perfectly honest, I found the ideas in this book to be rather obvious and nothing new. The "us vs. them" and tribalism problem in identity politics has been studied for decades, and it is well-known that "the vocal minority" has always been a thing, even well outside of politics. However, Bail presents to us an affirmation of these elements backed up by research studies and statistics. I think there is still value in that, though I found his attempts at coming up with a solution as lacking and perhaps even a little naïve. It seems like the main thesis of this book is to disprove the "echo chamber" theory, and I think it does that successfully, even if it doesn't feel very original or groundbreaking. This would be a great book for someone who perhaps hasn't considered the full effect of the echo chamber or the depth of division by inaccurate online representation and wants to know how that can happen.
The best piece of advice in this book is to be conscious of the fact that the true character of most individuals is not represented accurately online by themselves, and to consider how you represent yourself online. This is probably good advice in general.
One of the contributing factors, he argues, is in-group/out-group mentality within the populace. Being loyal to ones "team" becomes more of a priority than making judgements based on factual evidence or even the pursuit of better information. He claims that it's not only our shortening attention spans that keep us glued to social media, but our ability to try on different hats (i.e. personas) in order to find groups to which we can feel we belong.
"Partisan warfare, it seemed, is often more about status signaling and bonding than persuading others."
He presents the example of a woman who initially aligned herself with the democratic party. However, she became disillusioned with the Obama presidency and made some mildly critical remarks about him on social media. Her posts spread quickly through conservative circles, and she gained likes and followers from those people. Over time, her comments became more extreme, until she found herself a staunch defender of Donald Trump. This example is supposed to demonstrate how the human need for seeking social approval from others can drive our behavior and political beliefs.
After presenting evidence to dispel the notion that simply exiting one's social media echo chamber will reduce polarization, we arrive at the crux of this book: the titular social media prism. This is the idea that all of this perceived polarization between "liberals" and "conservatives" is not real. Mass media and social media ramp up and amplify extremist voices which push the vast majority of Americans (most of whom hold more moderate views) into the margins. In turn, these moderates being exposed to these extremist views are more likely to become disillusioned with the political landscape and purposefully avoid participating.
Through numerous examples and studies, Bail demonstrates that, contrary to popular belief, taking people out of their "social media echo chamber" is counterproductive to de-polarization of political discourse. Even though political extremists make up a very small percentage of the populace, they contribute a disproportionally large amount of the political content we see online. This is why, he argues, it is important for people to recognize the "prism" and how it distorts reality. We must internalize the fact that the vocal minority are skewing public perception, stay conscious of how we present our own ideas and opinions on social media, be careful with how we interact with potential "extremist trolls" to avoid falling into the polarization traps, and to amplify more moderate voices. There is too much identity politics and tribalism and not enough open and frank discussion about the issues themselves. People get so wrapped up in the "us vs. them" that they fail to realize that we aren't as wildly different as it might seem.
Bail concludes the book by attempting to translate studies done by his own research group (and others) into some potential alternative solutions to this social media prism problem. For example, he suggests building a social media platform from the ground up which is oriented around the sharing of ideas using anonymity as a feature.
To be perfectly honest, I found the ideas in this book to be rather obvious and nothing new. The "us vs. them" and tribalism problem in identity politics has been studied for decades, and it is well-known that "the vocal minority" has always been a thing, even well outside of politics. However, Bail presents to us an affirmation of these elements backed up by research studies and statistics. I think there is still value in that, though I found his attempts at coming up with a solution as lacking and perhaps even a little naïve. It seems like the main thesis of this book is to disprove the "echo chamber" theory, and I think it does that successfully, even if it doesn't feel very original or groundbreaking. This would be a great book for someone who perhaps hasn't considered the full effect of the echo chamber or the depth of division by inaccurate online representation and wants to know how that can happen.
The best piece of advice in this book is to be conscious of the fact that the true character of most individuals is not represented accurately online by themselves, and to consider how you represent yourself online. This is probably good advice in general.
January 15, 2024
In this well-researched book, Chris Bail presents a compelling analysis based on numerous empirical and experimental studies. He articulates several key insights:
1. Contrary to widespread belief, there is scant evidence showing that recommendation algorithms contribute to radicalization.
2. Similarly, researchers have not found evidence of foreign agents having any significant success in dividing American society by disseminating fake news and fostering discord.
3. The concept of the "echo chamber" on social media is overstated. Moreover, attempts to disrupt these echo chambers by simply presenting users with opposing social media posts backfire in experiments, as it highlights the "battle" between contrasting viewpoints.
4. What truly links social media and polarization lies in the twisted political scene social media manifests. Compared to what is present in real life, we observe higher degree of polarization on social media, because:
a. Extremists make a disproportionately large number of political posts on social media to gain status and connect with like-minded individuals.
b. Moderates, in contrast, are reluctant to express their opinions due to the fear of real-life repercussions and harassment by extremists.
5. Owing to the factor outlined above in (4), social media skews the user's view, making "the other side" appear far more extreme. Social scientists call this phenomenon "partisan perception gap".
6. The partisan perception gap further energizes extremists and silences moderates, perpetuating a vicious cycle.
7. By designing a social media platform of their own and observing user behavior, researchers have demonstrated that engaging individuals with different political views in structured, one-on-one online conversation about specific political issues can help reduce polarization.
How can we learn from the research above and effectively reduce polarization? Chris Bail suggests three strategies:
1. Help people recognize that the opposing party is not as polarized as they may falsely believe.
2. Be mindful of our behavior on social media platforms. Moderates should speak up, balancing their desire to preserve their self-image with the consequences of these choices for the public good. Meanwhile, passionate partisans should examine their motivations and consider the consequences before engaging in battles.
3. Create new social media platforms specifically designed to promote political discussion and bridge political divides. To be more specific:
a. These platforms will ask users about their political attitudes when they sign up.
b. The platforms should promote the ranking of messages with bipartisan appeal.
c. Users would not see "Like" counters but would see responses from people across the ideological spectrum.
d. Such platforms can be funded by the government through a digital advertising tax. However, even without government funding, entrepreneurs may find them profitable as they will attract businesses, governments, and nonprofit organizations.
e. Like how Facebook runs experiments to test which designs increase ad revenue, these new platforms should run experiments to test which designs reduce polarization.
f. Existing platforms can be reformed with similar goals in mind.
In my opinion, the author offers a vigorous analysis of the issue and proposes sensible solutions. However, these solutions warrant further examination. For example, how can we ensure that the platform proposed by Bail appeals to a broader audience beyond just political pundits? Is it realistic to expect the general public to engage with a platform that frequently requires self-identification or the completion of numerous political surveys? Additionally, we must consider if the concise, rapid nature of social media content-making hinders the development of meaningful and open discussions. Another aspect to ponder is whether non-political content should be permitted on the platform, and if so, how it would be integrated with political material. Ultimately, the true effectiveness of such a platform can only be determined through practical experimentation. I am hopeful that someone will put Bail's ideas into action and observe their outcomes.
Side observation:
- Quoting sociologist Charles Horton Cooley’s notion of the looking-glass self, Chris Bail claims that social media are addictive not because it provides eye candy or endless distractions, but because it caters to something human craves deeply: 'present different versions of ourselves, observe what other people think of them, and revise our identities accordingly.
1. Contrary to widespread belief, there is scant evidence showing that recommendation algorithms contribute to radicalization.
2. Similarly, researchers have not found evidence of foreign agents having any significant success in dividing American society by disseminating fake news and fostering discord.
3. The concept of the "echo chamber" on social media is overstated. Moreover, attempts to disrupt these echo chambers by simply presenting users with opposing social media posts backfire in experiments, as it highlights the "battle" between contrasting viewpoints.
4. What truly links social media and polarization lies in the twisted political scene social media manifests. Compared to what is present in real life, we observe higher degree of polarization on social media, because:
a. Extremists make a disproportionately large number of political posts on social media to gain status and connect with like-minded individuals.
b. Moderates, in contrast, are reluctant to express their opinions due to the fear of real-life repercussions and harassment by extremists.
5. Owing to the factor outlined above in (4), social media skews the user's view, making "the other side" appear far more extreme. Social scientists call this phenomenon "partisan perception gap".
6. The partisan perception gap further energizes extremists and silences moderates, perpetuating a vicious cycle.
7. By designing a social media platform of their own and observing user behavior, researchers have demonstrated that engaging individuals with different political views in structured, one-on-one online conversation about specific political issues can help reduce polarization.
How can we learn from the research above and effectively reduce polarization? Chris Bail suggests three strategies:
1. Help people recognize that the opposing party is not as polarized as they may falsely believe.
2. Be mindful of our behavior on social media platforms. Moderates should speak up, balancing their desire to preserve their self-image with the consequences of these choices for the public good. Meanwhile, passionate partisans should examine their motivations and consider the consequences before engaging in battles.
3. Create new social media platforms specifically designed to promote political discussion and bridge political divides. To be more specific:
a. These platforms will ask users about their political attitudes when they sign up.
b. The platforms should promote the ranking of messages with bipartisan appeal.
c. Users would not see "Like" counters but would see responses from people across the ideological spectrum.
d. Such platforms can be funded by the government through a digital advertising tax. However, even without government funding, entrepreneurs may find them profitable as they will attract businesses, governments, and nonprofit organizations.
e. Like how Facebook runs experiments to test which designs increase ad revenue, these new platforms should run experiments to test which designs reduce polarization.
f. Existing platforms can be reformed with similar goals in mind.
In my opinion, the author offers a vigorous analysis of the issue and proposes sensible solutions. However, these solutions warrant further examination. For example, how can we ensure that the platform proposed by Bail appeals to a broader audience beyond just political pundits? Is it realistic to expect the general public to engage with a platform that frequently requires self-identification or the completion of numerous political surveys? Additionally, we must consider if the concise, rapid nature of social media content-making hinders the development of meaningful and open discussions. Another aspect to ponder is whether non-political content should be permitted on the platform, and if so, how it would be integrated with political material. Ultimately, the true effectiveness of such a platform can only be determined through practical experimentation. I am hopeful that someone will put Bail's ideas into action and observe their outcomes.
Side observation:
- Quoting sociologist Charles Horton Cooley’s notion of the looking-glass self, Chris Bail claims that social media are addictive not because it provides eye candy or endless distractions, but because it caters to something human craves deeply: 'present different versions of ourselves, observe what other people think of them, and revise our identities accordingly.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 22, 2022
Is social media polarising people? Or is it merely reflecting increased real world political divisions and extremism? That’s one of the questions that occurred to me upon while reading this thoughtful analysis by Chris Bail, a professor of sociology and public policy at Duke University in the US.
Bail, who directs a ‘polarisation lab’ at the university, studies political tribalism, extremism, and social psychology using data from social media and tools from the emerging field of computational social science.
His thesis in this book is that social media, by design, tends to amplify the voices of the extremes at either ends of the political poles. Most people, occupying the centre-left or centre-right, do not share those sentiments but often feel forced to take sides or opt out altogether.
Bail uses a number of case studies to draw out these less wholly committed multitudes - the nominal conservative who sympathises with immigrants; the urban liberal who supports the police. The truth, Bail, finds is that most people are moderate and have views that a world away from the black or white death matches of Twitter wars. But those who are drawn into the the battles can turn into fierce and passionate partisans whose behaviour bears little resemblance to their placid real world identities.
Interestingly, Bail is not a subscriber to the view that the social media companies’ algorithms are fanning and exacerbating political divisions to drive engagement. Instead, he argues our social media behaviour - status-seeking and the eternal quest to be accepted - is just an extension of our ordinary human impulses.
It’s here where he loses me. As a former journalist, I know that the regular media for decades has built a business model around fanning outrage and treating the exceptional as the norm. All that the social media companies have done is put that engagement model on steroids, which is why their share prices are many hundreds of times the multitudes of legacy media. They have won the Attention Economy. Exploiting outrage and division is now done on an industrial and global scale because of the power of this technology.
Bail’s book naturally focuses on the US, where polarisation seems to be at its most extreme anywhere in the world. Yet Twitter and Facebook and Instagram are used globally and while there are trolls and extremists all over the internet, it’s hard for me not to conclude that America’s problems have more to do with its own political economy, its extreme inequality, its violent gun culture, its decaying infrastructure and institutions than to the fact that people aren’t nice to each other on Facebook.
The emergence of Trump - while fuelled by social media - was fundamentally an outcome of the breakdown of the neoliberal order in the wake of the global financial crisis. People lost faith in democratic institutions and became susceptible to the ranting of a deranged demagogue who exploited often legitimate grievances and resentments
However, I do agree with Bail about the need to break the social media prism as it stands and build a new kind of platform that encourages a more tolerant form of discussion, one that encourages people to listen to what drives the anger and fear of those on the other side of the aisle. And I do agree that there is much more nuance and shades of grey among real political opinion than the economics of social (AND mainstream) media demand.
Bail, who directs a ‘polarisation lab’ at the university, studies political tribalism, extremism, and social psychology using data from social media and tools from the emerging field of computational social science.
His thesis in this book is that social media, by design, tends to amplify the voices of the extremes at either ends of the political poles. Most people, occupying the centre-left or centre-right, do not share those sentiments but often feel forced to take sides or opt out altogether.
Bail uses a number of case studies to draw out these less wholly committed multitudes - the nominal conservative who sympathises with immigrants; the urban liberal who supports the police. The truth, Bail, finds is that most people are moderate and have views that a world away from the black or white death matches of Twitter wars. But those who are drawn into the the battles can turn into fierce and passionate partisans whose behaviour bears little resemblance to their placid real world identities.
Interestingly, Bail is not a subscriber to the view that the social media companies’ algorithms are fanning and exacerbating political divisions to drive engagement. Instead, he argues our social media behaviour - status-seeking and the eternal quest to be accepted - is just an extension of our ordinary human impulses.
It’s here where he loses me. As a former journalist, I know that the regular media for decades has built a business model around fanning outrage and treating the exceptional as the norm. All that the social media companies have done is put that engagement model on steroids, which is why their share prices are many hundreds of times the multitudes of legacy media. They have won the Attention Economy. Exploiting outrage and division is now done on an industrial and global scale because of the power of this technology.
Bail’s book naturally focuses on the US, where polarisation seems to be at its most extreme anywhere in the world. Yet Twitter and Facebook and Instagram are used globally and while there are trolls and extremists all over the internet, it’s hard for me not to conclude that America’s problems have more to do with its own political economy, its extreme inequality, its violent gun culture, its decaying infrastructure and institutions than to the fact that people aren’t nice to each other on Facebook.
The emergence of Trump - while fuelled by social media - was fundamentally an outcome of the breakdown of the neoliberal order in the wake of the global financial crisis. People lost faith in democratic institutions and became susceptible to the ranting of a deranged demagogue who exploited often legitimate grievances and resentments
However, I do agree with Bail about the need to break the social media prism as it stands and build a new kind of platform that encourages a more tolerant form of discussion, one that encourages people to listen to what drives the anger and fear of those on the other side of the aisle. And I do agree that there is much more nuance and shades of grey among real political opinion than the economics of social (AND mainstream) media demand.
June 21, 2021
Has anyone ever told you that the problem with social media is that it creates an echo chamber? You only hear from other people who agree with you and so you slowly become more and more extreme in your political and social views? That all we need is to just expose ourselves to more and more opposing viewpoints and we will just become more moderate?
Turns out, that isn't true.
The book is written by a computational analyst who ran a series of experiments where people spent a month following a bot on Twitter who would retweet tweets from pundits, politicians, and thought leaders from the opposite political party of the participants. At the end of the month every participant in the study became more polarized, not less. Exposure to the opposite view point on social media led to people feeling more embattled, attacked, and so they doubled down even more on their views.
The author argues that we need something more than just exposure to opposite view points. Big takeaways I got from the book:
- Another reminder of just how dangerous social media is for our society as a whole.
- That being said, it probably isn't going away anytime soon, so we need to think about how to make it better.
- The majority of content produced on social media are generated by a very small fraction of the population, and usually that small fraction are those with the most extreme views. So SM presents a warped picture of reality--most Republicans are not as extreme in their views as the most popular conservative voices on SM, and likewise with Democrats. But if SM is your only avenue for viewing what the "other party" is like, you will be left thinking: "Wow, those people are crazy." And, ironically, it becomes a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. You start treating all people of the other party with that kind of disdain and suspicion, and thus become less open to thinking they might have something useful to contribute and less likely to change your mind.
- The most insightful thing I took away from this was the need for more moderates to share their opinions on SM. I myself am fairly moderate, but often feel disenfranchised from wading into sharing my opinion on politics because "what good will that do." But, according to the author, it actually might do a lot. It might not result in slam dunks on SM, but it will at least present pictures of reasonableness and moderation so that all progressives and conservatives don't have these cartoonish caricatures of what the other party looks like; they will at least be able to see a picture of a progressive who is willing to concede some points, or a conservative who is willing to be critical of people within her own party, etc.
Turns out, that isn't true.
The book is written by a computational analyst who ran a series of experiments where people spent a month following a bot on Twitter who would retweet tweets from pundits, politicians, and thought leaders from the opposite political party of the participants. At the end of the month every participant in the study became more polarized, not less. Exposure to the opposite view point on social media led to people feeling more embattled, attacked, and so they doubled down even more on their views.
The author argues that we need something more than just exposure to opposite view points. Big takeaways I got from the book:
- Another reminder of just how dangerous social media is for our society as a whole.
- That being said, it probably isn't going away anytime soon, so we need to think about how to make it better.
- The majority of content produced on social media are generated by a very small fraction of the population, and usually that small fraction are those with the most extreme views. So SM presents a warped picture of reality--most Republicans are not as extreme in their views as the most popular conservative voices on SM, and likewise with Democrats. But if SM is your only avenue for viewing what the "other party" is like, you will be left thinking: "Wow, those people are crazy." And, ironically, it becomes a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. You start treating all people of the other party with that kind of disdain and suspicion, and thus become less open to thinking they might have something useful to contribute and less likely to change your mind.
- The most insightful thing I took away from this was the need for more moderates to share their opinions on SM. I myself am fairly moderate, but often feel disenfranchised from wading into sharing my opinion on politics because "what good will that do." But, according to the author, it actually might do a lot. It might not result in slam dunks on SM, but it will at least present pictures of reasonableness and moderation so that all progressives and conservatives don't have these cartoonish caricatures of what the other party looks like; they will at least be able to see a picture of a progressive who is willing to concede some points, or a conservative who is willing to be critical of people within her own party, etc.
May 28, 2021
This is a scholarly book that reads a little dry from time to time. But I think it conveys important information. The author studies polarization of political opinions on social media. His three experiments show when you expose Twitter users to political opinions that are drastically different from their own, the users become even more firmly grounded in their existing views and often even develop slightly more extreme views. So if you want to get out of your comfort zone and understand what people different from you are thinking, he recommends exposing yourself to views that are only slightly more conservative or liberal than your own.
His study also shows that people with extreme political views will be more vocal about them, because it helps them establish their online identity. They will gain followers and get retweeted, and they gain satisfaction through that. Whereas people with moderate political views tend to not post those views at all, because they want to preserve their relationships in real life. They don't want to antagonize their friends or family members who do post extreme views online, or get into trouble with people in their workplace who would prefer their employees to remain neutral. Because of these two phenomena, social media has a lot more posts with extreme views than nuanced, moderate views, and people using social media may have a twisted perception of where the public stands.
He gave some suggestions on how to break this "social media prism" on public opinion. Basically, he encourages people with moderates to post more and to find users who differ only slightly from them in their political views. His lab's website, polarizationlab.com, provides some tools you can use to self-diagnose where your twitter handle falls on the spectrum of political views and offers two bots that will retweet such messages for you to subscribe to. He envision one day there can be a social media platform with algorithm that automatically encourages these two behaviors. He also had some suggestions for people with extreme views on how to communicate in a way that will be more persuasive for readers who hold different opinions from them.
His study also shows that people with extreme political views will be more vocal about them, because it helps them establish their online identity. They will gain followers and get retweeted, and they gain satisfaction through that. Whereas people with moderate political views tend to not post those views at all, because they want to preserve their relationships in real life. They don't want to antagonize their friends or family members who do post extreme views online, or get into trouble with people in their workplace who would prefer their employees to remain neutral. Because of these two phenomena, social media has a lot more posts with extreme views than nuanced, moderate views, and people using social media may have a twisted perception of where the public stands.
He gave some suggestions on how to break this "social media prism" on public opinion. Basically, he encourages people with moderates to post more and to find users who differ only slightly from them in their political views. His lab's website, polarizationlab.com, provides some tools you can use to self-diagnose where your twitter handle falls on the spectrum of political views and offers two bots that will retweet such messages for you to subscribe to. He envision one day there can be a social media platform with algorithm that automatically encourages these two behaviors. He also had some suggestions for people with extreme views on how to communicate in a way that will be more persuasive for readers who hold different opinions from them.
March 13, 2022
This was an engaging read! I like these types of books because their arguments are nuanced and empirical, rather than being led by intuition and sweeping, almost self-evident claims.
Here’s how I might summarize Bail’s feelings about social media: it does seem to increase polarization and drown out moderate voices, but it’s not the source of all of our problems, as some might have you believe. A lot of our issues are either a continuation of trends that were already happening (e.g., from cable news), or simply reflections of human nature that are made easier by, but not originating from, social media. That said, it could be restructured and posts could be ordered in a way that leads to much less divisiveness.
One really interesting finding was around the idea of how social media creates echo chambers. The argument seems obvious: social media creates echo chambers where people only see posts from ideologically similar people, and as a result, lose a sense of empathy with the other side. However, one of their experiments that paid people to follow Twitter bots retweeting posts from the other side of the aisle found that doing so actually *increases* resentment of the other party. This isn’t to say the echo chamber argument isn’t true, but simply inserting posts from members of the other party is not the solution some might have hoped.
One other thing I liked about the book was that it was based on RCTs run by the researchers. For example, randomly assigning people to follow accounts from the other side of the spectrum, and even building their own anonymous, conversation-based social media app, which did end up decreasing polarization. This type of research is compelling because the randomization from the field experiments gives us a better understanding of causality, and by building their own social media apps, rather than asking people how they use them, the researchers were able to observe people in their natural habitats.
Lastly, of course, my favorite section was the appendix on research methods! It was really interesting to hear how they considered Twitter’s ranking system and the bias it might introduce when designing their experiment.
Here’s how I might summarize Bail’s feelings about social media: it does seem to increase polarization and drown out moderate voices, but it’s not the source of all of our problems, as some might have you believe. A lot of our issues are either a continuation of trends that were already happening (e.g., from cable news), or simply reflections of human nature that are made easier by, but not originating from, social media. That said, it could be restructured and posts could be ordered in a way that leads to much less divisiveness.
One really interesting finding was around the idea of how social media creates echo chambers. The argument seems obvious: social media creates echo chambers where people only see posts from ideologically similar people, and as a result, lose a sense of empathy with the other side. However, one of their experiments that paid people to follow Twitter bots retweeting posts from the other side of the aisle found that doing so actually *increases* resentment of the other party. This isn’t to say the echo chamber argument isn’t true, but simply inserting posts from members of the other party is not the solution some might have hoped.
One other thing I liked about the book was that it was based on RCTs run by the researchers. For example, randomly assigning people to follow accounts from the other side of the spectrum, and even building their own anonymous, conversation-based social media app, which did end up decreasing polarization. This type of research is compelling because the randomization from the field experiments gives us a better understanding of causality, and by building their own social media apps, rather than asking people how they use them, the researchers were able to observe people in their natural habitats.
Lastly, of course, my favorite section was the appendix on research methods! It was really interesting to hear how they considered Twitter’s ranking system and the bias it might introduce when designing their experiment.
July 1, 2021
Does the world really need another book telling us how bad social media is? Yes, but only if the book has something genuinely new to add - not just another instance of wrongdoing, but a different perspective from which to view the phenomenon.
While not quite contrarian, Breaking the Social Media Prism belongs to the long tradition of "what if everything you knew about X is wrong?" books. And I can't help but wonder how a reader's familiarity with Bail's central argument - that a small, very active minority of social media users distort our perception of public opinion - affects their enjoyment of this book. As someone who longed in vain to have this argument articulated, I was a highly sympathetic reader. The points that Bail makes aren't terribly complicated, and once you stop talking to journalists and disgruntled ex-employees and actually look at the data - both qualitative and quantitative - they can seem obvious. Breaking the Social Media Prism is the kind of carefully researched, concise, accessible analysis that only seems possible once the initial Moral Panic phase that accompanies the popularization of any new technology has begun to exhaust itself.
In place of misplaced outrage and pie-in-the-sky hopes of wholesale social media reformation, Bail offers workable solutions to specific ills. I didn't always agree with his reasoning or interpretations, but I never felt like he was motivated by anything other than compassion and curiosity.
One of the most admirable facets of the book comes at the end: an extensive Appendix detailing the methods of the original studies referenced in earlier chapters. This kind of radical transparency is especially important when studies involve manipulation of social media feeds as well as deception. Is the average American's trust in social researchers as brittle as we assume it is, or is this another distortion produced by the prism? Bail's book has a way of getting you to question everything you thought you knew about the average American.
While not quite contrarian, Breaking the Social Media Prism belongs to the long tradition of "what if everything you knew about X is wrong?" books. And I can't help but wonder how a reader's familiarity with Bail's central argument - that a small, very active minority of social media users distort our perception of public opinion - affects their enjoyment of this book. As someone who longed in vain to have this argument articulated, I was a highly sympathetic reader. The points that Bail makes aren't terribly complicated, and once you stop talking to journalists and disgruntled ex-employees and actually look at the data - both qualitative and quantitative - they can seem obvious. Breaking the Social Media Prism is the kind of carefully researched, concise, accessible analysis that only seems possible once the initial Moral Panic phase that accompanies the popularization of any new technology has begun to exhaust itself.
In place of misplaced outrage and pie-in-the-sky hopes of wholesale social media reformation, Bail offers workable solutions to specific ills. I didn't always agree with his reasoning or interpretations, but I never felt like he was motivated by anything other than compassion and curiosity.
One of the most admirable facets of the book comes at the end: an extensive Appendix detailing the methods of the original studies referenced in earlier chapters. This kind of radical transparency is especially important when studies involve manipulation of social media feeds as well as deception. Is the average American's trust in social researchers as brittle as we assume it is, or is this another distortion produced by the prism? Bail's book has a way of getting you to question everything you thought you knew about the average American.
May 29, 2021
Chris Bail summarizes the efforts of his organization, the Polarization Lab, to attempt to identify the reason for the sharp disagreements and platforms for extremists that exist on the digital landscape of social media. On this Bail challenges(quite effectively) the notions that Big Tech is solely responsible; research indicates that like social media; not all as it appears to be in terms of culpability and that we must be forced to examine that the individual is to blame in much of what happens online. Bail uses the stories of a wide range of individuals; liberals and conservatives, moderate right and left, young and old, to hammer the point of how the creation of a social imaginary online is hardly compatible to the person in real life, and how breaking the social media prism might online come when we deplatform identity to ideas, and instead invoke honest discussion through anonymity.
While Bail's research is a must read, the solutions he proposes are less compelling to see themselves as workable given the integration of our current social imaginary into the modern-day culture. Bail even admits much as so; monetization and engagement which builds social media companies is the double-edged sword that brings audiences yet fuels extremism. The alternative Bail is suggesting; a social media that is anonymous and brings together nuanced tempered dialogue, does not attract the user base of the masses.
Perhaps the better question for us to consider that Bail is asking us to see in the data, is how the social imaginary is creating not simply false identities of who we really are, but also failing to allow others who disagree the ability to challenge our assumptions. That alone should prick our conscience to consider and pull back the curtain the apps on our phones, and maybe; just maybe, stop being so quick to demonize others.
While Bail's research is a must read, the solutions he proposes are less compelling to see themselves as workable given the integration of our current social imaginary into the modern-day culture. Bail even admits much as so; monetization and engagement which builds social media companies is the double-edged sword that brings audiences yet fuels extremism. The alternative Bail is suggesting; a social media that is anonymous and brings together nuanced tempered dialogue, does not attract the user base of the masses.
Perhaps the better question for us to consider that Bail is asking us to see in the data, is how the social imaginary is creating not simply false identities of who we really are, but also failing to allow others who disagree the ability to challenge our assumptions. That alone should prick our conscience to consider and pull back the curtain the apps on our phones, and maybe; just maybe, stop being so quick to demonize others.
March 7, 2022
The main theses are surely right:
* News about politics activates people’s identities and ideological defensiveness.
* Digital platforms effectively mute moderates.
* "Echo chambers" and a lack of information is not what makes people uncivil; in fact they often get nastier if they learn more about the other political tribe.
The take-away is: the problem is not that people don't encounter diverse content; what matters is what people do in response to the content they hate. (This is also reminiscent of Axel Brun's important book Are Filter Bubbles Real?)
A representative quote: “the social media prism fuels status-seeking extremists, mutes moderates who think there is little to be gained by discussing politics on social media, and leaves most of us with profound misgivings about those on the other side”
Two criticisms:
1. Some references are spelled incorrectly (yes, that includes an instance when my work is cited).
2. I didn’t buy the argument that social media must remain polarizing because “the best available evidence suggests that machine learn- ing has a long way to go before it can predict complex human behavior, much less change it”. Actually, basic introduction of friction (to make fewer posts to viral) would reduce polarization; no complex models are needed.
The final point is purely subjective, but I just don't agree that the online environment will improve once people develop mindfulness techniques and we all change our behaviors (Chapter 8). If it's really true that "it will be largely up to us—the people who use social media—to improve our current platforms from the bottom up" then deleting accounts might be the right way to go after all...
* News about politics activates people’s identities and ideological defensiveness.
* Digital platforms effectively mute moderates.
* "Echo chambers" and a lack of information is not what makes people uncivil; in fact they often get nastier if they learn more about the other political tribe.
The take-away is: the problem is not that people don't encounter diverse content; what matters is what people do in response to the content they hate. (This is also reminiscent of Axel Brun's important book Are Filter Bubbles Real?)
A representative quote: “the social media prism fuels status-seeking extremists, mutes moderates who think there is little to be gained by discussing politics on social media, and leaves most of us with profound misgivings about those on the other side”
Two criticisms:
1. Some references are spelled incorrectly (yes, that includes an instance when my work is cited).
2. I didn’t buy the argument that social media must remain polarizing because “the best available evidence suggests that machine learn- ing has a long way to go before it can predict complex human behavior, much less change it”. Actually, basic introduction of friction (to make fewer posts to viral) would reduce polarization; no complex models are needed.
The final point is purely subjective, but I just don't agree that the online environment will improve once people develop mindfulness techniques and we all change our behaviors (Chapter 8). If it's really true that "it will be largely up to us—the people who use social media—to improve our current platforms from the bottom up" then deleting accounts might be the right way to go after all...
July 11, 2021
Deeply driven by research, Bail offers both a diagnosis for the highly divisive tone felt on social media and a antidote for restoring the communal and connective spirit originally intended with (almost) each platform. Written in the spirit of an objective surveyor, Bail deftly crafts the portraits of the social media users presented throughout his narrative.
Rather than blaming our current state of divineness on specific parties or platforms, Bail begins by unpacking the "echo chamber" theory, a concept being used (mostly incorrectly) by both liberals and conservatives -- exactly because doing so adds fuel to the flames already ablaze in each side's timeline. Arguing instead for seeing social media as a prism that reflects opposing points of view and political agendas, Bail moves to why we are seeing the surge of political extremism, positions that were largely considered on the fringe 4-5 years ago.
The book concludes by bringing light to those who hold moderate political views but are often unwilling to speak up on social media (such as this reviewer) and by presenting a plan for "breaking the prism" (p. 108) and steering social media back towards "a more noble purpose" (p. 128). Bail does not remain in theory, offering a number of principles and practices for de-polarizing our platforms.
Overall, the research is deeply substantive and highly methodological. And while, in some ways, the research is already dated (although the book discusses the Covid-19 pandemic, it only covers it though mid-2020), the narrative is still incredible relevant and should foster many needed conversations regarding ways to de-polarize social media.
Rather than blaming our current state of divineness on specific parties or platforms, Bail begins by unpacking the "echo chamber" theory, a concept being used (mostly incorrectly) by both liberals and conservatives -- exactly because doing so adds fuel to the flames already ablaze in each side's timeline. Arguing instead for seeing social media as a prism that reflects opposing points of view and political agendas, Bail moves to why we are seeing the surge of political extremism, positions that were largely considered on the fringe 4-5 years ago.
The book concludes by bringing light to those who hold moderate political views but are often unwilling to speak up on social media (such as this reviewer) and by presenting a plan for "breaking the prism" (p. 108) and steering social media back towards "a more noble purpose" (p. 128). Bail does not remain in theory, offering a number of principles and practices for de-polarizing our platforms.
Overall, the research is deeply substantive and highly methodological. And while, in some ways, the research is already dated (although the book discusses the Covid-19 pandemic, it only covers it though mid-2020), the narrative is still incredible relevant and should foster many needed conversations regarding ways to de-polarize social media.
April 12, 2024
Breaking the Social Media Prism is an insightful book by Duke professor Chris Bail on the concept of the ‘social media prism’ and how it fuels extreme views while muting moderates and those with civility from public discourse.
I liked some of the arguments — mainly the one that social media has fueled division largely due to platforms being built with purposes other than fostering productive conversations and information — but disagreed with other ideas — such as downplaying the role of algorithms and the companies’ profit motive. I was also bothered by the lax use of commonly used (and abused) words like polarization and extremism, as Bail seems to have changing definitions for these terms throughout the book and uses words with different meanings interchangeably.
Nonetheless, the insights and cited research are useful for analyzing the role of social media in our current world. (For example, it turns out that making a person with extreme views exposed to ideas from the opposite end of the spectrum — therefore breaking their echo chamber — is counterproductive and likely to make them even more convinced of their preexisting views.)
I’ve compiled a list of highlighted quotes from the book in case you’re interested in reading a snippet of Bail’s arguments and insights in his own words, which you can access here.
I liked some of the arguments — mainly the one that social media has fueled division largely due to platforms being built with purposes other than fostering productive conversations and information — but disagreed with other ideas — such as downplaying the role of algorithms and the companies’ profit motive. I was also bothered by the lax use of commonly used (and abused) words like polarization and extremism, as Bail seems to have changing definitions for these terms throughout the book and uses words with different meanings interchangeably.
Nonetheless, the insights and cited research are useful for analyzing the role of social media in our current world. (For example, it turns out that making a person with extreme views exposed to ideas from the opposite end of the spectrum — therefore breaking their echo chamber — is counterproductive and likely to make them even more convinced of their preexisting views.)
I’ve compiled a list of highlighted quotes from the book in case you’re interested in reading a snippet of Bail’s arguments and insights in his own words, which you can access here.
January 1, 2022
"...people keep coming back to social media because they help us do something that makes us distinctively human: create, revise, and maintain our identities to gain social status. Social media allow people to present different versions of themselves, monitor how others react to those versions, and revise their identities with unprecedented speed and efficiency. But we humans are notoriously bad at judging what other people think of us--and the fleeting interactions we have with each other on social media make matters even worse...the social media prism fuels extremism, mutes moderates, and leaves most of us with profound misgivings about the other side. But we won't stop using social media any sooner than we will stop caring about our identities and social status." (p. 127-128)
This book was Christopher Bail putting his lab's work and thesis in layman terms. It was argued well with fitting stories and anecdotes placed perfectly among the data-proven research. I'd highly recommend this book for anyone attempting to understand human behavior on social media. I also recommend this book for anyone who will be tackling the next great challenge of designing social media for better use. It does not give answers, but expertly explains the landscape of what currently happens with social media.
This book was Christopher Bail putting his lab's work and thesis in layman terms. It was argued well with fitting stories and anecdotes placed perfectly among the data-proven research. I'd highly recommend this book for anyone attempting to understand human behavior on social media. I also recommend this book for anyone who will be tackling the next great challenge of designing social media for better use. It does not give answers, but expertly explains the landscape of what currently happens with social media.
May 8, 2021
A really solid sociological examination of American politics on social media based on a series of qualitative and quantitative studies. The author does a great job of disproving the myth that polemical polarism is caused by “echo chambers” and rather argues that twitter in particular 1) amplifies extreme views via the fact that the minority of polemical tweeters make the most tweets 2) that people are driven to identify more strongly with one political identity to the exclusion of others so that moderates are attacked 3) political dialogue is made to be a part of communal identity building; attacking a target of ridicule (eg someone who is “canceled”) serves the purpose of community bonding and is a exercise of virtue signalling.
A lot of the ideas here weren’t knew to me but this is a short and easy book to read and well worth taking a look at!
This quote basically summarizes the findings about how politics works for those who use twitter, alongside the idea that seeing opposing ideas actually can solidify extremism as one is forced to adopt and us v them narrative:
“Partisan warfare, it seemed, is often more about status signalling and bonding than persuading others”
A lot of the ideas here weren’t knew to me but this is a short and easy book to read and well worth taking a look at!
This quote basically summarizes the findings about how politics works for those who use twitter, alongside the idea that seeing opposing ideas actually can solidify extremism as one is forced to adopt and us v them narrative:
“Partisan warfare, it seemed, is often more about status signalling and bonding than persuading others”
Displaying 1 - 30 of 76 reviews