Whose Side Are You On Anyway?

From Homophily to Polarization in Social Media

A Glimpse at Polariztion in Social Media

We have heard it said time and time again, “Birds of a feather flock together.” Never has this seemed to be truer than in today’s society. As we continue to embark on our journey through the information age, technology captains our vessels. Social media has become a lead navigator in our travels and shapes and develops us, sometimes unknowingly. Likes, follow, shares, reposts are al “pings” used to map out us as individuals and as the collective audience; essentially, we become what we like. Our social media activity attracts us to other users that share similar interests, tastes, viewpoints, and experiences. The concept of homophily suggests that our likenesses creates connections, that we are attracted to those people who think the way that we do. Because of the world of social media our reach to these people span far beyond our immediate communities to all corners of the world. An advantage of the concept of homophily is that as we learn that we are not alone in the way that we think, feel, or view things, we can develop a greater sense of self-appreciation. However, there are disadvantages to this concept as well. There is the possibility that as we become more aware of people that we connect to because of our similarities, we may become oblivious to different perspectives. Another disadvantage is that social media can also provide a platform for those individuals or institutions that are not so friendly or productive.

Cliques for Clicks: a Look At Homophily

Polarization: The Other End of the Spectrum

According to Guerra, Meira, Cardie and Kleinberg (2013) “In social sciences, polarization is the social process whereby a social or political group is divided into two opposing sub-groups having conflicting and contrasting positions, goals, and viewpoints, with few individuals remaining neutral or holding an intermediate position” (p. 1). Some areas that polarization is most evident include politics, same-sex marriage, gun control, and abortion. Algorithms used by social media channels like Facebook seem to perpetuate this extension of homophily by constructing these social bubbles that only emphasize our own viewpoints and positions through social interactions. Because we are notably social creatures we appreciate this connectivity and begin to exhaust our effort to maintain these relationships (no matter where they exist in the world). Demers (2017) wrote “[Ideological] echo chambers develop when some form of selection artificially exposes people to sources that agree with what they already believe, and eliminates exposure to contradictory information or posts. This happens in part because social media algorithms want to give us content it knows we like — and that usually means content we already agree with. However, users also create their own echo chambers by following friends, brands, and other sources they align themselves with, and deliberately unfriending, blocking, or avoiding sources that contradict them.” Polarization hammers in beliefs or viewpoints and if the beliefs or viewpoint are not favorable, then it grows to be bigger and more influential.

Get Comfortable Being Uncomfortable

We all have the tendency to want to feel a part of. And when we find a niche that scratches that itch, we usually try to plant our feet in. But at what cost? How does polarization in social media affect us, individually and collectively? The hurtful reality is that the world needs variety and although we would much rather exist in our comfortable little bubble, we probably could better benefit from experiencing the pain that accompanies change. Polarization in social media can be and should be challenged in an effort to create a more well-rounded society. How do we do this? It may prove to be advantageous if we become comfortable with the idea of being uncomfortable. This may mean being algorithmic metrics that suggest content or ideologies outside of our comfort bubble. Maybe another way we reshape our perspectives is by brands openly challenging societal norms. If society says that abortion is wrong, maybe a particular brand presents arguments that suggest that it is right. The risk associated with such behavior is always the loss of a client, but if the glass is half full, than that one client (or few clients) may be worth losing to save the whole.

References

Related posts:

Imagine how we might start mindfully giving ourselves and our children the space to be bored, frustrated, apathetic and lethargic?

Last week we had not too much activities, so I can’t even remember them. However, I can say that it was hard enough for everyone because of home assignments, especially Computer science took a lot of…

Thanks to Vietnam Blockchain Ecosystem Meetup on 14 Jan, we have the chance to gain knowledge about worldwide crypto and blockchain landscape by a quality article from CoinMarketCap! For the 1-minute…