Polarization of society by the Internet

-- By RyotaSaito - 08 Dec 2021

1 Introduction

As discussed in our class homework assignment, "The Great Hack," social fragmentation caused by the Internet has become a worldwide problem. Tolerance for opinions that differ from one's own is declining (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/), and the polarization of society by the Internet has been accelerated by the echo-chamber phenomenon and the filter bubble. How should we deal with this problem?

2 Causes of the increasing polarization of society due to the Internet

Why is the Internet dividing society so much? I believe that the reason is the increase in the number of media due to the Internet. Before the spread of the Internet, the main media were television and newspapers. Families got their information from one TV and one newspaper.

Are you sure? I grew up reading at least two newspapers a day, as many other 20th century people did. I still read three major newspapers a day in English, though I read them online rather than on paper. I think the understanding of media diet has to be based on something more than number of sources.

Since networks were not as developed as they are now, the number of TV channels was much fewer than now, and if you went to school or work, everyone was often watching the same TV programs. Thus, before the advent of the Internet, there were few mass media, and thus, even if the information was not of interest to you, you were semi-compulsively exposed to it. However, with the spread of the Internet, the number of media has increased exponentially. This has made it possible for people to select only the information they are interested in, and to eliminate opinions that they are not interested in or with which they disagree. Along with this, the senders of information have also changed. That is, in the past (at least in Japan), because there were fewer media outlets, the newspapers and TV stations of the time were representative of the media and provided news on a wide range of topics in a neutral manner. However, in today's world where there are many media outlets, newspapers and TV stations often express extreme opinions in order to survive. This is because the increasing fragmentation of the readership has created an environment in which extreme opinions are more likely to attract specific customers. Thus, I believe that the increase of media through the Internet is the cause of the polarization of society.

3 IT giants' promotion of the echo-chamber phenomenon

As discussed in class and in "The Great Hack," the promotion of social division by Facebook and Google is also a problem, as they acquire users' privacy and display ads and search results based on it, even though it is technically unnecessary, and encourage users to obtain only certain opinions by selecting what they prefer. In this regard, as we have dealt with in class, it goes without saying that it is desirable to limit unnecessary privacy acquisition. However, I do not think that this is enough to prevent the fragmentation of society by the Internet. This is because even if we limit the unilateral acquisition of privacy by Google and Facebook, the Internet allows users to select only the information they are interested in. For example, even major media outlets allow users to specify their favorite topics in advance so that they can set their preference to display such information. On the other hand, I also believe that we should avoid disallowing the selection of such topics in order to prevent the loss of user convenience. So, how should we deal with the fragmentation of society caused by the Internet?

4 Suggestions

(1) Require platformers to show users that there are always multiple views on the subject of the information they acquire. As mentioned above, I believe that the biggest cause of social polarization caused by the Internet is the fact that users acquire only information of the same opinion as their own and exclude other opinions. This leads to intolerance of other opinions, which in turn causes social polarization. Therefore, it is conceivable to oblige the platformer to always show the user that there are multiple views on the subject of the information the user acquires. This would force users to be exposed to opinions that differ from their own halfway through the process, just as they were before the spread of the Internet, and we believe that this would increase their tolerance for other opinions. We believe that such an approach should be technically and legally possible without gaining users' privacy. This is because such a mandate is only an indirect restriction on freedom of expression, not a direct restriction on freedom of expression that would exclude certain views.

(2) Consciously listen to opposing views Naturally, in addition to the legal and technical solutions of obliging the platformers mentioned above, there is also a need to improve the awareness of individuals. In other words, it is important for us as individuals to consciously listen to opinions that differ from our own. We should also educate our children about this.

The draft spends way too much time on presenting a familiar account of how "polarization" is created by "echo chamber" effects attributable to the engagement-maximizing social media platforms. It would be valuable to give some critical attention to the mechanism assumed. If the platforms are maximizing engagement with them as a proportion of the "attention day," is this displacing activities that used to "de-polarize" sentiment? Sensationalism was not the bane of well-meaning if somewhat condescending social critics, left and right, in the 20th century?

Another way to think about this phenomenon is to see the merger of the vernacular of the street with the distribution mechanisms only available to "broadcasting" (and therefore to consolidated capital and/or state power in the last century. This view need not deny the importance of the political economy of the platforms, or even to deny the existence of my Parasite with the Mind of God. But it does not grant the causal simplicity that this new mythology seems to depend on. I think that's a criticism to which both you and I should be responsive.

---

You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:

• #Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, RyotaSaito
• #Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.