How Social Media Fuels Polarization
In the digital age, we find ourselves increasingly divided, not just by our beliefs and values, but by the very technologies designed to connect us. The sophisticated algorithms that power our social media feeds have created what experts describe as information bubbles, fundamentally changing how we consume and process information about the world around us. Last week we opened this question to a diverse group of technologists, GenZ makers, and media pros with a variety of political perspectives. They disagreed about many things, but the power and danger of social media were at the white-hot center.
“Social media algorithms have created isolated information bubbles, leading to increased polarization,” explains Robbie Dornbush, Chief of Staff at Accountable Tech. “AI-generated memes and misinformation spread rapidly, with people sharing what felt to be their truth. This cycle is a challenge we’ve been observing for the past 8 to 10 years as algorithms have grown more sophisticated.” This observation points to a troubling reality: our digital spaces are becoming increasingly segregated, with users primarily exposed to content that reinforces their existing beliefs.
Yet the very concept of misinformation itself is being challenged. As Axel Clavier, GenZ thinker and SMC Advisor, provocatively argues, “‘Misinformation’ doesn’t meaningfully describe anything that really exists, since it is a label which has essentially come to mean ‘that which those in positions of economic and social privilege believe contradicts what they believe is true and right behavior.’” This perspective suggests that our concerns about misinformation might actually reflect a deeper anxiety about the democratization of information itself.
The problem goes deeper than just algorithm design. As Dr. Ann Hollifield, Sustainable Media Expert and Professor Emeritus at the University of Georgia, points out, “The algorithms wouldn’t work if they weren’t playing into how the human brain works. We often assume that truth prevails in the free marketplace of ideas, but neuroscience and psychiatry suggest this was never the case. People willingly enter Internet bubbles and close the door behind them.” This insight suggests that the challenge of polarization isn’t merely technological — it’s fundamentally human.
Perhaps most concerning is how this polarization has become profitable. “We’re creating a generation of conflict entrepreneurs who realize they can make money by causing division, whether through truth or lies,” warns Mark Walsh, SMC Board Member and Washington Tech leader and Entrepreneur. “Back in the day, news divisions lost money, but now, ‘news’ is a profitable business model that prioritizes conflict over truth.” This commercialization of conflict has transformed our media landscape, creating an ecosystem where divisive content flourishes because it drives engagement and, consequently, revenue.
The impact extends beyond social media to traditional journalism. As Kanika Mehra, SMC GenZ Board member and former NBC researcher, observes, “Journalism is about conflict because there’s a lot of injustice in our system. But the media has failed by focusing on conflicts that don’t matter, distracting us from real issues like climate and corporate power.” At the heart of this transformation is what Clavier describes as a fundamental shift in how trust operates: “The nature of trust has changed. In this messy, crowded, and unstructured information landscape, authority no longer carries with it a guarantee of credibility.”
However, amid these challenges, innovative solutions are emerging. Steven Rosenbaum, five-time startup founder and SMC Executive Director, describes one approach: “We’re almost 200 leaders, technologists, media makers, Gen Z activists, parents, and philanthropists. We don’t agree on everything, but we believe that this organization is intergenerational. Our hope is that new ideas will emerge from the white space between legislation, innovation, youth power, and early internet innovators.”
Another promising direction involves creating alternative digital spaces. As Yair Landau, former President of Sony Pictures Digital Entertainment and SMC Board Member, notes, “I think one of the things that really struck us was that nobody was proposing alternative platforms. We think that part of the answer to some of the toxicity is to offer non-toxic communities.” This suggestion points to a crucial truth: we need not accept the current state of social media as inevitable or unchangeable.
The stakes in this conversation transcend political ideology. Roger McNamee, early Facebook investor and author of “Zucked,” cuts to the heart of the matter: “The problem with Facebook is not that the company is doing evil things. The problem is its business model depends on increasing engagement, and the most reliable way to increase engagement is to appeal to fear and anger.” This fundamental flaw in social media’s architecture is further illuminated by Scott Galloway, Professor at NYU Stern and co-host of Pivot with Kara Swisher, who observes, “We’ve created a system where rage equals engagement, and engagement equals cash. The business model of social media is to make discourse more emotional and less rational.”
These are not merely technical or commercial challenges, but existential threats to our democratic society. In a landmark speech at Stanford University in April 2022, former President Barack Obama delivered a stark warning about the scale of this crisis: “People are dying because of misinformation. Our democracy is at serious risk when we can’t distinguish between truth and fiction. The systematic spread of disinformation and monetization of division isn’t just changing how we communicate — it’s changing the very foundations of our society.” His conclusion was unequivocal: “If we do not have the capacity to distinguish what’s true from what’s false, then by definition, the marketplace of ideas doesn’t work. And by definition, our democracy doesn’t work.”
The challenge before us is not merely technological but deeply human. We must confront the reality that our current digital ecosystem, with its emphasis on engagement over enlightenment, controversy over clarity, and division over understanding, is actively reshaping our society in ways that may be difficult to reverse. The solution lies not just in new platforms or better algorithms but in fundamentally rethinking how we value and share information in the digital age — creating a future where our digital tools serve to strengthen, rather than undermine, the foundations of democratic discourse. The question is not whether we can return to some idealized past of unified truth, but whether we can forge a future where diverse perspectives can coexist without descending into toxic polarization.
Steven Rosenbaum / 11/19/24
