When conservatives consider social media platforms’ influence on discourse, it’s often about Big Tech censoring viewpoints, such as the at least 15 accounts that have been suspended or limited by Twitter for daring to question gender ideology. Less obvious, though potentially more damaging, is how social media’s structure changes the nature of our interactions.
Jonathan Haidt addresses this concerning trend in his recent Atlantic column, “Yes, Social Media Really is Undermining Democracy.” Consensus on the impact of social media has not been settled, he says, because scholarly agreement can take decades. But the dangers are clear enough to act. Haidt builds on his April Atlantic essay, “Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid,” which compared the last decade in America to living as citizens in a post-Babel world. Americans are fragmented and unable to understand each other, just as humanity was when God confused their language in Genesis.
In his new piece, Haidt critiques Meta’s response to that original essay. Meta, citing various studies, argues that polarization began long before social media. Haidt agrees to an extent. Polarization, amplified by cable TV and the media, was rising before social media platforms. But platforms certainly exacerbate polarization. They also facilitate a different, uniquely damaging behavior among users: “the fear of one another.” When expressing your view could lead to a minefield of social disasters, such as getting doxxed, shamed, or fired, debates cease and dissent shuts down, creating an “epidemic of structural stupidity.”
Twitter and Facebook produce echo chambers that tend toward extremes. Haidt cites the Buffalo shooter, who said he got his beliefs “mostly from the internet,” finding there an online community of radical racists which could never exist in his hometown. Echo chambers mean two users can experience entirely different online worlds, two different realities, neither reflecting real life despite having very real consequences for interpersonal relationships.
Rather than offering structural solutions as he did in the first article, Haidt encourages users to act with “courage, moderation, and compassion.”
“The post-Babel world will not be rebuilt by today’s technology companies,” he writes. “That work will be left to citizens who understand the forces that brought us to the verge of self-destruction, and who develop the new habits, virtues, technologies, and shared narratives that will allow us to reap the benefits of living and working together in peace.”
With companies unlikely to change, it’s up to users to focus on meaningful interactions, rather than allowing platforms to rewire how they think through like and retweet buttons that reward blind outrage against the other side. People say things online that they would not dare to in person. One-liners and aggressive comments may earn approval from those who think alike, but they don’t promote a healthy democracy.
People need to reject self-censorship while continuing to engage in good faith, even when the rapidly shifting landscape of instant updates and short attention spans make sustained thought difficult online. Combating the corrosive effects of social media requires understanding what it is doing.
Katelynn Richardson is a summer 2022 Washington Examiner fellow.
