Have you found yourself looking at the comments section of your favorite news media account and been shocked at how… angry people are?
You’re not alone.
Digital technology has allowed a wider range of individuals to participate in conversations about politics and important controversial issues. Data following the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election even found that “the more politically engaged people are on social media, the more likely they are to engage offline across measures of engagement,” (Piatak & Mikkelsen, 2021). Additional research has pointed to similar trends amongst young adults, a notoriously difficult age group to mobilize to vote (Boulianne & Theocharis, 2018).
A comment made by Facebook user “Cindy” regarding conspiracy theories.
However, just because people are engaging online doesn’t mean they’re doing it civilly.
Facebook accounts for major broadcast news agencies, like CNN and Fox News, post news articles every few hours on topics ranging from popular news to politics. The politics posts specifically receive massive amounts of engagement, and not all of it polite.
Despite the benefits to the political process, social media also offers additional outlets of aggression and intolerance, sarcasm and name-calling especially prominent.
New Technology Means Larger Audiences
Digital researcher Nancy Baym, in her 2015 book, Personal Connections in the Digital Age, notes that “on social networking sites (SNSs), messages are only seen by people tied to a user’s individualized network, which is a tiny subset of users,” (p. 100). However, with large media accounts allowing open comments sections, messages can be seen by anyone with or without an account for that media site. Those messages posted to SNSs can now be seen by thousands, if not millions, of other users.
An interesting consequence of open comment sections on social media sites is confirmation bias. Research done on social influence and the collective dynamics of opinion formation found that “contradictory feedback is typically underestimated-if not completely ignored-but opinions corroborating one’s initial opinion trigger an increase in confidence,” (Moussaid et al, 2013).
The comments sections, in turn, change into open marketplaces for media users to shop through for their particular, favored opinion or conspiracy theory, ignoring anything that is out-of-line with their beliefs.
Worse, though, is when these media users instead engage with opinions they disagree with.
Comments-to-Comments, and Violations of Social Media Policies
Facebook posts, as most of you know, are home to a variety of online dialogue types, both rude and polite, factual and fake. And while it may not come as a surprise that online conversations are oftentimes hostile, it may come as a surprise just how often that’s the case.
According to preliminary research conducted on Facebook news articles posted by CNN, 43% of primary comments, as in initial comments posted to the news article, were categorized as inflammatory or insulting. Interestingly, almost 50% of secondary comments, as in comments to primary comments, were categorized as inflammatory or insulting.
A secondary comment, meaning a comment responding to a comment made initially to a Facebook post. Often times these types of comments are more inflammatory or insulting than primary comments.
Likely galvanized by a sense of anonymity, people respond to opinions differing from their own with aggression and brutality.
Facebook news pages are filled with aggressive responses to people with differing opinions, often questioning their intelligence, their ability to distinguish fact from fiction, or even commenting on their personal appearance.
Interestingly, these ‘comments-to-comments’ are open for public viewing without an account of your own, and because the main media accounts publishing the articles are open accounts as well, anyone can screenshot the comment section with names and profile pictures attached.
This becomes especially important to anyone who signed a social media agreement as a condition of their employment. In recent years, companies have been forced to take these extraordinary actions, as “especially inappropriate statements in employee postings can put the corporate reputation at risk, and even create legal implications for the company,” (Schaarschmidt & Walsh, 2020).
These agreements can become even more complicated when controversial political topics come up. A former Maryland state government employee lost his job over “memes and comments on Facebook that sympathized with Kyle Rittenhouse, a teenager charged with shooting racial justice and police reform demonstrators in Kenosha, Wisconsin.” The employee, however, has now filed a lawsuit saying he was a victim of “viewpoint discrimination,” (Wood, 2021).
Companies in recent years have struggled to find a healthy balance between respecting freedom of speech, and ensuring that their employees don’t make the splash page of any national news websites for derogatory or inappropriate comments.
Comments Sections and Foreign Propaganda
To add to the already complex digital environment, a study conducted by the University of Oxford found that social media manipulation campaigns using disinformation deployed as part of political communication were found in more than 93% of countries surveyed (University of Oxford, 2021).
Now more than ever, it’s become more difficult to tell when real, authentic civic engagement is occurring in the comments section, and when instead, foreign media manipulation is occurring via Artificial Intelligence, or troll bots.
Linking these findings with confirmation bias found in digital media, and social media users are at an all-time-high risk of having false narratives be the overwhelmingly supported opinion, impacting their own formation of political opinions.
Additional findings from the research done on collective dynamics of opinion formation found that there are two major attractors of opinion: “the expert effect, induced by the presence of a highly confident individual in the group,” and “the majority effect, caused by the presence of a critical mass of lay people sharing similar opinions,” (Moussaid et al, 2013).
When so-called “experts” hit the open comments sections, their expertise can validate pre-existing opinions of others. Especially if that’s all people are looking for. Add in the difficulty of distinguishing sarcasm from candor over unenriched text, and social media perusers can be easily misled.
The majority effect too, can further confirmation bias as commenters flood comment sections with only one viewpoint. This holds especially true as digital media is more divisive than ever. Also consider that foreign actors’ sole job is to post inflammatory comments supporting or opposing specific political views. Those comments, seeming to come from real people, can have a real impact on the public’s opinion.
As commenters become more and more confident in their opinions, whether validly or not, some can become quick to respond to opposing views with rancor, and sarcasm.
Civic Engagement in the Digital Age
While digital media promises increased civic engagement, and resulting higher participation in the political process, it also comes with a warning label. Fake experts can post factual-sounding opinions with limited repercussions. People waffling between stances can be easily influenced by foreign actors, or a flood of comments supporting one side. Even people who just want to post their thoughts on important news topics find themselves the target of aggressive, sometimes personal, online hate.
But, if you take a careful and cautious approach to civic engagement in digital media, it can still be a tool to uplift social movements, increase outreach on important topics, and increase voting, especially amongst a generation of tech-savvy youth.
The best rule of thumb? Be careful of what you read, what you post, and what opinions you seek out.
References
Baym, N. K. (2015). Personal connections in the digital age. Polity Press.
Boulianne, S., & Theocharis, Y. (2018). Young people, digital media, and engagement: A meta-analysis of research. Social Science Computer Review, 38(2), 111-127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439318814190
Moussaïd M., Kämmer J.E., Analytis P.P., Neth H. (2013) Social Influence and the collective dynamics of opinion formation. PLoS ONE, 8(11): e78433. https://doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0078433
Piatak, J., & Mikkelsen, I. (2021). Does social media engagement translate to civic engagement offline? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 50(5), 1079-1101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764021999444
Schaarschmidt, M., & Walsh, G. (2020). Social media-driven antecedents and consequences of employees’ awareness of their impact on corporate reputation. Journal of Business Research, 117, 718-726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.027
University of Oxford. (2021, January 13). Social media manipulation by political actors an industrial scale problem – Oxford report. University of Oxford. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-01-13-social-media-manipulation-political-actors-industrial-scale-problem-oxford-report
Wood, P. (2021, August 11). Former Maryland employee fired over social media posts files lawsuit. The Baltimore Sun. https://www.baltimoresun.com/politics/bs-md-pol-mac-love-lawsuit-20210811-t4wiydg64revjowvyyihls2m2u-story.html
