On social networks, negative posts about ideological rivals have a much better chance of going viral. That’s why we can’t get out of the filter bubbles.
How many times have we, users of social media, been told to leave our filter bubbles. Do not always reinforce each other, also listen to the other side, take up their arguments, appreciate their values! Sounds good. But it might still not be a good idea, as psychologists working with Sander van der Linden from the University of Cambridge have now determined through a big data analysis of American postings (Pnas, 21. 6.).
Because what do you learn on a trip to the other side? Only rarely a positive representation and explanation of the political attitudes of those with whom one does not conform. Much more often, however, a hostile hacking around on the ideological opponent – that is, on your own side. Anyone who has to read something like this will feel strengthened in their animosities. And withdraw angrily into the filter bubble. But why are so many posts on Twitter and Facebook about patting political rivals? Because such content has a far greater chance of being “shared” or “liked” by many. And go viral at best.
“Every American has to see Joe Biden’s last dropout,” say Republican supporters. Supporters of the Democrats get excited: “Donald Trump has lied over 3000 times, but the Republicans refuse to admit that he is a liar.” Such reports with which the “in-group” stirs up negative emotions towards the “out-group” , have a much stronger effect than just praising the advantages of the “in-group”.
Self-praise doesn’t work
To determine this, the researchers sifted through 2.7 million tweets and Facebook postings published by the news media or congressmen. The result: an allusion to the political opponent increases the likelihood of spread by 67 percent. Every word that signals a negative emotion such as contempt or hatred increases the chance by 14 percent, every expression of moral indignation by ten percent. Each positive word, on the other hand, reduces the desire to spread what has been read by five percent – “perverse incentives” is what psychologists use for this.
So if, when Facebook changed its algorithm three years ago, it was really about “bringing people together” through “deeper” engagement and more reactions, then the shot backfired. In any case, the platforms benefit from viral content because they generate more ad revenue through it. And political campaigns, whether by parties or activists, need viral material to be successful. How do you get out of there?
The authors believe that the platforms should reward positive content and punish negative content. But that will probably remain a pious wish – or, from the point of view of freedom of expression, a thoroughly unpopular one.
(“Die Presse”, print edition, June 22nd, 2021)
–
