The internet has always been the place to hash out silly feuds with strangers across time zones. As a natural debater (the polite way of saying I am a contrary person), I enjoy watching arguments unfold online —silly things, like the never tireseome question of Marvel vs DC. However, if you’ve spent even a scrap of time on the internet, the rising levels of polarisation and fragmentation are hard to ignore. Affective polarisation, defined as ‘hostility towards people’s political adversaries,’ has become the dominant behavioural mode online and is changing the way people interact with one another.
A Changed Social Environment
Social media has transformed the way people consume and interact with the news. Many of us now discover a breaking news story through an app of choice long before traditional outlets report on it. Politicians use social media to update their voters, campaigners use it to spread political messages, and people tend to respond to viral posts that spark the most outrage and reaffirm their own beliefs about ‘the other side.’ Monetisation of short-form content and algorithms designed to pick up on our preferences have turned controversy and disagreement into lucrative opportunities as people chase likes and views.
By now, we are all familiar with the presence of digital echo chambers that push young men towards incel culture and the growing far-right sentiment on sites like X (formerly Twitter), where Elon Musk wields significant power in pivoting public opinion. We’ve also become comfortable with discussing how the online right-wing community alienates people from progressive politics. However, as a young, progressive person, I find myself increasingly less persuaded by the political side I expected to have the most in common with.
This doesn’t mean I suddenly no longer care for marginalised groups in my community, or a woman’s right to choose as far as her body is concerned. I remain very vocal about my disdain for certain practices, policies, and political parties, which clearly aligns me with those on the left. But just as many of us believe that certain right-wing figures have played a key role in polarising our world, we must equally acknowledge that the left has also pushed people away from meaningful causes.
#EnoughisEnough
The way political and social movements have evolved online has been problematic. Black Lives Matter and #MeToo were both crucial movements that helped open up difficult conversations. However, it’s important to appreciate that these movements do not speak for every person within that particular group, especially when the messages become questionable. An online ‘feminist’ saying ‘#killallmen’ does not represent the opinion of all feminists. Crucially, this message does not imply that all feminists believe that all men should be killed. Part of the problem is the algorithm, which pushes divisive messages to the top, making a minority opinion appear as consensus.
Now consider the Black Lives Matter movement. Its central argument about ongoing racial inequality and police brutality is hardly a fringe position. Despite this, over the years, BLM has become a deeply divisive movement. By 2023, research found that only 51 per cent of American adults supported Black Lives Matter. Additionally, while 84 per cent of Democratic-leaning voters said they supported it, 82 per cent of Republican-leaning voters opposed it. This doesn’t mean that 82 per cent of Republican-leaning voters are all racists. It means that opinion is deeply split, and perhaps for good reason. Valid criticism of protest tactics and unrealistic goals, such as abolishing the police force, highlighted important concerns. However, when these concerns are taken out of context and labelled as ‘racism,’ one outcome is that some people will want to distance themselves from a movement that raises more problems than it hopes to solve.
Feminism suffers from similar problems. #MeToo powerfully exposed endemic sexual harassment within Hollywood and beyond, encouraging survivors of sexual assault to speak up and tell their stories. However, concerns over due process, false accusations, and the movement’s expanding definition are typically associated with the political right and labelled as misogyny. This seems too simplistic. Raising justified concerns about false accusations and ruined lives has nothing to do with hating women; it’s about establishing truth and avoiding the assumption that all men are guilty until proven innocent. Statements like ‘I hate all men,’ whether humorous or not, or ‘no uterus, no opinion,’ can alienate boys and young men from important discussions. Feeling irrelevant and muted, many young men will seek refuge in right-wing spaces, just to be heard.
Heroes v Villains
The main problem is social media’s tendency to turn complicated and nuanced questions into battlegrounds with opposing camps of heroes and villains.
Jubilee Media, a YouTube channel that claims to promote debate and conversation, pits groups against each other in highly confrontational situations such as the 25 v 1 Surrounded format. The company has said it believes ‘discomfort and conflict are pivotal forces in creating human connection.’ Since its inception in 2017, Jubilee boasts 380 million monthly views across various platforms. Claiming to uphold the value of free speech by introducing viewers to different ideas and perspectives, Jubilee Media has also attracted criticism for its overly simplistic format.
Whether it is a self-proclaimed fascist telling Medhi Hasan to ‘get out’ of the country or Charlie Kirk with 40 million views launching several online debaters to fame, its format has turned political disagreement into a spectacle designed to be clipped and reposted.
Unsurprisingly, the truth matters little in the world of social media. Returning to that idea of affective polarisation, it’s clear that politics has become a bloody arena featuring ‘opponents’ rather than peaceful debaters. The concern is that young people like myself are being ushered into political identities that they understand only vaguely. Being left- or right-wing is now less about grasping concrete principles and more about disliking this or that individual or movement.
Social media often reflects and exacerbates existing social tensions. Both sides of the political debate are responsible for the increased polarisation we face today. It’s time to return to thoughtful dialogue and informed persuasion, neither of which should be assessed with likes or clicks.
DISCLAIMER: The articles on our website are not endorsed by, or the opinions of Shout Out UK (SOUK), but exclusively the views of the author.
