How Social Media Silenced the 2016 Election

The final presidential debate was yet another episode in the extended political diatribe that has played out over the past year. Not surprisingly, it was a poor substitute for genuine discourse. While it is hard to find much that people will agree about in this election cycle, there are a couple of truths that present themselves with little dispute. First, the role of social media in the personal, professional, and public lives of most American's has increased dramatically since the last election. Second, the major candidates running for office are diametrically opposed on almost every issue. On their own neither of these statements are particularly shocking nor revealing; however, taken together these two situations are undermining our ability to have a sane national conversation and they are silencing the conversation.

SOCIAL MEDIA and HYPERBOLE

In this election cycle it seems everything is controversial. The candidates, playing the part and aware of their low favorability ratings, maintain positions that go to extremes to distance from the other. Likewise, many supporters from all sides have decided to forgo public discourse, instead relying on memes, tweets, caricatures, cynicism, slander, and hyperbole in an attempt to vilify not only the individual candidates, but also their supporters. The extremism has created an environment wherein people strive to distance themselves from others, rather than bridge the gap. The resulting chasm leads to a situation referred to in political science as the spiral of silence, a situation where people have a tendency to not speak up about policy issues — publicly or privately — when they believe their point of view is not generally accepted.

In this spiral of silence, minority opinion holders fear social isolation. As these minority voices continue to feel distanced the fear builds and builds, spiraling into silence. Better, they think, to remain silent than risk social isolation by advocating a position that is widely panned. Introduce social media, where people measure their social worthiness — and sometimes more — by the amount of likes, shares, and forwards they receive and one can see how many people may decide to not express their opinions. The resulting self-censorship stifles conversation and makes the extreme voices even louder. Unfortunately, many of these people are not even minority opinion holders in the first place, the social media and political environment has just made them feel that way.

THE ROAD TO EXTREMISM

The prevalence of social media as a way to get "headline" news out quickly allows everyone to become an active participant in the news cycle. However, the character limit of Twitter, the pure volume of posts on Facebook, the rapid information dissemination offered by WhatsApp, Instagram, and like-minded services all makes it hard to stand out. To rise above the din, to prove a point, to be heard, one must make a point and make it quick. The most efficient way to achieve that is through hyperbole. From the innocent 'best day ever/worst day ever' posts to the vitriolic commentary that fills the comments sections of articles, extreme points of view tend to stand out. As such, many people express extreme views — views they may not even believe — merely to be heard. Conversely, many people who are unwilling, or unable, to go to the extremes end up falling silent because they choose to say nothing or they get lost in the noise. Politicians and the media are exploiting this environment.

The American public holds its leaders responsible for their social media output, but they do not impose the same responsibility on the individual. Additionally, the individual possesses an anonymity that the public figure cannot and does not want to retain. Shrewd politicians and the media exploit the strength of social media, allowing the people, unencumbered by anything other than personal ethics, to act as their surrogates. As surrogates, many Americans have willingly entered into the foreground of this election cycle, promoting their preferred candidate with fanaticism and making clear their disgust of the other candidate. Social media has become a hyperbolic battleground where political extremism increasingly dominates and understanding is in short order. This social media extremism is not without consequence; it has a pernicious influence on thought.

Since social media is in the hands of the people it is much more personal and pervasive. In an attempt to align with one side or the other, many people modify their beliefs to fit a dominant narrative. Unfortunately, the dueling narratives are on the extremes and leave little room for the middle ground. Using the public as surrogates, the partisan media fans the flames in an attempt to garner ratings. And very few politicians have any interest in upsetting the bipartisan status quo since they benefit from its zero-sum nature.

SILENCE: THE PRICE OF EXTREMISM

This extremism comes with a price, especially when emotional and morally laden issues are met with mockery and contempt. When everything is contradictory and nothing is generally accepted people are compelled to choose a side, a person must be either this or that, one or the other.