It is both terrifying and thrilling to see the entire world of Politics squeezed inside a small box. This four-cornered compartment is filled with mudslinging, backbiting, and witch-hunting carried out by opportunists, propagandists, and trolls. On the other hand, Politics has never been more accessible to the people. This small box might be the key to transcending borders, and unveiling true democracy once and for all.
Of course, I am talking about social media. A box with thousands of elite crusaders trying to engulf the entirety of human civilization. Built with a web-like structure, it collects information and aims to feed all willing consumers in its web of networks worldwide. It has redefined human communication and, is by far, one of the most revolutionary innovations of the human race.
However, I am not here to affirm its indisputable contribution to humanity because it is not without flaws. Despite how revolutionary or groundbreaking it might be, I am here to contend that it remains to be what it truly is — a box.
It is a fact that the lockdown caused by the pandemic has magnified and even revealed the necessity of social media. It is a viable alternative platform of social life, relying on the idea of “virtual connectedness.” The box became a renewed, virtual habitat for humans in isolation deprived of social interaction. More so, it became an enlarged avenue for political ideas to clash, turning into modern pseudo courthouses, legislative chambers as most of its users suddenly became pundits of the law and politics. It even claimed to conceive a new brand of political activism, with its so-called “social media activism.” In all its grandeur, the box might be able to revolutionize the kind of politics we all came to know.
We ask, how big is this box? Is it big enough to encapsulate and reflect the daunting complexity of the real world? Can it contain all voices without fear of distortions? Would it be able to create a substantial and lasting impact on the real world? Is it big enough?
For the sake of argument, even if we say that the box is as big as a building, it remains to be what it truly is — a box. A box will always have four sides and four corners that would limit, entrap and congest. Social media works this way. It limits perspective, entraps ideas, and it congests our flow of thoughts necessary for sound reasoning. Social media makes this possible by cultivating “echo chambers” or what we call “epistemic bubbles.”
An echo chamber is an enclosed space meant to produce reverberations through the bouncing of sound waves in its walls. On a much grander scale, an echo chamber can refer to an environment where conformed beliefs and opinions are tossed around only to remain inside this chamber, and epistemic bubbles work the same. It creates a bubble that shields people from outside perspectives. These spaces cultivate a culture of distrust and hostility to ideas that are foreign or against their pre-confirmed beliefs.
Correspondingly, there are certain features which provide the necessary steps or conditions for these chambers and bubbles to exist. First, social media connects people with mutual relationships and interests. Your friends are generally from the same environment hence perpetuate the same beliefs. Second, as these connections consolidate and solidify over time, it creates an algorithm where people can only see and interact with their chosen links. You become introduced to Facebook groups that argue the same arguments you have in your mind. Third, this algorithm will then develop the so-called “confirmation bias” in a user’s mind wherein they will only favor and look for information and connections that are consistent with their pre-established beliefs. Then, voila! Here are your chambers and bubbles.
I believe that these chambers and bubbles are your modern-day cults. These cults breed hatred and hostility against pluralism. It develops intense polarizations making it hard for the politics of consensus and compromise to take place. It became an avenue for spiteful people— unbecoming, and unbefitting for civilized discourse.
An excellent example of polarization is when Donald Trump learned how to use Twitter. Trump uses his Twitter with so much passion that his tweets served as rallying calls for his hardcore supporters. He uses it to promote extremism. The United Kingdom's Ambassador was even at some point disturbed by Trump's promotion on Twitter of material created by the far-right group Britain First. His unfiltered, impulsive rhetorics on social media indoctrinate his followers, believing that his word is gospel truth. Those who oppose him are vilified. They are fake news.
Moreover, what makes social media's echo chambers more dangerous is that it is dumbing us down. According to Forbes.com, social media has become the main source of news online with more than 2.4 billion internet users. While I believe that social media as one of our sources for information is not inherently wrong, what is unacceptable in my opinion is the level of reliance people give to it. With their algorithms and profit-oriented goals, these online platforms are devoid of certainty that the information you will have is valid and factual. The convenience it gives by just letting you scroll down your social media feed is a trade-off in making you lazy. It discourages you from using your brain to make an effort to differentiate the facts from what is fake.
In the Philippines, one of the most frustrating manifestations of how dangerous these echo chambers can be is the case of Christine Darcera, the flight attendant. She was found dead in a Makati hotel room on January 1, 2021. As soon as the news broke out, netizens quickly joined the bandwagon of becoming experts in criminal law or, even more daringly, turning into magistrates publicly condemning Darcera's friends who were suspects at that time. The social media craze over the case immediately became a witch hunt burning the suspects at stake over mere speculations and blind hatred. However, in a matter of time, the mob quickly retracted their embarrassing conjectures, issuing apologies online and realizing their deliberate display of ignorance. Well, it's alright. You only burned them. You can still "unburn" them.
Nevertheless, I hate ending things in a dreary mood. There’s hope, as bubbles can burst, and we can leave our chambers. Social media is not evil per se. It is still an essential tool in ushering humanity towards an era of greater innovation. The beauty of social media is that it does not only offer convenience but it also extends into endless possibilities such as “opening the box” ourselves. Algorithms can be outplayed by following people with opposing views and subscribing to news outlets that give fair and unbiased stories. We can be intelligent users by being diligent and conscious enough of the data and information we feed our minds with. We should believe that we have the final agency to control our technology, to overcome our biases, and to be free of the shackles of dogmatic perversions. We do not reside in these bubbles. We do not live in these chambers. We know better than to live inside the box. We live outside the box.
Comments