In a democracy like America, political divisiveness is a natural phenomenon. Throughout history, America has characterized racial and social justice struggles that have resulted in partisan animosity and backlash. However, the currently witnessed extreme political polarisation goes beyond the expected natural animosity and backlash that are the nature of democracy and threaten to undermine the American democracy itself. There is increasing scorn for facts, declining trust in the institution, democratic norms erosion, legislative dysfunction, and extreme real-world violence. The rising levels of political polarization are a product of misinformation (giving of the wrong information) that has gained a boost through the exploitation of social media and social media-related loopholes. The application of popularity-based algorithms tailoring content aimed at maximizing use engagement increases polarization mostly among like-minded social media users. The intention of social media companies to allow access to such misleading information on user networks is not aimed at fueling polarization but is a profit-making mechanism because they earn through the ads that are embedded in such content that users view for a long. The spread of misinformation via social media websites has become an industry in and of itself, generating large amounts of profit and leaving little incentive for companies like Google and Facebook to do anything to stop it; to protect ourselves from this growing threat to our democracy, action needs to be taken quickly, but if the government refuses to step in and regulate, we, as citizens, can and should take matters into our own hands.
Misinformation remains a major challenge championing political polarization with little chance that it can be addressed by social media companies such as Google, YouTube, and Facebook, among others, because the companies profit from it. According to Barret, Hendrix, and Sims (12), one factor that impedes social media companies from limiting politically polarizing content from their social platforms is the profit-making aspect, where the companies want to maximize their platform users’ engagement time by tailoring content liked by social media users regardless of whether it is true content or not. For example, based on research done by the Center for Countering Digital Hate and Climate Action Against Disinformation, YouTube overlooked violative content and championed disinformation on climate in some of their videos with the aim of making revenue through ads that were embedded on the videos (Grant and Myers 24). Despite the fact that this approach to profit-making by social media companies is an established phenomenon, many players in the field have continued to deny it and made claims of addressing the highlighted cases of politically polarizing content, but their claims are contrary to their actions. Mark Zuckerberg, just like other leaders or CEOs of the various social media platforms companies, has on several occasions claimed that his company (Facebook) stokes divisiveness (Barret, Hendrix, and Sims 5). However, in reality, the companies are struggling to limit divisive content or polarizing content on the platforms. A good example is the case of YouTube, which recently had on its platform a video titled “who is Leonardo DiCaprio” that made claims that the world is cooling and that the climate change debate is a hoax (Grant and Myers 24). The misinformation in the media is further impacted by the ignorance of the public on matters of public concern. According to Lowi (272), “most citizens have no strong preferences about most public issues, and many lack basic information that might help them understand and evaluate policy choices.”
The problem of social media misinformation is not particular to or constrained to America but has been a challenge in other jurisdictions as well, with the difference being that in those other countries, mechanisms have been developed to address the challenge of misinformation in media. Finland, just like the rest of the world countries, is subject to the challenge of fake news; however, the country has taken vital steps that have seen it almost overcome the social media misinformation problem. Finland has adopted a multi-pronged cross-sector approach to dealing with fake news, where it prepares its citizens of different ages for the challenging digital media space today (Mackintosh and Kiernan 6). Finland hired experts from America to help advise its government officials on managing misinformation and part of the process involved modelling the education sector to encourage critical thinking (Mackintosh and Kiernan 15). Developing the learners’ critical thinking skills helps them be rational social media users in that before they can make any move of sharing or liking any social media content, they must take it through a thinking process. As part of its strategy to combat social media misinformation, Finland has encouraged a reading tradition among its people; according to Mackintosh and Kiernan (33), “its 5.5 million people borrow close to 68 million books a year, and it just spent $110 million on a state-of-the-art library, referred to lovingly as “Helsinki’s living room.”
Besides, legislative mechanisms can also be relied on to address the problem of social media misinformation. One legislative model to help address social media misinformation in America is by developing proper social media regulatory frames and standards. According to Atkinson et al. (1), the social media sector firms need more adequate processes and standards that are sound enough to curtail harmful content and disinformation. Apart from the lack of regulatory framework and standards, no existing legally established government bodies are responsible for governing and paying sustained attention to online content; hence the American Congress should create a constitutional regulatory body that would develop standards of conduct for social media platforms companies. There is also a need to amend or update the Communication Decency Act of 1996 (Atkinson et al. 1). The update of the amendment to the Communication Decency Act of 1996 should retain the liability shield that protects social media platforms; however, it should have an exception regarding certain areas such as cyber-stalking and civil rights infractions where the shield should be considered obsolete. The American government should also enhance the Honest Ads Act so that it does not simply consider online political ads but entail disclosure requirements to all social media advertising which would be a significant step to end the debate on what can be regarded as a political ad.
Also significant in helping the fight against misinformation on social media platforms is the consideration of personal and social programs that mitigate the menace. At a personal level, people can take different initiatives to protect themselves from becoming victims of social media misinformation. According to West (43), following different people and perspectives is one way to protect people from the risk of misinformation. The risk of misinformation is high when a person only relies on a few like-minded people as his or her source of information because it results in a limited range of social media materials they interact with, thereby increasing their chances of becoming a victim of false information (West 43). Although increasing the number of people one interacts with on social media platforms is no guarantee that one will be safe from false information, it reduces the misinformation risk by offering them a chance to interact with different content that they can use to sieve false information. Some social media awareness programs aimed at sharpening members of the public critical thinking capacity can also be vital to addressing the challenge of misinformation. An informed public about the high risk of misinformation knows how to perform some little research before holding given information on social media platforms, as the truth is an essential method of fighting misinformation.
In conclusion, the spread of misinformation via social media websites has become an industry in and of itself, generating large amounts of profit and leaving little incentive for companies like Google and Facebook to do anything to stop it; to protect ourselves from this growing threat to our democracy, action needs to be taken quickly, but if the government refuses to step in and regulate, we, as citizens, can and should take matters into our own hands. Throughout history, America has characterized racial and social justice struggles that have resulted in partisan animosity and backlash. However, the currently witnessed extreme political polarisation goes beyond the expected natural animosity and backlash that are the nature of democracy and threaten to undermine the American democracy itself due to social media misinformation. Misinformation remains a major challenge championing political polarization with little chance that it can be addressed by the social media companies such as Google, YouTube, and Facebook, among others owing to the fact that the companies profit from it. Besides, legislative mechanisms can also be relied on to address the problem of social media misinformation. One legislative model to help address social media misinformation in America is by developing proper social media regulatory frames and standards. Also significant in helping the fight against misinformation on social media platforms is the consideration of personal and social programs that mitigate the menace.
Works Cited
Atkinson et al., Caroline. Recommendations to the Biden Administration: On Regulating Disinformation and Other Harmful Content on Social Media, www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/mrcbg/files/FWP_2021-02.pdf.
Barrett, Paul, et al. “How Tech Platforms Fuel U.S. Political Polarization and What Government Can Do about It.” Brookings, 9 Mar. 2022, www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2021/09/27/how-tech-platforms-fuel-u-s-political-polarization-and-what-government-can-do-about-it/.
Grant, Nico, and Steven Lee Myers. “Google Promised to Defund Climate Lies, but the Ads Keep Coming.” The New York Times, 2 May 2023, www.nytimes.com/2023/05/02/technology/google-youtube-disinformation-climate-change.html. Accessed 19 May 2023.
Mackintosh, Eliza, and Edward Kiernan. “Finland Is Winning the War on Fake News. Other Nations Want the Blueprint.” CNN, Cable News Network, edition.cnn.com/interactive/2019/05/europe/finland-fake-news-intl/.
West, Darrell M. “How to Combat Fake News and Disinformation.” Brookings, 9 Mar. 2022, www.brookings.edu/research/how-to-combat-fake-news-and-disinformation/.
write