Social media is an intricate labyrinth, filled with a boundless supply of content for the populace. As seen in several studies, however, ‘echo chambers’ are becoming more prevalent within the online population, leading to more and more people becoming polarised by the material they view and interact with.  

Echo Chambers 

In their influential book Echo Chamber, Jamieson and Cappella, define the term as “a bounded, enclosed media space that has the potential to both magnify the messages delivered within it and insulate them from rebuttal” (2008, p. 76). The magnification of messages refers to the idea that many people focus specifically on information that supports or justifies their existing beliefs. For example, those who identify with left-wing policies will likely seek outlets such as The Guardian or The Observer. Additionally, ‘insulating from rebuttal’ means that said people are not exposed to differing viewpoints. “Studies in the UK estimate that between six and eight percent of the public inhabit politically partisan online news echo chambers”. This means that some of the UK has been boxed into viewing limited amounts of content, only targeted and tuned to them specifically; the diverse array of media is not seen in any other variation. However, this study does convey that it is only a small percentage of the population that exclusively gets news from partisan sources, whereas most people have relatively diverse media diets. 

Polarisation 

There are two distinct forms of political polarisation: the first being ideological polarisation, which refers to “the divergence of political opinions, beliefs, attitudes, and stances of political adversaries” (Dalton, 1987). The second is affective polarisation, which is “based on work considering the role of identity in politics and how identity salience within groups (e.g. political parties) can exacerbate out-group animosity.” This means that the more one affiliates with one’s political identity, the more one dislikes those who identify with alternate political parties. In the specific context of the United States (where there is more research), it appears that exposure to like-minded political content creates the opportunity for the viewers to become polarised, as well as strengthening the beliefs of those with existing partisan attitudes. However, news audience polarisation is much lower in most European countries. While “the UK has relatively high levels of news audience polarisation by European standards – largely thanks to widely used partisan newspapers– overall levels are still low” (Fletcher et al. 2020). It must also be considered that a large part of polarisation takes place in the real world, focusing on how politicians influence people’s views and how those who share beliefs typically gravitate towards one another in their everyday lives. 

Filter Bubbles 

When discussing ‘filter bubbles’, it is important to recognise the origin. Coined by activist Eli Pariser, filter bubbles are “a unique universe of information for each of us”. He created this term to express his concern with the increase in personalisation in search engine results and social media feeds. Search algorithms utilise vast amounts of user data to identify and deliver information that is most relevant to each individual. While this can be seen as beneficial, it can have disastrous outcomes. Harald Holone explored how filter bubbles can affect the personal health of the population. His research found that the public, who often seek medical advice online, generally trust the first link they are given. For example, “In 2014, 23 measles outbreaks and more than 644 cases of measles were reported in the US. Perhaps most famous is the 2014/2015 outbreak in Disneyland in California. One of the reasons for the outbreak was a growing concern among parents about the efficiency and side effects of vaccination.” There are many anti-vaccination organisations who fearmonger online and spread misinformation; the fact the readers are susceptible to this simply due to their hidden algorithms has the potential to be incredibly dangerous. People’s ideologies concerning their searches affect what they find, regardless of the filter bubble. However, the filter bubble strengthens the conviction that these notions are true as it hides any disagreeing information. 

As we live in a world filled with political polarisation, collapsing environments, racial tension and institutional degradation, echo chambers and filter bubbles strengthen the hatred embedded in these issues; they further segregate minorities and society as a whole, and they impede the opportunity for individuals to decide their opinions on differing ideologies and issues. It is important to be aware of the growing threat, as we can all acknowledge that we, too, have been susceptible to echo chambers; but we must actively seek out alternate viewpoints to combat the rising problems that come with social media and its algorithms.