Matthew Lesh, Head of Public Policy at the Institute for Economic Affairs, has written a great piece for Spiked pointing out that the social science research about the role of social media in driving political polarisation and extremism is decidedly mixed and certainly insufficient to demonstrate a need for further restrictions on free speech. In other words, the case for the Online Safety Bill and other attempts to censor social media is unproven.
For example, some research suggests that social media ‘reinforces the expressers’ partisan thought process and hardens their pre-existing political preferences’. But other studies have found that partisanship has grown more among groups who are less likely to use social media, that it has grown more in the US despite social media expanding across the planet, and that Facebook’s news feature may even reduce polarisation by exposing people to more viewpoints.
On the question of filter bubbles and echo chambers for news, the evidence is just as mixed. One study found that Facebook’s algorithm fails to supply people with news that challenges their attitudes. But other studies suggest that most users (and conservatives especially) subscribe to a variety of media outlets, that social media actually drive a more diverse array of news sources, and that social media might actually help decrease support for right-wing populist candidates and parties.
Then there’s the issue of foreign disinformation allegedly warping elections. While there is evidence that material from Russia’s Internet Research Agency has reached tens of millions of people in the West in recent years, it is less clear that this has had a strong impact. Russian trolls have largely interacted with individuals who are already highly polarised. Furthermore, studies indicate that just 0.1% of people share 80% of the ‘fake news’ that is in circulation.
To the extent that serious issues with social media have been identified, many studies indicate that they are not widespread. For example, one study found that just 5% of users are in a news echo chamber. On the question of YouTube rabbit holes, another study found that extremist videos are largely watched by people who already hold extremist views and that other people are not driven to that content by recommendations.
This all points to the possibility that partisanship, extreme views and political dysfunction are driven by deeper social and cultural factors. To the extent that you come across more extreme views on social media it is because individuals who are more partisan are more likely to use those platforms. But it is easier to blame social media for, say, the election of Donald Trump than it is to address the disenchantment that drove his victory in 2016.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Well I don’t think anyone could accuse the UK police of ”racial prejudice against ethnic minorities”. Example 793 showing who gets a free pass to behave like a d*ck because they’re one of ‘the protected ones’ in society. Police are as pathetic as ever here;
https://x.com/HoodedClaw1974/status/1863161462996251047
Can I just ask, why are those Muslim Manchester airport thugs that violently attacked police and broke the nose of one officer still free when this guy, who just so happens to be white, also broke a police officer’s nose but was sent down for 4.5yrs?? Well I think I’ve just answered my own question. Total p*ss-take;
https://x.com/MerseyPolice/status/1861032820899987700
We are ruled by a minority for the minority….
This is hilarious. I would say don’t dignify it by discussing it or even thinking about it but they probably would pass such a law if they could get away with it. And I find the notion of exclusive protection of Abrahamic religions to be even funnier. Can you imagine a decadent crap hole like this one with an overlay of Abrahamic totalitarianism it is just bizarre.
https://www.youtube.com/live/RcxI3F_8pco?si=PMu67jj_MOnV9lrT
Meanwhile plod want Mahyar Tousi to stop by for a chat tomorrow at which time they will decide whether or not to arrest him.
https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2FvK1066jWO5Y%3Fsi%3D8aO_oRz-0sxeqViQ%3AzPZUNeMotFpBvUFaO36_So0PJVs&cuid=7594221
The second short video is from Andre Walker. Despite my usual dismissal of him as a bit of a prat this promise of help for Mahyar is genuinely heart-warming.
Well, that hand written notice tells us all where the intolerance lies.
Prophet means intellectual, seer, visionary. Such people will always be attacked until the end of time. Any religion that seeks to prevent attacks upon prophecy is operating in an anti-divine manner. I have even heard saps on Radio 4 calling Mohammed ‘The Prophet’. He isn’t the prophet. He delivered a syncretic teaching based on a number of sources and even in the tone of their holy book there is a sense of doubt. This is nonsense. The whole point of the Christian teaching is the pervasiveness of light. There are many prophets and you can’t ask for them to be protected by law. They wouldn’t want that themselves they want the opposite.
There is no offence. If someone insults the divine in your presence then it is usually passion in the mode of ignorance or some emotional hang up. The fact that a human being says something against your belief system, that you find this hard to bear is simply a testament to your lack of faith. This is all nonsense. Theocracy has devious means of asserting itself and it never has much to to with God except as a means to an end which is as about as sinful as you can get.
“No matter who gets upset”——In an ideal world where everyone is equal that should certainly be the case. But it is quite clear that fear of offending Muslims is at a much higher level than fear of offending other religions. But the problem is that Islam is not just a religion. It is a Political and legal system s well. It will be the end of the free world if people cannot criticise, offend or disrespect Politics or Law. —–But religions should feel comfortable enough in their own skin to just ignore distasteful remarks about their religion.
Part of a free society is the freedom to exchange views on everything without breaking the law. I’m happy to discuss my religious views with someone whose religious views – either in favour of a different religion, or in favour of none – contrast with mine. I may not agree with the other person, and they may not agree with me, but that’s called open discussion or debate, and it’s fundamental to the British way of life. If God is offended by anything that’s said, then God is big enough to deal with it.
We must remain free to discuss contrasting views on religion, just as we must be free to discuss contrasting views on science (take Covid and the climate emergency, for example), politics etc. It’s healthy and actually helps increase understanding of people with different faiths and opinions. The alternative is that we all retreat into the bubble of our own world view and cease interacting with others in society.