It has long since been argued that social media algorithms contribute to political polarization. Common wisdom has it that once algorithms identify a user’s political preferences, they ensure that the user is only exposed to content that is aligned with those preferences. Within this “filter bubble,” formerly known as an “echo chamber,” users enter a world of miraculous consensus. Suddenly, they exist in a state of blissful unanimity as they only engage with users that share similar political opinions, beliefs, and worldviews. Other opinions are filtered out of feeds thanks to algorithms. Yet common wisdom also suggests that algorithms have a radicalizing component. In order to keep users hooked on social media platforms, algorithms increasingly expose users to radical content, edging them further and further into political silos. This leads to the ultimate fragmentation of the public sphere as all citizens exist on an island of unanimity, while discussions between islands seldom occur. And on these islands, heated debates, impassioned pleas, and enraging videos only contribute to additional radicalization until the middle ground between islands evaporates.
Joan Didion argued years ago that in the age of political extremity, the center cannot hold. Yet in the age of algorithmic extremity, the center ceases to exist.
But how does this mechanism actually work, and what relevance does it hold for diplomats? In this blog post I argue that the polarizing effect of social media operates at the individual level and is comprised of four stages:
Stage One: The Globalization of Noise The political opinions heard on social media are not a well-coordinated choir. Rather, feeds create a cacophony of sounds known as “noise”. When users scroll through their feeds, they are exposed to a stream of opinions, beliefs, allegations, accusations, and more. Through likes, shares, and comments, the cacophony is slowly replaced by growing harmony. However, the most important step is when a user decides to share his or her own opinion about a topic. Users may express support for a political party, share their reservations about a parliamentary vote, disclose their feelings about trending topics, or lament the lack of effective leadership.
At that moment, the user both becomes part of the noise of social media while also entering a filter bubble thanks to the tailoring mechanism of algorithms. Unlike previous ages, when one’s noise could only be heard in London’s Hyde Park or in the city square, today’s noise traverses the globe, reaching thousands and sometimes millions of users. This unique moment actually constitutes a two-part vanishing act: a British Facebook user proclaims his adoration for the Monarchy, his proclamation traveling far and wide to his various followers, and at that very moment, the user vanishes into a filter bubble of Monarchists.
Stage Two: The Illusion of Consensus Filter bubbles are effective because they are reassuring. One’s despair and solace are immediately substituted with adoring crowds. All dissent and all differing opinions evaporate as the user finds a new and highly supportive home. The emotional impact of filter bubbles cannot be understated. In a fragmented media environment marked by clickbait, rage bait, and intense competition over public opinion, filter bubbles are comforting. The divisions now so prevalent in social and political life are at once silenced. Users soon learn that they are not alone. In fact, they are part of a multitude. They are part of a vast movement of those who think alike and who raise each other up rather than tear each other apart. Yet this is merely a sophisticated illusion, orchestrated by algorithms with the explicit goal of monetization: the filter bubble is not a home; it is a prison where inmates pay to be kept apart from society. The illusion of consensus is masterful, as it insinuates that those holding other beliefs are a minority, a radical fringe movement out of touch with the state. Those who espouse other beliefs are part of the “loony left” or the “gloomy right,” and as such, they are politically irrelevant. Over time, this political minority may even be viewed as a niche and rogue part of society.
Stage Three: The Radicalization Arms Race: The “Attention Economy” operates within filter bubbles. This means that those located on a particular island do not meet in a square to discuss matters of mutual concern. Rather, they stand on hilltops and yell at one another, with the one yelling the loudest commanding the attention of all others. In other words, members of filter bubbles must constantly create more radical content in order to be noticed and gain the status of “Digerati”: the elite opinion-makers within a digital sphere. Only those willing to push the envelope and adopt increasingly hostile language will remain Digerati. This impacts the island as a whole; every member of the filter bubble will be exposed to increasingly radical content.
Members who wish to remain prominent within a filter bubble will label political minorities as a band of saboteurs who aim to prevent the majority from steering the nation towards success. Through radical discussions within filter bubbles, other political groups gain disproportionate power; they morph into a dangerous cabal, a revolutionary junta which subverts the democratic process. A deep state. This process escalates until, finally, the filter bubble reaches the inescapable conclusion that dangerous political minorities must be defeated. The order of the day becomes the total rejection of all other beliefs as treason.
What is unique about filter bubbles is that they instill amongst members the belief that they are the majority, even if that is far from being the case. A fringe group of a few hundred users all devoted to a single political belief will believe that they constitute the vast majority of the population as other political opinions are simply not heard. This is not the “silent majority” discussed by Richard Nixon; it’s the algorithmic majority designed by Facebook.
Stage Four: Pride and Prejudice Once political opposition has been labeled as treasonous and poisonous, this opinion is validated and proven to members of the filter bubble. Videos quickly circulate exposing the hypocrisy of those holding other beliefs and opinions, while in-depth analyses illustrate how the fringe political “other” uses its power to suppress members of the filter bubble. This leads to feelings of pride in belonging to the unanimous majority and growing prejudice towards the treasonous minority. With Pride and Prejudice taking form in all filter bubbles and on every desperate island, there is a final call to arms: filter bubble members call for a total ban on engaging with political “others.” There can be no middle ground, as there can be no capitulation in the face of the minority’s attempts to subvert the political process. Finally, the center is obliterated and the various filter bubbles or islands drift further and further apart.
The result of this algorithmic process is not merely political polarization. It is paralysis. Each filter bubble or island comes to support radical politicians that espouse the rejection of compromise, disgust with the center, and the belief that political compromises are the refuge of scoundrels. Disillusionment with state organs soon follows, as they have been unable to prevent the minority from seizing power and suppressing the majority. Paralysis takes place as political representatives can no longer reach agreements on how to govern.
For diplomats, this algorithmic process is devastating for three main reasons. First, diplomacy is often defined as the mediation of estrangement. Yet political polarization glorifies estrangement: from society and later the world. Within filter bubbles, other publics, be they local or national, are vilified and berated until the very notion of mediating estrangement becomes repugnant. Second, polarized filter bubbles reject and abhor compromises. Yet diplomacy rests on reaching mutually beneficial compromises. When diplomats reach an agreement, it is immediately denounced as a betrayal of national interests given intolerable compromises which harm the nation-state. Diplomats become agents of chaos instead of guardians of order, those charged with maintaining the tranquility of international waters. Third, and perhaps most importantly, leaders in polarized political systems target diplomats and diplomatic forums. They denounce diplomats as part of a globalist elite bent on subjugating the nation-state and allowing state power to migrate to global entities such as the EU or the UN. This political denunciation of diplomatic forums weakens them to the point of paralysis, a paralysis which is then used to justify further attacks. “Why bother with the UN,” asks Donald Trump, “when the UN can’t even do its job?”
Algorithmic polarization is the undoing of diplomacy. The question is: how can diplomats use social media to counter political polarization and radicalization? How can diplomats build bridges between filter bubbles that connect the islands? That question will be answered in next week’s blog post.
Many thanks to this Facebook post that is the inspiration for this post: https://www.facebook.com/netanel.hersh/posts/pfbid0eQkthHTZJLXYhwpT3UYkgkD1bma2vfmeTEdjo5xyCYE94MkL3iTzb4qvoz9ZGidal
Exploring Digital Diplomacy 
Leave a comment