Are Social Media exploiting our Social Capital?
Recent technological developments, such as the creation of online Social Networking Sites (SNS), have significantly altered the dynamics by which people share and obtain information. Social media greatly relies on the online interaction of users to build its social capital, defined as the relationships among people within communities, and increase its value. With the exponential growth of online communities, scholars began debating whether social media positively or negatively influences social capital (Phua, Jin and Kim, 2017). Some argue that social media both benefits and hampers social capital. Although social media promotes social capital through the facilitation of the formation of relationships online between heterogeneous groups, it disintegrates social capital by rendering people’s views narrower within their homogenous communities.
Social media networks like Facebook and Instagram have built strong communities consisting of homogenous users who share the same interests and attitudes. This bonding process is characterized by the significant levels of similarity shared by the people belonging to a certain community; these similarities may pertain to their demographic characteristics as well as their location. The bonding process creates strong, close social ties and fulfils the beneficial social function of collaboration. In many cases, campaigns conducted on social media have led to the sharing of awareness as well as the yielding of emotional support. According to Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe (2007), channels such as Facebook have catalyzed the formation of social capital among homogenous groups. However, the bonding process that builds social capital can also hinder it by reducing the extent of diversity and variation people are exposed to. Social media’s prevalent algorithms that narrow the user’s exposure based on preferences and browsing history
can also detrimentally affect social capital through the promotion of out-group resentment. Naseri (2017) added that the more users are exposed to stimuli that fit their preconceptions, the less likely they are to accept differences and trust outsiders. This phenomenon was apparent during the 2016 elections in the United States. Republican supporters were solely shown posts and information that fit their preferential algorithms which significantly reduced their exposure to Democrat arguments and campaigns. Naseri (2017) reported that these algorithms used by social networking sites aim to improve users’ experience of the social media network and increase ad revenue. Simply put, organizations are willing to pay more to display their ads to users that are interested in their products since these advertisements will inherently yield higher sales prospects. Therefore, although it promotes the bonding process between homogenous members, SNS’ focus on customizing a user’s exposure serves the financial objective of the network and narrows the breadth of the information shown, which creates bias and ethnocentrism.
Social media has also impacted the social capital of people who possess diverse backgrounds and who belong to dissimilar groups through the process of bridging. Bridging was found to promote acceptance and understanding among social groups that are usually divided in society. This process creates a strong relationship of exchange and association, as members who possess contrasting social identities begin sharing their goals together. Bridging yields numerous benefits, including the ability to obtain deeper information, access better positions within the network and identify interesting opportunities. Moreover, since bridging transcends typical social barriers, it promotes tolerance and reduces the prevalence of inner-outer views. According to Phua et al. (2017), bridging is extremely useful in the fulfilment of self-actualizing objectives as it can lead to the creation of strong social capital that acts as social leverage; however, it can also promote opportunism. As for the role of social media, the use of online networks has enabled many dissimilar users to join heterogeneous groups and apply their beliefs to these online communities.
Such changes have led to major sociopolitical developments, like the impact of social media on the Arab spring which was caused by the influence of Western rebels on young Arab users through Twitter and Facebook. The bridging effect of social media, thus, greatly influences political participation and civic engagement (Gil de Zuniga, Jung and Valenzuela, 2012). The ‘yield’ or benefits of bridging social capital are large-scale and impact the way countries and societies are run. Thus, online bridging positively contributes to social capital and increases the scope of networks shared between users.
In conclusion, social media has led to a plethora of effects on social capital. The online bonding and bridging phenomena alter the way users interact and disseminate information with other people belonging to their own or to other groups. Although bridging relationships between heterogeneous members is beneficial as it promotes awareness, acceptance and tolerance, bonding relationships online is both an advantage and a drawback. Bonding through social media is mainly advantageous to SNS’ financial performance but it also creates a narrow view between members of a single community which can reduce users’ exposure to contrasting stimuli and increase their ethnocentrism.
