You’re wrong, they’re wrong, you’re all wrong!
“That’s just not true. You’re wrong, they’re wrong, you’re all wrong… and you’re also dumb!”. Sound familiar? Have you ever said something similar in the midst of a political discussion? Ever muttered them to a friend or family member over the dinner table? What about from a politician in parliament or on Q&A, an impassioned protester at an opposing line of people, an aggravated flame-haired woman on the democratic staple that is 7’s Sunrise, or a keyboard warrior in a valiant online war of words and caps lock?
Each of these instances serve as symptoms of an Australia increasingly marred by the disease of political polarisation. Such is reflected in data from the Australian Election Study, which found a gradually shrinking base of voters who identify within the political centre since the study’s conception in 1996. This infection of division upon public debate, has been accelerated by the rise of social media into the centre of discussion and news distribution.
People would once consume news from a small selection of television programs and newspapers. Therefore, the sources drawn upon to form views and receive information were common across the political spectrum. In recent years, a raft of issues have accompanied the greater news diversity brought about by social media platforms.
With companies such as YouTube and Facebook built upon curating content and communities for users based on opinions, interests and political inclinations, echo chambers or filter bubbles have emerged in our social media behaviours. These relate to habits and algorithms which see users seeking out and being recommended information that only supports their pre-existing world views. In doing so, social media further polarises society, leaving our personal ideologies unchallenged to the detriment of democracy and debate.
Given this, platforms have a vested financial interest in keeping users on their platforms by reinforcing or feeding their pre-existing views and ideologies or triggering emotional responses of outrage that evoke attention and clicks. Social media is a naturally divided environment in its position as a means of flaunting one’s opinion down the catwalk of the internet, and before a crowd of billions. However, a complete disregard for said opinion from one half of the crowd is not helpful to the debate. While forcefully moderating platform users is an almost impossible task, altering the avenues through which users receive information and news that moulds their views is not.
Although worsening the issue, the polarisation of Australians on social media only serves as a reflection of our wider country’s character. While we look towards the road of political division, which the US stumbles down, Australian politics, has seen polarisation contaminate issues such as climate change and same-sex marriage. Such issues are then used as political balls to kick around, with a polarised population serving as justification for putting the brakes on any rational progress for years. Our nation has become stuck in the mud of immovable ideology regarding many pressing topics, holding back any true movement forward.
When looking over to the US 2016 election, Donald Drumpf seemed to further illuminate the gaping rift through the middle of American politics, which sees members of each side yelling obscenities and hurling argumentative stones at one another. Though we are not yet at that stage, the cracks in Australian politics have started to show. Nonetheless, neither Drumpf nor his provocative Australian equivalents like Pauline Hanson bore the staff that parted the political landscape.
As Australian society itself has grown further apart, alongside widening inequality, these politicians have merely crawled out from within the cracks in civil debate, rather than creating them. While many are quick to heap blame onto controversial politicians for their divisive language, the rhetoric of politicians only serves as a reflection of societal attitudes. If politics is to change, the people must first.
Diversity, or the antidote to the spread of polarisation, can be facilitated and embedded in the features of social media platforms. This could involve the addition of a button to Facebook news posts or YouTube videos, offering alternative counternarratives or analysis on controversial issues, rather than holding a mirror to users. Equally, it would be up to people to make use of such a feature and consume information that may make them uncomfortable, questioning their world view.
Progress can only begin through a combination of personal and platform changes. Only once we understand and empathise with each other’s point of view, can we build the bridges that allow us to cross the political divide, coming together to combat the vital issues that face society such as climate change, income inequality and drug abuse.
With or without this feature, reasonable civil discussion can be had on social media. Though this may not provide users the moral high horse saddle that many crave, online arguments can be stimulated without only reacting to and receiving self-approving posts and news. Greater ideological diversity and exposure to alternative views on platforms, can allow those in the moral cavalry to step down onto the ground of rational considerate debate, where compromise and action can be achieved.
Whether through personal or platform adjustments, imagine if everyone sought out opinions or positions alternative to their own, gaining an understanding of why people with opposing beliefs held such views. The world would be a better place. Because if people could view more issues through the lens of others, we would all be able to see more clearly.
