For this last post, I will be switching topics to discuss the issue that I plan on writing about for my Policy-Issue Brief: social media.
In this post I will be focusing on the definition of the problem surrounding two major facets of the issue: its effects on mental health and its polarizing effect. These are just a few parts of the all-encompassing issue, but since the effects are so widespread, I have to begin somewhere.
In terms of negative effects of social media, perhaps the most commonly discussed one is its impact on mental health. From learning about cyberbullying in middle school to hearing about the negative stereotypes and body types it facilitates, social media has a bad reputation when it comes to mental health.
However, looking into the research and data about the actual effects of social media was interesting because it was not as one-sided as I would have thought it would be. Though many of the studies admit that “current evidence suggests that excessive or ‘problematic’ use of social media/internet does impact suicide risk, specifically increasing the risk of suicide attempts,” “social media platforms can have a detrimental effect on the psychological health of its users,” and “social media may pose a risk to vulnerable groups who are part of these virtual communities,” there was also consensus in other interesting ways (Sedgwick, Karim, Luxton).
Despite each text and research paper giving it’s iteration of the effects of social media on mental health, they all, in the end, admitted something along the lines of “more research is needed on the degree and extent of social media’s negative and positive influences,” (Luxton). This has two interesting facets: firstly, the conclusions on the influence of social media are not as unambiguous as I had previously thought and the positive pushback against such social issues both corporatly and by its nature are much greater than I previously knew.
For example “support gained via social media may buffer the impact of geographic isolation and loneliness,” showing how social media implicitly fights back against such negative effects by the fact that it cultivates communities (Escobar-Viera). In this way, there is much more ambiguity given that though problems arise, communities and support seem to rise to meet them.
In this light, the blame can be placed less on social media inhenertly, but rather (almost like the internet as a whole) on the user. This is because the positive or negative outcome seems to depend what people a user surrounds themselves with.
But this also introduces the second issue with social media: echo chambers. Though social media can be a place where people find support in times of trouble, too much support, especially when it overemphasizes, misinforms, and breaks from the truth can be detrimental. The problem with social media is that it magnifies this effect 10 fold because the algorithms are made to enforce information that people want to hear. This is because people will interact with and stay on social media for longer if they agree with or like what they are hearing. Because algorithms are intended to keep people on the internet as long as possible, this leads to ‘echo chambers’ where people are constantly being fed information they like and agree with.
This has led some researchers to find “that social media can inflame polarization, even if the full relationship between digital platforms and polarized attitudes remains uncertain,” (Okolo). Thus, what would even seem like a positive that introduces ambiguity into the question of social media is a proposition that itself is ambiguous.
In addition to the concept of echo chambers which is developed by the nature of social media algorithms, “divisive content tends to spread widely and quickly on social media. Posts that express moral outrage or bash one’s outparty, for example, tend to be particularly successful at going viral,” (Okolo). This further feeds into the polarization problem because it gives news much more urgency then even developments such as the radio or television ever could have.
In general, this is just a brief overview of the types of problems that social media brings, but I hope that you get an overview of how I hope to transition in my Policy-Issue Brief paper by addressing mental health as one issue but then move to discussing polarization and those impacts which are more avoidable than mental health impacts through action against algorithmic programs that social media sites.
Until next time,
John
Works Cited
Escobar-Viera, César G et al. “For Better or for Worse? A Systematic Review of the Evidence on
Social Media Use and Depression Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Minorities.” JMIR mental health vol. 5,3 e10496. 23 Jul. 2018, doi:10.2196/10496
Karim, Fazida et al. “Social Media Use and Its Connection to Mental Health: A Systematic
Review.” Cureus vol. 12,6 e8627. 15 Jun. 2020, doi:10.7759/cureus.8627
Luxton, David D et al. “Social media and suicide: a public health perspective.” American journal
of public health vol. 102 Suppl 2,Suppl 2 (2012): S195-200. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300608
Okolo, Chinasa T., et al. “How Social Media Platforms Can Reduce Polarization.” Brookings, 24
June 2023, www.brookings.edu/articles/how-social-media-platforms-can-reduce-polarization/#:~:text=Recent%20research%20suggests%20that%20social%20media%20can%20inflame,different%20findings%20depending%20on%20how%20polarization%20is%20measured.
Sedgwick, Rosemary et al. “Social media, internet use and suicide attempts in adolescents.”
Current opinion in psychiatry vol. 32,6 (2019): 534-541. doi:10.1097/YCO.0000000000000547
Yu, Xudong, et al. “Affective Polarization on Social Media: In-party Love Among American
Politicians, Greater Engagement with Out-party Hate Among Ordinary Users.” OSF Preprints, 24 June 2021. Web.