Filter Bubbles vs. Selective Exposure; Part 2

Just as the hypothesis of filter bubbles proposes that recommendation systems are to blame for a lack of content diversity. In the ongoing debate of whether social media algorithms are to blame for biased feeds of media, backers of the selective exposure theory argue that they are not. Selective exposure is the idea that people tend to seek out media that confirms or appeals to their existing views and biases (Frey, 1986; Stroud, 2008). To apply this theory to social media, it’s not that users suddenly find themselves trapped in a filter bubble that only recommends them content from male creators, but rather that they only consume content made by male creators.

Selective exposure goes hand in hand with the psychological phenomenon, confirmation bias, which postulates that humans seek out evidence that supports their beliefs, and ignore evidence that opposes them (Gazzaniga, 2018). While this is human nature, when selective exposure takes place on social media, it becomes a breeding ground for harmful biases to be affirmed in an infinite loop. When people see others on their feed who share their biased views, their biases are then affirmed, and further solidified. From this we can deduce that selective exposure in the context of social media is not only harmful in that users fail to seek out diverse content but also that the content they do see can deepen their biases.

The concerns of the possible implications of selective exposure in social media are similar to those of filter bubbles. Ideological polarization is one example of what selective exposure can lead to in the age of the internet. A study of American Facebook users found that the choices made by users in content consumption led to more limited exposure to content that opposed their views than content chosen by the algorithm (Bakshy et al., 2015, p. 1150). In terms of political polarization, people’s tendency towards only being exposed to others who support their politics could be deeply harmful. Social media has turned into a major news source, speaking for myself, social media has become my mainstream of information on current events. With selective exposure playing a role in how people consume media, many people face the risk of stumbling across fake news and with a failure to seek out opposing viewpoints, never seeing the falsities disproven (Spohr, 2017). Additionally, a lack of exposure to differing perspectives is always dangerous as it further divides groups, like political parties, and creates an “us vs them” narrative, contributing to in-group bias and the othering of outgroup members (Gazzaniga, 2018).

The possible implications of selective exposure in social media range far beyond political polarization. The same ideas can be applied to hateful ideologies, like racism or homophobia. When users with hateful ideals only see content from people who share those beliefs, they are affirmed in their views and fail to see content relating to why those beliefs are wrong.

Selective exposure is not a new concept, nor is it exclusive to social media. However, with the rise of social media, the amount of information that gets spread on social media platforms, and the amount of time that people spend on these platforms today, the risks of selective exposure are heightened. Selective exposure and confirmation bias will occur without doubt on social media and in all aspects of life, the question now is whether social media algorithms can be used to counteract the negative implications.

---

Bibliography:

Gazzaniga, M. S. (2018). Psychological science. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Spohr, D. (2017). Fake news and ideological polarization. Business Information Review, 34(3), 150–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266382117722446