26 Sep 2014
The PEW Internet Research group recently conducted a survey seeking “people’s opinions about the Snowden leaks, their willingness to talk about the revelations in various in-person and online settings, and their perceptions of the views of those around them in a variety of online and off-line contexts.”
What the study ultimately found was that
“Overall, the findings indicate that in the Snowden case, social media did not provide new forums for those who might otherwise remain silent to express their opinions and debate issues. Further, if people thought their friends and followers in social media disagreed with them, they were less likely to say they would state their views on the Snowden-NSA story online and in other contexts, such as gatherings of friends, neighbors, or co-workers.”
The PEW findings suggest that Twitter, which some have described as a form of networked public sphere, does not, in fact, function as an ideal public sphere, providing a public forum for open and democratic discourse regarding topics of public concern. The PEW study found that 44% of the population felt that the release of classified information harmed the public interest, while 49% felt that it served public interests. This strong polarization is an obvious topic for debate, yet it seems that neither Twitter or Facebook are adequate forums to facilitate the debate, at least according to the PEW study.
The notion that users are less likely to post their opinions on social networking sites if they feel their friends and followers are likely to disagree with them supports the claim that politics on Twitter are extremely partisan, as discussed in the #HamOnt study (see Literature Review: How Twitter Affects The Public Sphere). Further reenforcing that polarization, as New York Times writer, Clair Cane Miller notes, is the fact that “Internet companies magnify the effect, by tweaking their algorithms to show us more content from people who are similar to us.” To have a true debate, we need to discuss topics with those who hold varying and differing opinions from our own. If social networking sites like Twitter continue to suggest like-minded users to follow, we end up with a community of people who all hold to the same set of beliefs. Few users, if any, actively seek out users with differing opinions to display a balanced set of opinions within their timelines.
If politics on Twitter continues to be as polarized as recent studies, such as the Spiral of Silence study suggests, it can never assume the role of networked public sphere.