Social networks are not neutral. An SZ analysis of thousands of posts on Instagram shows that the algorithm places certain topics and parties higher or lower in the timeline. Trump seems to be what polarizes, what stirs up emotions. What influence does that have on a democracy, especially in the election campaign? And how do you manage to outsmart the algorithm a bit? A conversation with Ingrid Brodnig, Austrian columnist and author of several books on hatred, conspiracy myths and disinformation in the digital world.
SZ: Ms. Brodnig, is social media the right place for an election campaign?
Ingrid Brodnig: No. You won’t get around being on social media as a party. But it’s actually a tragedy that much of the political debate is taking place on social media. Not because social media and the internet are bad, but because they were never designed to create an objective democratic discourse. We turned a service that was originally intended for posting wedding pictures and everyday updates into a relevant political platform.
What does that mean for an election campaign in 2021?
Social media isn’t what causes people to argue, but it acts as a catalyst for conflict. Emotionalizing events lead to arguments in society, and whenever society argues, it gets particularly bad on social media. The federal election is now taking place in a phase in which such excitement topics are present in multiple versions: the corona crisis, the climate crisis, also migration and Afghanistan. In addition, with the departure of Angela Merkel, an era is coming to an end, the cards are being reshuffled. That means, the election campaign is heated anyway, but social media bring in even more toughness and acceleration.
What are the consequences?
The question is whether the design of social media favors tabloid and populist content. A new study from the USA shows that toxic, aggressive comments get more likes on average. Angry language stimulates people to become angry and active themselves. The concern is that an algorithm could evaluate interaction values such as likes and comments as positive signals and thus force all these effects again.
Besides anger, are there other emotions that have a similar effect?
A few years ago analyzed a study article of the New York Times. It wasn’t about social media, but also about emotions and the distribution of texts via email. It was shown that emotionality generally promoted the virality of a text, but that certain emotions provided a stronger boost than others. In addition to the anger, there was delighted astonishment and fear. In political communication, one can try to trigger precisely these emotions. It is particularly easy to stir up anger politically – for example through your political opponent or on anger issues such as the Corona crisis.
And that’s the tragic thing: there are theories, there are suspicions, that the algorithms of the big platforms reward the emotionality that arouses likes and clicks with additional reach. But to test these theories, the platforms would have to look beneath their surface, and they don’t currently allow that.
What do you know for sure about the algorithms that exist on Facebook and Instagram?
Especially what the platforms themselves announced. We know that interaction plays a big role, including the proximity of accounts, that is, how often I interact with a profile on Facebook or Instagram. But it is a bit like if you were to drink Cola and Coca-Cola does not have to list all the ingredients of the drink, but can freely decide whether and which ingredients it reveals from its drink. And that is not a condition that allows consumers to make conscious decisions.
“It is actually a tragedy that a large part of the political debate takes place on social media,” says Ingrid Brodnig. She is the author of several books on hate and conspiracy myths in the digital world.
(Photo: Gianmaria Gava)
What does that mean for a democracy?
It is absurd that we should play a game whose rules we do not know. Social media is a factor that influences and can mobilize voting decisions. I find it uncomfortable that we don’t really know what the parties and voters are getting into. It is always said that the gatekeeper function of journalists has ceased to exist because of the Internet, because anyone can read anything without a journalistic filter. But in reality the gatekeepers have just gotten fewer. Never before in human history have so few companies – Facebook, Youtube, Twitter – had such a great influence on the political debate. These companies don’t have to mean it, but they have a tremendous amount of power and don’t explain that power.
Many influencers try to use the platforms in such a way that it corresponds to the algorithm. To what extent do you experience this also with social media appearances by parties?
I believe that parties are less algorithm-driven than many influencers. But you can see that the parties have put much more emphasis on videos in recent years, that they make stories and record reels on Instagram. This shows that politics is submitting to the constraints of social media. The parties certainly did not want to become media houses that constantly produce photos and videos. But they are at a disadvantage on social media if they don’t use all – and especially new – formats.
New formats, opaque algorithms, hot topics … That sounds pretty exhausting from the voters’ point of view, too.
The good news is that a lot of people have little policy on social media. The average German doesn’t go to Instagram to see politicians. That is more of a phenomenon among politically highly interested people. For those, however, it can actually be tedious because they have the feeling that a new sow is being driven through the village every day. This tabloid logic of social media also ensures that you are more likely to notice the really blatant topics there. Everything behind it, which is more brittle or not so striking, is drowned out. This applies to content and also to candidates. It is therefore important that voters follow politics in other settings than in the Facebook or Instagram feed.
How can something like that look like in everyday life?
Keep asking yourself: Am I in my little bladder right now and can I leave it? For example, I would follow more than one party on social media. It’s not about changing your own opinion, but about seeing different political attitudes and realities of life. If you only follow one party, you could get a pretty skewed picture of reality.
And to be completely honest: I wouldn’t recommend anyone to only use social media for political news consumption. The logic there is very much geared towards this quick, short and emotionalizing information. As a responsible citizen, depth and a closer look are also important. Therefore: sit down consciously and read a book. Or a daily newspaper.
What else can you do to make your own timeline more politically balanced?
Pay attention to how you interact. Are there maybe accounts from other directions where I could leave a like? So: give likes consciously and sometimes tactically, nudge the algorithm a bit in this direction. Also pay attention to your own emotionality: If I am constantly upset about things that I read online, I should also include those accounts in my feed that do not always push the tube like that.
This interview is part of the #wahlfilter project of the Süddeutsche Zeitung and Algorithm Watch. You can find more articles on the subject here.