Why social media incentivize online outrage culture
It’s no secret—during election years in particular—that online outrage culture dominates plenty of social media. That’s especially true whenever politics come up. According to Pew Research, social media users in the U.S. are now more likely to describe political discourse as “stressful and frustrating” on sites such as Twitter and Facebook; and nearly half of Americans feel “worn out” by the number of political posts they see.
Hence, it’s no coincidence political outrage has exploded on social media over the years. As I’ll argue, online outrage culture (a.k.a. ‘cancel culture’ or ‘call-out culture’) is best understood as a symptom of a business technology designed to incentivize dysfunctional communication, especially about politics. So, what is it about the design of social media that seems to bring out the worst in humanity, particularly if we try to talk about political matters?
In general, I think we can point to at least a couple reasons. The first has to do with the psychology of communicating from behind screens. The second involves the ad-driven business model of several social media platforms. Together, these two forces help fashion what we experience as online outrage culture.
The psychology of communicating online: media richness and social presence
One of the quirks about political outrage nowadays is that it can take place entirely online. Unfortunately, arguing about politics while typing angrily from behind a screen makes outrage much easier than, say, disagreeing while listening to or looking at another person.
When we have a real conversation about political differences, we tend to keep it civil, because it’s inconvenient and emotionally draining to yell at someone. Plus, we risk the possibility the other person will yell right back.
In contrast, communicating outrage on social media is more convenient and less risky, mainly because the communication technology lacks what’s known as “media richness” or “social presence”—that is, the ability to show subtle social cues, such as facial expression, tone of voice, and body language. For example, text messaging is not as ‘rich’ or ‘socially present’ as audio and video calling (Daft and Lengel, 1986; Short et al., 1976).
Consequently, the less media richness or social presence a communication technology has, the easier it is to talk smack about others from behind a screen. Not surprisingly, studies show that outrage is more common online, especially when people don’t have to listen to or look at one another and deal with their emotional reactions directly (Crocket, 2017).
Now, while the psychology of communicating from behind screens may help explain the existence of online outrage, it doesn’t necessarily explain why it’s happening to such an ample degree. That’s because there’s another—and more pertinent—reason why social media amplify so much outrage.
The business model of social media: when online outrage culture becomes profitable
To understand how online outrage culture becomes amplified on social media, consider the business model of sites like Facebook and Twitter. Their platforms are designed for a specific purpose: to run ads. In brief, the online algorithms running these sites are designed to execute the following agenda:
- Deliver featured content and ads—a.k.a. ‘sponsored content’—into your news feed or timeline that ‘hook’ your attention and keep you online.
- Collect personal data from your online activity. For instance, all your likes, comments, shares, preferences, uploads, downloads, transactions, and even the amount of time you spend scrolling or pausing.
- Sell access to your personal data to third parties, who, in turn, target you with more content and ads. Of course, that includes political content or ads.
To cut a long story short, many social media platforms (such as Facebook news feeds and Twitter timelines) are designed to hijack our attention with clickbait-style content and ads. The goal is to keep everyone clicking online for as long as possible. That way, advertisers can hone in on their target market and reap profits. Needless to say, what get more clicks are often what get people more worked up or outraged.
Thus, it’s not an accident that social media have amplified online outrage culture. As Craig Newmark, the founder of Craigslist, has pointed out, outrage can be profitable on these platforms.
Mitigating online outrage culture
Although many recognize online outrage culture as a problem, it’s not always clear what to do about it. How can we help mitigate online outrage culture and help restore some civility in the public sphere? Here are three suggestions.
Suggestion 1: Refrain from political polemics online, especially partisan posts.
It should be obvious that arguing about politics over social media has little effect when it comes to changing hearts and minds. It may not be the intention, but posting partisan content on social media is, in effect, virtue signaling—if not moral posturing—to one’s digital tribe or political in-group (and, by implication, morally shaming another).
Obviously, this kind of online behavior fails to persuade others. If anything, it usually just fuels further outrage. Sure, you may make a point, but you probably won’t make a difference. As a general rule, don’t do it.
Suggestion 2: If you can, quit most social media platforms until better or more ethical alternatives hit the market.
In an entertaining yet concise book, Ten Arguments for Deleting All Your Social Media Accounts Right Now, computer scientist Jaron Lanier writes, “Quitting social media is the most finely targeted way to resist the insanity of our times” (Lanier, 2018, p 25). He may be right. As we’ve seen, online outrage culture is a symptom of a technological design that incentivizes us to communicate in dysfunctional ways.
My own conviction is that we’ll need to rethink, redesign, and regulate social media in a more socially conscious way, without infringing on civic values like free speech. (For example, my colleague Terry Chaney has summarized plausible recommendations being discussed in several policy circles at present.)
To be sure, I’m not categorically against social media. Rather, I’m for reforming the technology. However, until such reform happens, I believe it’s important for individuals to take a good look at social media and question the value of these platforms in their current state. For instance, if they’re a time suck that don’t really add net value to our lives, it may be best to quit them, at least for now.
Suggestion 3: Most important, converse with your neighbors, including people with diverse viewpoints.
Online outrage culture shows that our society has a deeper problem: We can’t hold civic conversations. Sure, ‘canceling’ or ‘calling out’ others on social media may feel good to the ego. Nevertheless, looking at people, listening to them, and dealing with disagreement or argumentation empathically and rationally are crucial social skills. It’s no stretch to suggest that social media are short-circuiting these skills.
And yet, if we allow ourselves to lose those social abilities, we may end up losing what make us most human.
References
Crockett, Molly. J. (2017). Moral outrage in the digital age. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(11), 769-771. doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0213-3
Daft, Richard L. and Lengel, Robert H. (1986). “Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design.” Management Science 32(5), 554–571. doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554
Lanier, Jaron. (2018). Ten Arguments for Deleting All Your Social Media Accounts Right Now. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Short, John, Williams, Ederyn, and Christie, Bruce. (1976). The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. London: John Wiley & Sons.