Online outrage on social media

“Geez, I was only on Facebook for three minutes, and in that time I lost eight friends!”

So said a buddy of mine as we were catching up over beers. Unsurprisingly, his remarks took place during an election season. As usual, he (and many others) saw no shortage of outrage on Facebook and Twitter, where political disagreements quickly devolve into partisan arguments, until they totally degenerate into unforgiving storms of ideological rage. Not uncommonly, this online outrage destroys friendships.

“Wow, eight friends … in three minutes,” I pondered, taking a sip from my lager. What amazes me about this outrage is that it takes place entirely online, not in person. People are disagreeing, arguing, and ending friendships without seeing each other face-to-face.

How does this happen? It often starts with snarky comments or Internet memes on social media, which never change anyone’s mind about complex political issues like gun control or health care. If anything, they have the opposite effect—people react in frustration and anger. That’s because, in the realm of politics, online posting has little to do with changing other people’s minds. Rather, it’s about virtue signaling to one’s political tribe (and, by implication, morally shaming another).

Needless to say, this behavior fuels much of the non-stop outrage that appears so prevalent online. We rarely react this way in person. So why do social media seem to bring out the worst in us at times?

Offline vs. online outrage

Looking for an answer to this question, I browsed through some of the latest cognitive science research on social media, which brought me to the work of Molly Crockett. She’s a neuroscientist who studies how people feel outrage, both online and offline. Overall, she found, people express more outrage online, especially on social media. And yet, they are far less reactive offline, such as when reading books or having in-person conversations (Crockett, 2017).

For some reason, when people confront political disagreements while reading books or having person-to-person conversations, they rarely emote outrage. Nevertheless, whenever they encounter those opinions on social media, a lot of people go nuts.

It’s clear that social media amplify outrage, but why? In short, the answer has to do with convenience and risk.

Offline outrage: inconvenient and risky

When we have disagreements offline, most of us like to keep it civil, because expressing outrage in person is inconvenient and depleting. It’s distressing and draining to yell at someone’s face. In-person outrage also carries a risk: The other person might yell back in your face.

Online outrage: more convenient and less risky

Expressing outrage online is more convenient. It’s easier to do so from behind a screen and not in person. It also carries a lower degree of risk: You don’t have to look at the other person directly and deal with his or her reactions face-to-face.

Therefore, it should be no surprise social media amplify outrage. Pissing people off online is more convenient and less risky than doing so offline.

Online outrage and social skills vs. social media

Online outrage shows that we, as a society, have a serious problem. Looking at someone and dealing with disagreement or argumentation in an empathic and rational way is a crucial life skill. You need it in business, government, and relationships. Developing it requires social-emotional learning and conflict-resolution techniques that make interpersonal communication and cooperation possible. Social media could be short circuiting these social skills!

Assuming social media don’t go away, here’s a question we need to ask going forward: Do we really want our social skills short circuited by social media?

If we’re to answer no, then we need to find ways to mitigate the negative effects of social media and stop them from exploiting the worst of our cognitive vulnerabilities. As a suggestion, here are two approaches I’ve found helpful.

A philosophical approach: Question the value of social media

One approach is to ask the following question: Given the amount of time I spend on social media, do these platforms truly bring value to my life and friendships?

Obviously, there’s going to be a tradeoff of pros and cons. However, if the cons outweigh the pros, consider cutting your time on social media or deleting your accounts. (For an elaboration on this point, see On delete Facebook: Questioning the value of social media.)

The cocktail approach: Disagree (respectfully) in person

Here’s another, more socially oriented, approach: When engaging in political disagreements or arguments (which is inevitable once you’re an adult), don’t do it on platforms like Facebook or Twitter. It only inflames digital tribalism and ideological paroxysm. As a general rule, keep partisan politics offline.

Now, that doesn’t mean don’t engage at all. Instead of doing so online, do it in person. For example, try having a beer with someone of another political persuasion. Yes, face-to-face conversation takes more effort, and it gets messy—maybe even uncomfortable—when disagreements or arguments loom. But it’s more likely to be respectful, civil, and meaningful than feeding online outrage.

And hey, even if you can’t agree—even when respectful argumentation doesn’t change minds in the end—at least you enjoyed a beer with someone and know that person isn’t the Antichrist.

Do you have any suggestions as well?  Feel free to leave them in a comment below, or check out more EDUCATIONAL TOPTICS on this site.

---

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.