Social Media and… Mistrust

My post last week was all about the political ramifications of social media. But they are called “social” media for a reason. The social effects are easily as important and problematic. So here goes: the problem and some solutions.

The news from around the world (not yet in Israel with “bigger issues” to deal with) shows a growing trend regarding social media: get it out of the hands of our youth! Australia has already passed a law banning social media from anyone under 16 and other countries (e.g., Germany and Spain) are considering similar legislation.

But what about adults? Indeed, if the anti-minor laws relate to the micro-situation of each young person’s mental health, could it be that for adults the problem is macro-political health? Simply put, as a general rule do social media harm democracy? The answer is a strong “yes.” Why and how?

Because social media undermine trust in the rulers, the bureaucracy, and even in their fellow citizens. Here are three central ways this occurs:

First, social media personalize the information each of us receives based on algorithms whose main purpose is to keep us “engaged.” The best way to do that is to continually feed each of us with “information” that we find attractive, either informatively or emotionally. Thus, many citizens in the same country end up inhabiting non overlapping political realities.

Second, social media algorithms will give higher priority to political scandals, government failures, and national threats as these play into our emotional, negative, and identity affirming preferences.

Third and connected to these two elements: whereas in the previous “legacy media” era (print newspapers, single TV channel), journalism was mostly run and produced by professionals with relatively high ethical values, the contemporary, public-created contents on social media have no such proclivities. The result is a blurring of the boundaries between professional journalism, activists, political parties, influencers, anonymous accounts, and even foreign disrupters. All this renders it very hard to assess the credibility of the news, not to mention eviscerating any possibility of personal accountability by mis-informers.

The not very surprising result? Data from 46 countries between 2015 and 2023 show that trust in news has generally declined, especially among younger and more digitally oriented users. People who primarily use digital and social platforms are more likely to distrust traditional news organizations that functioned as relatively trustworthy mediators between citizens and political institutions. This leads to a double negative effect: not only does trust in those media(ting) organizations erode but such mistrust also gets redirected toward the political system itself that they cover.

Consider this: in the United States, from President Eisenhower (January 1953) all the way through George W. Bush’s presidency (ending in early 2009), the average presidential job approval was 55% (Gallup); since then – precisely when social media began to make inroads – the next three presidents’ (Obama, Trump, Biden) average approval rating had sunk to 44%. (Similar types of decline were registered regarding other national institutions.)

To be sure, correlation does not necessarily mean causality: just because they are connected, that doesn’t prove that one led to the other. But the fact that social media’s rise is correlated to decreasing trust in traditional media, political leaders, and other major public bodies serving the public is strong evidence that indeed social media are the “culprit” here – especially when it’s clear why that should be (the three factors noted above).

The major question that we face, of course, is what to do about this. Free speech is a core value that democratic countries are loathe to undermine. On the other hand, one can make the argument that to a certain extent social media tend to undermine free speech! If algorithms don’t offer a level playing field for certain ideas, if citizens find it difficult to obtain a wide-ranging set of opinions (on social media) as algorithms “feed” them the same diet of news, and if social media encourage (or at least don’t try to filter out) fabrications and disinformation, then one can make the argument that they should be regulated.

And indeed, that’s precisely what’s happening as the European Union and the U.S. Congress are debating and considering legislation along some sort of regulatory apparatus for social media. This is not necessarily something unheard of: over-the-air television and radio have been regulated for decades, Israel among such countries.

Another approach is “bottom-up” i.e., individuals taking their social media destiny into their own hands. For instance, “bricking” is becoming increasingly popular. The “Brick” is a small, grey cube (around $60; the size of an AirPod’s case), through which users reduce screen time (the company claims three hours a day on average, at present) by choosing the apps they would like to disable and then kissing the phone to the “brick,” which blocks that app from appearing on the phone. This is reversible by “unbricking” – the same procedure once again. About 170,000 app downloads have already been registered.

Other examples: 19 European cities host an “Offline Club” – face-to-face social groups that forbid the use of phones while meeting; “digital detox” retreats (there are even “Internet and Technology Addicts Anonymous” groups!); “unplugged” restaurants and cocktail bars that forbid the use of phones on their premises; etc.

An even greater threat to unfettered social media manipulation are court cases (https://socialmediavictims.org/social-media-lawsuits/). Thousands of “social media addiction” lawsuits have been filed against major platforms, such as TikTok, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat – contending that these companies didn’t issue warnings that their platforms were designed to be intentionally addictive to children and teens. Should these lawsuits succeed (Facebook’s trial has already started), one can envision the next step: similar court cases regarding what harms social media do to adults as well.

Even if these cases are not victorious in court – especially if judges agree about the “harm” argument but are loathe to limit free speech – their very widespread coverage will educate the general public about the damage social media are doing to individuals and to society in general. One can be sure that the traditional media (whether print or digital) will work overtime in bringing that message home. But as in other cases of “addiction withdrawal,” it will be a long-term struggle to return democracy to relatively civil debates based mostly on truthful news.