社交媒体如何加剧美国政治两极分化(英)(搜搜报告).pdf
《社交媒体如何加剧美国政治两极分化(英)(搜搜报告).pdf》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《社交媒体如何加剧美国政治两极分化(英)(搜搜报告).pdf(33页珍藏版)》请在得力文库 - 分享文档赚钱的网站上搜索。
1、Fueling the Fire:PAUL M. BARRETT, JUSTIN HENDRIX, and J. GRANT SIMSHow Social Media Intensifies U.S. Political Polarization And What Can Be Done About ItSeptember 2021Center for Businessand Human Rights更多细分领域报告请关注搜搜报告(s o s o y a n b a o ),行研君胃:s o s o b a o g a oContentsAcknowledgmentsWe are gratef
2、ul to Craig Newmark Philanthropies and the Open Society Foundations for their continued support of our work on the technology sector. AuthorsPaul M. Barrett is deputy director of the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights and an adjunct professor at the NYU School of Law.Justin Hendrix is an
3、 associate research scientist and adjunct professor at NYU Tandon School of Engineering and the CEO and editor of Tech Policy Press, a non- profit media venture concerned with the intersection of technology and democracy. J. Grant Sims is a Ropes & Gray research fellow at the NYU Stern Center for Bu
4、siness and Human Rights. Executive Summary . 1Introduction . 3Part 1: Assessing the Research on Social Media and Polarization . 6 Sidebar: Race, Realignment, and Cable TV . 8Part 2: Asymmetric Polarization and its Consequences. 15 Sidebar: Lessons From Abroad . 18Part 3: Conclusion and Recommendatio
5、ns . 22Endnotes . 27Appendix: People Interviewed for This Report . 29更多细分领域报告请关注搜搜报告(s o s o y a n b a o ),行研君胃:s o s o b a o g a o1FUELING THE FIRE: HOW SOCIAL MEDIA INTENSIFIES U.S. POLITICAL POLARIZATION AND WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT1Some critics of the social media industry contend that widespre
6、ad use of Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube has contributed to increased political polariza-tion in the United States. But Facebook, the largest social media platform, has disputed this contention, saying that it is unsupported by social science research. Determining whether social media plays a role i
7、n worsening partisan animosity is important because political polarization has pernicious consequences. In the U.S., where partisan divisiveness has reached new extremes, these conse-quences include declining trust in fellow citizens and major institutions; erosion of democratic norms like respect f
8、or elections; loss of faith in the existence of commonly held facts; and political violence such as the January 6, 2021, insurrection on Capitol Hill.This report analyzes the evidence bearing on social medias role in polar-ization, assesses the effects of severe divisiveness, and recommends steps th
9、e government and the social media industry can take to ameliorate the problem. We conclude that Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are not the original or main cause of rising U.S. political polarization, a phenomenon that long predates the social media industry. But use of those platforms intensifies d
10、ivisiveness and thus contributes to its corrosive consequences. This conclu-sion is bolstered by a close reading of the social science literature, interviews with sociologists and political scientists who have published studies in this area, and Facebooks own pattern of internally researching the po
11、larization problem and periodically adjusting its algorithms to reduce the flow of content likely to stoke political extremism and hatred.Political polarization is a complicated concept. Democracy entails disagree-ment. Democrats clash with Republicans over taxes, immigration, and other issues, whil
12、e demands for social justice may provoke controversy and backlash. In other words, in a democratic system, politics naturally creates some degree of polarization. But in light of the harmful Executive Summaryconsequences of the extreme divisive- ness now plaguing the U.S., limiting polarization ough
13、t to be an urgent priority.We focus on “affective polarization,” a form of partisan hostility characterized by seeing ones opponents as not only wrong on important issues, but also abhorrent, unpatriotic, and a danger to the countrys future. This kind of hatred now infects American politics, and soc
14、ial media has helped spread the disease. But as we illustrate, affective polarization and its consequences are not distributed evenly across the political spectrum. Donald Trumps presidency and his continued influence over many conser- vatives have helped push the right to further extremes than the
15、left has gone. January 6 provides a vivid example.Our recommendations for diminishing the degree to which social media heightens affective polarization reflect several themes: This phenomenon constitutes a continu-ing threat to our democracy and requires strong responses from President Biden, Congre
16、ss, and the social media industry itself. Ideally, the major platforms would have addressed these problems them-selves. But having failed to self-regulate sufficiently, the companies have created a need for Washington to intervene. Only by means of vastly more disclosure about how their algorithms r
17、ank, recommend, and remove content will the platforms be held accountable for the damage they now cause to the political system and society at large. Here, in capsule form, are our recommendations:“Determining the actual relationship between social media and partisan animosity is important and urgen
18、t because the current extreme level of divisiveness in the United States is having pernicious consequences.” 更多细分领域报告请关注搜搜报告(s o s o y a n b a o ),行研君胃:s o s o b a o g a o2FUELING THE FIRE: HOW SOCIAL MEDIA INTENSIFIES U.S. POLITICAL POLARIZATION AND WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT2 Social media companies
19、 should adjust algorithms to depolarize platforms more systematically. The platforms should create metrics to measure polarization and improve the “dial-turning” measures they now apply on an ad hoc basis to reduce antagonism during emergencies.But depolarization must take place transparently. Discl
20、osing what theyre doing, how theyre doing it, and what content might potentially get blocked in the process is the only way the platforms can counter suspicions that such measures are designed to manipulate politics or otherwise exert illegitimate influence.Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube should each
21、 double the size of their human content-moderation corps and make moderators full-fledged employees. This expansion would be expensive, but it would afford front-line reviewers more time to consider difficult content decisions. Bringing them in-house would lead to better supervision of reviewers and
22、 more careful analysis.The industry needs to strengthen engagement with civil society groups that can help identify sources of dis- and misinformation related to elections, public health, and patterns of discrimination. Social media companies should do much more to aid the growing number of nonprofi
23、ts, including introducing new ways for them to share information with the platforms and one another.The platforms should reduce rewards for virality, which can contribute to polarization. Obscuring “like” and share counts, for example, might encourage consideration of content on its merits, rather t
24、han on whether it provokes outrage, hatred, or fear. President Biden needs to prioritize a broad government response to the heightening of partisan hatred by social media. By means of one or more speeches, a bipartisan blue-ribbon commission, or via some other high-visibility vehicle, Biden should s
25、eek to persuade both lawmakers and the public that to avoid future versions of the Capitol insurrection, we must confront online polarization and its malign consequences.The House Select Committee investigating the Capitol insurrection should devote ample resources to determining how technology was
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- 社交 媒体 如何 加剧 美国 政治 两极分化 报告
限制150内