Social Media leads to Following the Crowd
Social media websites that we use every day, such as Facebook and Twitter, often quiet our opinions if we think they are different from our friends. Additionally, it was found that those who use social media regularly are more likely to be hesitant to express their opinions in the offline world if these opinions are not considered the “norm”.
It’s interesting that that the internet helps unite people who have similar thoughts and ideas, so they won’t be very willing to say anything that is contrary to these views. By having resources such as “people you may know” on Facebook or tweets of people your friends follow (but you don’t follow) appear on your Twitter feed, you will be linked with people who are similar to you or have some common thread. So, your network of people becomes less diversified.
In general, humans seek the approval of others and look for cues in order to judge if people agree with them. These can be in the form of status updates, news stories, photos, etc. Since active social media users see these cues often, they think that this is how they need to use social media as well, so they are less likely to do otherwise.
This is an example of an information cascade. If you see there is a topic and there are two positions and you see more of your friends are siding with one position, you are likely to side with that same position. There are rational reasons to do this, because it will maximize some sort of payoff. First, you may think that you friends have all the same information you have, and they believe their position is the correct one, so maybe they know something you don’t. This is an information-based effect. Second, being part of a crowd has value in itself, and you want to side with your friends regardless of whether or not it is the best position available. This is the direct-benefit effect. A cascade can happen when you have a large set of people who all make the same decision, regardless of their private information; it can form with rational participants, it can be based on very little genuine information, and it can be wrong. If you see a majority of your friends (let’s say, at least two friends) taking some position, then you are likely to follow the crowd because that is how most rational people think since they want to maximize their benefit. The next person will do the same thing as you, and the next person, and so on. Since your Facebook and Twitter are networks containing a large set of people, there will be a cascade effect.
So, overall, if you thought your friends on social media were likely to have the same position as you on a certain issue, you are more likely to join a discussion about it in real life and online. However, if your friends have an opposing position, you are more likely to be hesitant to discuss your views online and in real life. This is an obvious example of how people follow the crowd, and as a result, there is less debate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/upshot/how-social-media-silences-debate.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0