Willing Ignorance By Means of Social Media
In our highly-connected digital world, it is incredibly simple for people to get information; however this information may or may not actually be accurate, and it is undeniable that whoever is sharing the information affects how one perceives it. We all have our respective circles made up of strong and weak ties, and with modern social media technology, it has become easier than ever for people to share their opinions. Opinions are subjective, but when people do not choose to educate themselves with sources other than their Facebook newsfeed, it becomes very likely that they will adopt the views of those whom they interact with most regularly on the web. With this knowledge in mind, it is not surprising that most people at Cornell were shocked that Donald Trump won the recent presidential election.
For the past year, my Facebook newsfeed has been plastered with Buzzfeed quizzes, Tasty food videos, and above all else, articles and status updates about Hillary Clinton and her unworthy, absurd, Cheeto-resembling opponent Donald Trump. When I looked at my newsfeed on November 7th and early on the 8th, almost every post that I saw was a post declaring how excited my Facebook friends were to be out voting–in particular to be voting for the first female president and someone who would actually respect their rights as women, minorities, and other parties who Trump spewed hate rhetoric about during his campaign. There was not a doubt in any of their minds that Hillary would become our 45th president, but when the polls closed and electoral votes came in, this was not the case. The next day was full of confusion around campus; however, it is clear that enough people around the country supported Trump for him to actually win the electoral college–this begged the question, where did these people come from?
Every so often on my newsfeed, I would see a post from one of my very conservative relatives from western Ohio or a post from a random social outlier from high school supporting Trump and denouncing information coming from the “corrupt, liberal media”, and though these are not common on my newsfeed, on the newsfeeds of others, these are the only posts that are coming up. The reason for this is a selective bias based on who people interact with: people tend to interact more heavily with like-minded people, and in this way, with everyone reaffirming the opinions of their close acquaintances without much opposition, an information cascade will occur whereby people believe that they are right regardless of facts. If enough people send a positive signal in favor of Trump, their friends will likely begin to believe the same things regardless of signals that they receive. Likewise, if everyone who you interact with supported Hillary, you are unlikely to believe that a Trump presidency would have even been in the realm of possibilities.
Mark Zuckerberg says that Facebook did not play a substantial role in this election; however looking at network effects, information cascades, and the importances of strong and weak ties, it is clear that this is simply not the case. People interact on Facebook, and they look at information that is going to reaffirm opinions that they already have. Supporters of Hillary see only support for Hillary, so they chose to not exercise their rights and vote as it seems impossible that Trump will win. Trump supporters are appeased with articles celebrating his hate-rhetoric and condemning Hillary’s “crookedness”. To say that Facebook does not influence people’s decisions is a blatant disregard on Zuckerberg’s part toward the realities of the new technological world: online interactions matter, and people’s opinions are not isolated anymore, so it is crucial that our population better inform themselves through means other than social media, but the fact of the matter is social media is ubiquitous, so people will make assumptions anyway.
Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/14/technology/facebook-is-said-to-question-its-influence-in-election.html?_r=0