Love and hate speech, candy and shitstorms are just a few pixels apart. And you constantly have to decide which team you’re on. It’s exhausting. But are our times really so black and white? Or are contrasts just more noticeable?
When I started this post, I wanted to start with examples from my social media feed of people getting upset or outraged. Or doing the opposite: celebrating others and throwing hearts around. That would have been no problem either. There are more than enough examples – even in my rather reflective social media bubble. But would that be representative? If I’m honest: No. It would have been anecdotal evidence at best. If not even wrong. Because most of the posts are not as loud as one might assume when evaluated soberly . But just like in real life, the shouters stand out more and attract attention. This is a problem in the long term.
Information overload as the main problem
People mainly read short texts on social media and headlines on news websites. That is normal. Due to time constraints, anything else would not be possible. A catchy title, if necessary created by the “Best Online Title Generator“, and a teaser with plenty of fire is therefore essential. After all, the article has to be clicked on and the post has to be unfolded first. But this is a tricky undertaking, especially when it comes to factual and complex topics. For this reason, science communicators, for example, very rarely tread such a fine line. As a result, their information does not reach the masses. Too complicated. The “Heinsberg Protocol” did things differently and made the study easy to consume via social media, breaking it down into “snackable content”. And they were promptly beaten up. Author Jens Rehländer called the communication a “memorial to failed science communication“. At the same time, he used the very mechanisms he was criticizing. He celebrates the Leopoldina’s “simple PDF” on corona, but appears as a howler monkey himself. Why didn’t he publish a sober statement? Right, because then nobody would have been interested. Attention is a valuable commodity. So people shout.
You can get upset about anything
Sometimes you get attention on social media faster than you think. But not always positive. Cathy Hummels posts a selfie at Munich airport – shitstorm! Lena-Meyer Landrut calls for a climate protest – shitstorm! The band Culcha Candela criticizes the corona lockdown – shitstorm! I don’t want to slip into whataboutism at this point, but in relation to everything else that’s going wrong in the world, it’s already absurd what trivialities and banalities people get upset about on social media. And how often. And how fiercely. Objective criticism on social media? Rarely have I laughed so much.
Provocation and hate as a business model
Criticizing others is part of a journalist’s job. The problem: the boundaries between journalist, blogger, vlogger, multiplier and influencer have long been blurred. Accordingly, more and more people are taking the right to publicly criticize others. Rarely does this happen as sharply and objectively as in Rezo’s “Destruction of the CDU“. The trend is more for personal and hurtful all-round attacks, such as Oliver Pocher’s attack on influencer Anne Wünsche. And the question arises: What is Pocher trying to achieve? Does he want to make the world a better place and expose the sleazy tricks of influencers? Or is he primarily putting himself in the spotlight by pillorying wishes? Well, he at least accepts that Anne Wünsche will be bombarded with hate as a result of his rant. I would even say: he provokes it. And what happens? A front is formed: Team Pocher vs. Team Wünsche. How stupid. Because both Wünsche’s supposed Like purchases and Pocher’s agitation are worthy of criticism.
The fear of hate speech and bullying
The fronts just described are constantly forming online at . Only the contexts change. According to the “#Hassim Netz” study, this means that more than half of internet users are less likely to express their political opinion in online discussions due to (threatening) hate comments. That is sad. At the same time, the fringes are flourishing and trumpeting their messages to the social media world under the guise of freedom of opinion. Is that a contradiction? No, because for them, opinion has become certainty. As the saying goes, “Once your reputation is ruined, you can live a carefree life”, counter-arguments bounce off them. They are resistant. And above all, they are not alone.
Facebook groups for everyone – including extremists
The advertising slogan “There’s a Facebook group for everyone at ” is unfortunately not only true in the positive sense. There are also groups for conspiracy theorists, right-wingers and religious extremists . Recapturing their members is difficult. Once you have lost your way and have resigned yourself to being labeled an alarmist, Nazi or Islamist , you are unlikely to change your attitude any time soon. The chance that they will be vocal on social media is higher. A social media analysis by Alto Analytics has also shown that a minority of right-wing users dominate political discussions on social networks. A few can also be many. In addition to percentages, you should therefore always look at the absolute figures. For example, “just one percent of all eligible voters” would be 620,000 people. Not only parents know how loud a single child can scream. Accordingly, 620,000 people can cause a lot of noise. Worse than a thousand jackhammers.
No-go topics: Refugees, Islam and gender
Because the fringes are so strong, it is difficult to have an objective discussion on Facebook, Twitter & Co. because all too quickly you are pushed in one direction by other users. It is almost impossible to criticize immigrant refugees, the EU, Israel, public broadcasting, veganism, gender stereotyping or the WHO without being labeled a Nazi, anti-European, anti-Semite, AfDer, animal murderer, masculinist or conspiracy theorist. “The longer a online discussion goes on, the more likely it is to be compared to the Nazis or Hitler,” is Godwin’s Law from the early 1990s. And today? This is the case after just a few seconds. Basically, would always need a ten-minute monologue first, in which you explain your basic stance and then, from minute eleven onwards, quietly criticize it. Of course you can do it that way, but then again nobody is interested in it anymore. Because, as I said, the attention span is short. So short, concise statements are called for. A vicious circle.
Discourse in the middle is missing on social media
However, things are different in the Posemuckel Nord SPD local association. Here you can have controversial discussions about sensitive issues without taking a direct beating . But that hardly has any influence. You could also talk to the wall. A considerable proportion of opinion-forming now takes place via social media . And there, in turn, a controversial discourse in the middle is hardly possible. Instead, clear statements are required, preferably in one sentence or even better: a hashtag. Campaigns such as #keinenmillimeternachrechts fuel this divide and, in my opinion, benefit the right rather than harm them. One wrong word, one failed expression, one misinterpreted half-sentence and you’re considered an “I’m-yes-no-Nazi-but”-Nazi. Unfortunately, convincing, picking up, perhaps even questioning your own point of view, are not necessarily among the strengths of social media users. Yet this would often be more useful than excluding and “pushing away”. Not just when it comes to politics.
Algorithms reinforce the filter bubble
“People always say: The Internet is getting worse. The Internet always stays. People are getting worse,” you could say, loosely based on Joachim Ringelnatz . After all, people are the same as in real life, and social media are just platforms. But they are not neutral. This is because algorithms reinforce life in the filter bubble and suggest content to users that matches their interests, preferences and opinions. Meat for the carnivores, vegetables for the vegetarians. This results in a narrowing of the world view. Also known as the echo chamber effect. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube & Co. are certainly not responsible for the division of society , but they do contribute to it.
The USA has long been divided into red and blue states
The satirical street poll “Lie WitnessNews – Trump Watergate Edition” by comedian Jimmy Kimmel is a good example of what black-and-white thinking can lead to. The Watergate affair was blamed on Donald Trump and a few of his supporters were asked what they thought of “his” behavior. Answer: They think it’s ok. Some of them even take sides with Trump. More tragicomedy is hardly possible. Just stupid Trump supporters? That would be as cheap as it is wrong. The fronts are simply hardened. This was also shown in the impeachment proceedings . For some, Trump was guilty from the start, for others he was wrongly accused from the beginning. Bias on both sides. It comes as little surprise that Trump’s poll ratings have hardly changed during the proceedings.
Conclusion: more self-reflection, more personal discourse
Of course you can wish for algorithms that broaden your world view and contradict your own opinion. At the same time, I have to admit that I would be annoyed if content from AfD members or conspiracy theorists were constantly suggested to me. Discussion-friendly platforms such as Twitter and Facebook may be on the decline, but the problem won’t go away on its own. Because on YouTube, funny people reach an alarming number of people with crude theories, half-truths and lies, sometimes in the seven-figure range. I don’t dare to say whether we are only at the beginning of a social divide. But I fear that we are. Therefore, I can only appeal to you to reflect on your own opinion more often , to strike a softer note yourself, to be open to other points of view and to enter into discourse with those who think differently – and not to get tired in the process.
