Love and hate speech, candy and shitstorms are just a few\npixels apart. And you constantly have to decide which\nteam you’re on. It’s exhausting. But are our times really so\nblack and white? Or are contrasts just more noticeable? <\/p>\n\n
When I started this post, I wanted to start with\nexamples from my social media feed of people\ngetting upset or outraged. Or doing the opposite: celebrating others and throwing\nhearts around. That would have been no problem either. There are\nmore than enough examples – even in my rather reflective social media bubble. But\nwould that be representative? If I’m honest: No. It would have been anecdotal\nevidence at best. If not even wrong. Because most of the posts are not as loud as one might assume when evaluated soberly\n. But just like in\nreal life, the shouters stand out more and attract\nattention. This is a problem in the long term. <\/p>\n\n
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<\/a>“, 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 Rehl\u00e4nder called the communication a “memorial to failed science communication<\/a>“. 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. <\/p>\n\n Sometimes you get attention on social media\nfaster than you think. But not always positive. Cathy Hummels posts\na selfie at Munich airport – shitstorm<\/a>!\nLena-Meyer Landrut calls for a climate protest – shitstorm<\/a>!\nThe band Culcha Candela criticizes the corona lockdown – shitstorm!\nI don’t want to slip into whataboutism<\/a> at this point,\nbut in relation to everything else that’s going wrong in the world, it’s\nalready absurd what trivialities and banalities people\nget upset about on social media. And how often. And how fiercely. Objective\ncriticism on social media? Rarely have I laughed so much. <\/p>\n\n Criticizing others is part of a journalist’s job. The\nproblem: the boundaries between journalist, blogger, vlogger, multiplier and\ninfluencer have long been blurred. Accordingly, more and more\npeople are taking the right to publicly criticize others. Rarely does\nthis happen as sharply and objectively as in Rezo’s “Destruction of the CDU<\/a>“. The\ntrend is more for personal and hurtful all-round attacks, such as Oliver Pocher’s attack on influencer Anne W\u00fcnsche<\/a>. And the\nquestion arises: What is Pocher trying to achieve? Does he want to make the world a better place and expose the\nsleazy tricks of influencers? Or is he primarily putting himself in the\nspotlight by pillorying wishes? Well, he at least accepts\nthat Anne W\u00fcnsche will be bombarded with\nhate as a result of his rant. I would even say: he provokes it. And what\nhappens? A front is formed: Team Pocher vs. Team W\u00fcnsche. How\nstupid. Because both W\u00fcnsche’s supposed Like purchases and\nPocher’s agitation are worthy of criticism. <\/p>\n\n The fronts just described are constantly forming online at\n. Only the contexts change. According to the “#Hassim Netz<\/a>” study, this means that more than half\nof internet users are less likely to express their\npolitical opinion in online discussions due to (threatening) hate comments. That is sad. At the same time,\nthe fringes are flourishing and trumpeting their\nmessages to the social media world under the guise of freedom of opinion. Is that a contradiction? No, because\nfor them, opinion has become certainty. As the saying goes, “Once\nyour reputation is ruined, you can live a carefree life”, counter-arguments bounce off\nthem. They are resistant. And above all, they are not alone. <\/p>\n\n The advertising slogan “There’s a Facebook group for everyone at\n<\/a>” is unfortunately not only true in the positive\nsense. There are also groups for conspiracy theorists, right-wingers and religious extremists\n. Recapturing their members is difficult. Once you have\nlost your way and have resigned yourself to being labeled an alarmist, Nazi or Islamist\n, you are unlikely to change your attitude any time soon. The\nchance that they will be vocal on social media is higher. A social media analysis by Alto Analytics<\/a> has also shown that a minority of right-wing users dominate\npolitical discussions on social networks. A few\ncan also be many. In addition to percentages, you should therefore always\nlook at the absolute figures. For example, “just one percent of all\neligible voters” would be 620,000 people. Not only parents know how loud\na single child can scream. Accordingly, 620,000 people can cause a lot of noise.\nWorse than a thousand jackhammers. <\/p>\n\n Because the fringes are so strong, it is difficult to have an objective discussion on Facebook, Twitter\n& Co. because all too quickly\nyou are pushed in one direction by other users. It is almost impossible to criticize\nimmigrant refugees, the EU, Israel, public broadcasting,\nveganism, gender stereotyping or the WHO without being labeled a Nazi,\nanti-European, anti-Semite, AfDer, animal murderer, masculinist or\nconspiracy theorist. “The longer a\nonline discussion goes on, the more likely it is to be compared to\nthe Nazis or Hitler,” is Godwin’s Law<\/a> from\nthe early 1990s. And today? This is the case after just a few seconds. Basically,\nwould always need a ten-minute monologue first, in which you explain your\nbasic stance and then, from minute eleven onwards, quietly criticize it.\nOf course you can do it that way, but then again nobody\nis interested in it anymore. Because, as I said, the attention span is short. So short,\nconcise statements are called for. A\nvicious circle.<\/p>\n\n However, things are different in the Posemuckel Nord SPD local association.\nHere you can have controversial discussions about sensitive issues without taking a direct beating\n. But that hardly has any influence. You could also talk to the wall. A\nconsiderable proportion of opinion-forming now takes place via social media\n. And there, in turn, a controversial discourse in the middle is hardly\npossible. Instead, clear statements are required, preferably in one sentence\nor even better: a hashtag. Campaigns such as #keinenmillimeternachrechts fuel\nthis divide and, in my opinion, benefit the right rather than harm\nthem. One wrong word, one failed expression, one misinterpreted\nhalf-sentence and you’re considered an “I’m-yes-no-Nazi-but”-Nazi.\nUnfortunately, convincing, picking up, perhaps even questioning your own point of view,\nare not necessarily among the strengths of social media users. Yet\nthis would often be more useful than excluding and “pushing away”. Not just when it comes to politics. <\/p>\n\n “People always say: The Internet is getting worse.\nThe Internet always stays. People are getting worse,” you could say, loosely based on Joachim Ringelnatz<\/a>\n. After all, people are the same as in real life, and social\nmedia are just platforms. But they are not neutral. This is because algorithms\nreinforce life in the filter bubble and suggest content\nto users that matches their interests, preferences and opinions. Meat for the carnivores,\nvegetables for the vegetarians. This results in a narrowing of the\nworld view. Also known as the echo chamber effect. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube\n& Co. are certainly not responsible for the division of society\n, but they do contribute to it. <\/p>\n\n The satirical\nstreet poll “Lie\nWitnessNews – Trump Watergate Edition<\/a>” by comedian Jimmy Kimmel is a good example of what black-and-white thinking can lead to.\nThe Watergate affair was blamed on Donald Trump and a few\nof his supporters were asked what they thought of “his” behavior. Answer: They\nthink it’s ok. Some of them even take sides with Trump. More tragicomedy\nis hardly possible. Just stupid Trump supporters? That would be as cheap as it is wrong. The\nfronts are simply hardened. This was also shown in the impeachment proceedings\n. For some, Trump was guilty from the start, for others he was wrongly accused from\nthe beginning. Bias on both sides. It comes as little surprise\nthat Trump’s\npoll ratings<\/a> have hardly changed during the proceedings. <\/p>\n\n Of course you can wish for algorithms that broaden your world view\nand contradict your own opinion. At the same time, I have to admit\nthat I would be annoyed if content from AfD members or\nconspiracy theorists were constantly suggested to me. Discussion-friendly platforms\nsuch as Twitter and Facebook may be on the decline, but the problem won’t\ngo away on its own. Because on YouTube, funny people\nreach an alarming number of people with crude theories, half-truths and lies,\nsometimes in the seven-figure range. I don’t dare to say whether we are only at the beginning of a\nsocial divide. But I fear\nthat we are. Therefore, I can only appeal to you to reflect on your own opinion more often\n, to strike a softer note yourself, to be open to other\npoints of view and to enter into discourse with those who think differently – and not to get\ntired in the process. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 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? <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3826,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[639,1],"tags":[641,644,645,643,640,642,638],"class_list":["post-3818","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-net-culture","category-nicht-kategorisiert","tag-candystorm","tag-echo-chamber","tag-echo-chamber-effect","tag-filter-bubble","tag-hate-speech","tag-love-speech","tag-shitstorm"],"yoast_head":"\nYou can get upset about anything<\/h2>\n\n
Provocation and hate as a business model<\/h2>\n\n
The fear of hate speech and bullying <\/h2>\n\n
Facebook groups for everyone – including extremists<\/h2>\n\n
No-go topics: Refugees, Islam and gender<\/h2>\n\n
Discourse in the middle is missing on social media <\/h2>\n\n
Algorithms reinforce the filter bubble<\/h2>\n\n
The USA has long been divided into red and blue states<\/h2>\n\n
Conclusion: more self-reflection, more personal discourse<\/h2>\n\n