Hello, friends.
Unless you've been living in an online blackout since around 2004, you've probably at least
heard of the social media site Facebook even if you aren't one of its 1.65 billion monthly
active users.
Alongside rivals such as Twitter and subsidiaries like Instagram, it's become one of the dominant
means by which we communicate with others and share our ideas.
Facebook is an extremely powerful and versatile platform, used for everything from organising
events with friends and family to online activism and political campaigning.
Many have even argued that it played an important role in organising the mass demonstrations
that were so vital for the 2012 Arab Spring.
Yet for all its virtues, there is a worrying trend beginning to emerge because of the way
in which many Western societies utilise sites such as Facebook to share and discuss ideas.
The internet was founded on the notions of free information and open discussion, but
in many cases Facebook is causing the direct opposite.
The United Kingdom's reaction online to the results of the Brexit Referendum, in which
we decided whether or not the UK should remain as part of the European Union, is a prime
example of the 'echo chamber' effect and the damage it can cause.
What is an 'echo chamber'?
To answer, we must turn back to 1988, when French sociologist Michel Maffesoli published
a book entitled 'Le Temps des tribus', or 'The Time of the Tribes'.
This is one of the earliest examples of the idea of 'neotribalism'.
In it, Maffesoli discusses the breakdown of older models of human societies, and the natural
urge we as a species have to gather together into groups we feel a common connection with.
This formation of neotribal collectives isn't without its risks.
Within groups made up entirely of those with similar notions it is all too easy to create
an 'us versus them' mentality, otherising and cutting off dissenting opinions.
How then, does this relate to Facebook?
Well, because Facebook is the embodiment of online neotribalism.
Though Maffesoli wrote his book before the online era, his ideas have a worrying similarity
to the way in which people come together on social media.
We are naturally inclined to congregate with those who share our opinions and worldviews,
just as we are inclined to shut out and ignore those who don't.
Thus our social media circles are dominated by like-minded individuals, each sharing and
discussing the same (or at least similar) ideas and beliefs.
Even if you're one of those more open-minded individuals willing to move within the social
circles of those with opinions different to your own, it doesn't matter.
Facebook's algorithms are actively tracking and analysing which links you're most likely
to follow, which statuses you're inclined to like or share more, and as a result are
actively tailoring your timeline feeds based on this information.
This is an effect known as the “Facebook filter bubble”.
In short, dissenting and alternate ideas are being removed from Facebook, either consciously
by its users or indirectly by the filter bubble.
We are only able to hear what we want to hear.
The damage this can do to our perspective of the world is serious.
A tailored, edited outlook of the world is not accurate to reality, but if its all you
have experienced for a long time it may well become how you perceive it.
If you believe X, and everyone you know believes X, and every news source you come across states
X, then it will seem very likely to you that X is correct and anyone who thinks Y is very
obviously incorrect.
This makes it all too easy to otherise anyone who thinks Y; they're misinformed, delusional,
or lacking in moral character.
But how does this all relate to Brexit?
Well, our online social echo-chambers, the media we consume and the way it is presented
to us, has resulted in a great number of us falling under the impression that the Remain
vote was quite definitely going to win, despite all the evidence of how close an election
it was going to be.
It helps to explain the utter shock of so many, on both sides of the debate, to wake
up on Friday 24th and discover that Leave had in fact narrowly won, an outcome we had
conditioned ourselves to think was all but impossible.
The otherisation, and outright demonisation, of those who voted to Leave the EU has become
increasingly worrisome even just in the brief period after the referendum.
Journalists daring to speak out in favour of the vote are being asked to apologise for
racist attacks across the country, and Leave voters are being lumped together as xenophobic
bigots despite the myriad of reasons they had for voting the way they did.
This is dangerous, creating divisions and stoking the fire for horrendously undemocratic
notions of a second referendum or even having parliament ignore it entirely; whether we
are happy with the result or not, it is vital that we accept that it has happened and move
forward from there.
In trying times we must still acknowledge the legitimacy of differing opinions, even
if we wholly disagree with them.
The alternative is shutting out conflicting opinions and listening only to those who agree
with us, an action that creates only stagnation and a distorted view of the world.
If there is a lesson to be learned from the Brexit campaigns online, it's the importance
of communication and open, honest discussion; Facebook doesn't have to be an echo chamber
if we don't allow it to be.
Read widely, consider articles you wouldn't normally, share them with your friends even
if you don't agree with them; stimulating debate is vital in times such as these.
Facebook doesn't have to be a neotribal echo-chamber; it still could live up to the aspirations
and hopes on which it (and the internet as a whole) was founded, of an open forum for
ideas and discussion.
Thank you for your time, friends.
If you enjoyed this video, please feel free to share it with others.
If you did not, the dislike button is of course available as well.