Social media and political polarization in America | 60 Minutes

Summary

This episode of 60 Minutes tackles the alarming rise of political polarization in America, fueled by social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook. Experts like Tristan Harris and Jonathan Haidt discuss how these platforms are not merely mirrors of societal divisions but amplifiers, magnifying conflict by rewarding inflammatory content. The conversation touches on the drastic differences in social media consumption between the U.S. and China, and posits the possibility of regulation, akin to the tobacco industry, to curb the harmful effects of social media on democracy and public discourse.

Highlights

• Tristan Harris highlights how social media maximizes profit by fueling anger. 💸
• A study shows attacking political opponents on Twitter is highly engaging. 🐦
• Platforms encourage divisive content, making US vs. them narratives more prominent. 🆚
• China’s version of TikTok promotes educational content, unlike the U.S. version. 🇨🇳🎓
• Potential regulations could compare to past efforts against big tobacco. 🚬⚖️

Key Takeaways

• Social media platforms amplify political divisions rather than just reflecting them. 📈
• Anger is profitable: Outrageous content gets more likes and shares, driving division. 😡💰
• Platforms like TikTok have different content strategies for different regions, influencing development differently. 🌍📱
• The majority feels silenced in political discourse due to fear of backlash. 🤐
• Reform could mirror anti-tobacco efforts, aiming for stricter regulations. 🚭

Overview

Social media is shaking up political discourse, but not in a healthy way. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter aren’t just passive observers of societal divides; they’re active participants that profit by fanning the flames of outrage. As 60 Minutes reports, this has turned us into 'division entrepreneurs,' where inciting conflict is richly rewarded with likes, followers, and retweets.

Imagine a virtual world where everyone's equipped with a dart gun, capable of launching attacks at light speed. That’s how social psychologist Jonathan Haidt describes the current digital landscape, where extreme views overshadow moderate voices. The platforms amplify these effects by rewarding the most incendiary content, skewing public perception and overwhelming calmer, more reasoned voices.

Experts like Tristan Harris argue for a regulatory approach similar to what changed the tobacco industry. With the harmful effects of social media becoming ever more apparent, from mental health issues to political polarization, there’s a growing call for transparency and accountability. Just as society has adapted to curtail other harmful industries, the time for social media reform might be now.

Chapters

• 00:00 - 00:30: Introduction to Social Media and Political Polarization With the midterm elections approaching, the political climate in America is characterized by significant anger and polarization. Republicans and Democrats are fiercely attacking each other, a sentiment that is vividly reflected on social media platforms. An analysis by the New York Times has highlighted a surge in the use of the phrase 'Civil War' online, suggesting an intensification of hostile rhetoric. Experts in academia and technology are now questioning whether social media is merely a mirror of societal polarization, or if it actually fosters and amplifies these divisions.
• 00:30 - 01:30: Role of Social Media Platforms The chapter discusses the role of social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter in shaping society.
• 01:30 - 03:30: Discussion with Tristan Harris Tristan Harris discusses the dynamics of social media platforms and how they encourage divisive behavior. He explains that using morally outrageous or inflammatory language increases the likelihood of content being shared, which results in more likes, followers, and retweets. Harris coins the term 'division entrepreneurs' for those who exploit this feature of social media for engagement. He references his 2020 documentary, 'The Social Dilemma,' where he argued that social media has hijacked our attention.
• 03:30 - 06:00: Study Findings on Social Media Influence A recent study of Twitter indicates that attacking political opponents significantly increases engagement. Specifically, using terms that refer to one's political 'outgroup' increases the likelihood of a post being retweeted or shared by 67%. This finding suggests that social media platforms may be amplifying this behavior rather than merely reflecting societal tendencies.
• 06:00 - 09:00: Impact on Political Landscape The chapter titled 'Impact on Political Landscape' discusses the amplification of existing divisions in society, particularly within the context of political discourse. It uses the example of a Department of Justice photo release, which showed classified documents in former President Donald Trump's Florida home, to illustrate how different narratives around political events gain traction. The chapter highlights the disparity in public engagement with a factual news story versus a politically charged tweet from a Republican congresswoman, suggesting how political affiliations can dramatically shift the reach and impact of information.
• 09:00 - 12:00: Influence of Social Media on Public Discourse The chapter delves into the influence of social media on public discourse, highlighting how content filled with anger or controversy tends to receive significantly more engagement than straightforward news stories. It uses examples to demonstrate how tweets with extreme labels, such as calling Donald Trump a traitor, get substantial attention compared to neutral news. This trend leads to a skewed political landscape, as illustrated by how figures like Marjory Taylor Green garner more recognition than many other political figures.
• 12:00 - 15:00: TikTok versus Douyin The chapter titled 'TikTok versus Douyin' delves into the psychological influence of social media platforms, particularly focusing on how content that sparks anger or tribalistic sentiments tends to go viral. Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist and professor at NYU Stern School of Business, highlights how these platforms drive user engagement by capitalizing on our tribal instincts. This phenomenon fosters an 'us versus them' mentality, posing challenges for coexistence with technology intended to captivate our attention and promote advertisements. The chapter explores the underlying strategies employed by social media to sustain user interaction, often at the expense of promoting divisive, inflammatory content.
• 15:00 - 18:00: Social Media's Role in Political and Social Polarization The chapter discusses the impact of social media features such as likes, shares, and retweets, which became prevalent about a decade ago. These features have made information more viral and have amplified its reach, likened to giving everyone a dart gun, allowing for widespread criticism and attacks without the need for accountability or evidence. The ease and speed with which people can now voice complaints or criticize others contribute significantly to political and social polarization.
• 18:00 - 21:00: Conclusion and Calls for Regulation The chapter discusses how the extreme ends of the political spectrum, despite being a minority (about 7-8% on each side), have been able to dominate public discourse and policy. This dominance occurs even though the moderate majority is larger, but often feels exhausted or intimidated. The term 'structural stupidity' is introduced, suggesting that smart and educated people sometimes fail to make progress due to the power dynamics and pressures from these extremes.

Social media and political polarization in America | 60 Minutes Transcription

• 00:00 - 00:30 with midterm elections in just two days America is in a very angry moment Republicans attack Democrats and Democrats returned fire social media is a Showcase of our anger an analysis by the New York Times this fall found that online use of the phrase Civil War has exploded now leading voices in Academia and Tech are saying that rather than simply reflecting the polarization in society
• 00:30 - 01:00 platforms like Facebook and Twitter are helping to create it 60 Minutes first met Tristan Harris in 2017 the co-founder of the center for Humane technology argued that social media platforms were addicting us to maximize profit now he's warning they are generating billions by making us angry the story will continue in a moment
• 01:00 - 01:30 the more moral outrageous language you use the more inflammatory language contemptuous language the more indignation you use the more it will get shared so we are being rewarded for being division entrepreneurs the better you are at innovating a new way to be divisive we will pay you in more likes followers and retweets in his 2020 documentary the social dilemma Tristan Harris made the case that social media platforms have hijacked our attention
• 01:30 - 02:00 now he cites a new study of Twitter showing that attacking political opponents is almost guaranteed to draw attention each individual term referring to your political outgroup increase the odds of that post being retweeted or re-shared by 67 percent your outgroup being outgrouped the opponents the other side yeah exactly these platforms are they not just reflecting who we are
• 02:00 - 02:30 and what we think and the divisions that are already there they're supercharging a hundred or a thousand times to one the worst parts of ourselves here's an example from the day the Department of Justice released a photo showing classified documents in former president Donald Trump's Florida home a tweet highlighting a straight news story on the subject received about 2 000 likes but a tweet from a republican congresswoman calling Trump's opponents
• 02:30 - 03:00 dumbasses was liked 10 times as much and a tweet from the left labeling Donald Trump a traitor was liked 20 times more the straight news story you know got retweeted a couple of times right the angry stories exponentially more exactly exactly and Harris says anger skews the political landscape why is it that the world knows more about Marjory Taylor green than they know about all the other hundreds
• 03:00 - 03:30 of congressional candidates it's because the enraging inflammatory stuff goes the most viral we are tribal creatures who love to do US versus them and we're now learning to coexist with the technology that tries to force that down our throat that tries to make us angry all the time Jonathan height is a social psychologist and professor at NYU Stern School of Business in studying social media platforms drive to keep us glued to our devices and to their ads he traces our
• 03:30 - 04:00 current troubles to the invention of the like share and retweet features a decade ago these changes in the technology that made everything much more viral and explosive it's as though it gave everybody a dart gun it's like it gave everybody the ability to complain attack criticize anyone at any time in a very short space with no need for evidence no accountability height says the people most likely to fire their social media
• 04:00 - 04:30 dart guns are those on the far right and the far left what percentage of the population are they it's about seven or eight percent on each side that's it yeah that's right so the extremes have been handed the power to dominate even though they are fewer in number that's right exactly the moderate majority height says is either exhausted or intimidated it's what I call structural stupidity that is you have very smart people Highly Educated highly intelligent but
• 04:30 - 05:00 you put them in a situation in which dissent is punished severely in what happens they go silent and when when the moderates or when anyone is afraid to question the dominant view the organization the institution gets stupid take the case of Ronald Sullivan a professor at Harvard Law School who was also the faculty dean of Winthrop house an undergraduate residence hall in January 2019 Sullivan joined Harvey Weinstein's sexual assault defense team
• 05:00 - 05:30 under the principle that every accused criminal is entitled to a robust defense so at Harvard some students objected now great let them object to Ron Sullivan defending Harvey Weinstein that's what you should do in school you should make an argument and then he can answer back that would be great but that's not what happened what happened was that a Harvard undergrad demanded in a Facebook post that Sullivan stepped down as Dean
• 05:30 - 06:00 calling his defense of Weinstein deeply trauma-inducing for sexual assault victims the students use a discourse a dialogue of he is dangerous his presence near me is threatening to me within a few months Harvard responded by removing Sullivan as dean of the residence hall it's not just professors on the firing line in a recent survey more than half of college students said they're afraid to express views on political and social issues in the
• 06:00 - 06:30 classroom as a professor what do you do I just avoid controversial topics really yes isn't that what college is for it used to be Tristan Harris says the intimidation and anger cut across political lines I think the deepest like perverse thing about these platforms is that they have captured the meaning of social participation in society that they've colonized and privatized that social participation means I'm on Tick Tock I'm
• 06:30 - 07:00 on Instagram I'm on Facebook and competition is fierce among those platforms for our attention and for the advertising dollars that attention generates Facebook isn't saying let me make design decisions that are going to strengthen democracy they're saying how do I evolve the product in a direction that will get more engagement from people because if I don't do that I'm just going to lose to the companies that do companies like Tick Tock companies like Tick Tock and Tick Tock has become
• 07:00 - 07:30 like one of the most popular apps around the entire world Tick Tock has done that by serving up an addictive mix of short videos some are silly others overtly political it's owned by a Chinese company called bite dance and Harris says the version that served to Chinese consumers called doyen is very different from the one available
• 07:30 - 08:00 in the West in their version of tick tock if you're under 14 years old they show you science experiments you can do at home Museum exhibits patriotism videos and educational videos and they also limit it to only 40 minutes per day now they don't ship that version of tick tock to the rest of the world so it's almost like they recognize that technology is influencing kids development and they make their domestic version a spinach version of tick tock
• 08:00 - 08:30 while they've shipped the Opium version to the rest of the world the version served to the West has kids hooked for hours at a time the impact Harris says is predictable there's a survey of pre-teens in the U.S and China asking what is the most aspirational career that you want to have in the U.S the number one was influencer social media influencer and in China the number one was astronaut again you allow those two societies to play out for a few Generations I can
• 08:30 - 09:00 tell you what your world is going to look like Tick Tock tells us it gives American users tools to limit screen time but those tools are entirely voluntary and National Security concerns have triggered new calls this past week for tick tock to be banned in the U.S Twitter points out that it asks users to think twice before sharing potentially harmful posts but within days of buying Twitter Elon Musk tweeted a conspiracy theory about the attack on speaker Nancy
• 09:00 - 09:30 Pelosi's husband it was later deleted and Facebook says it has cut the overall amount of political content that its 240 million American users see Monica bickert is its head of content policy most people on Facebook don't want to see political content they are following what's happening in the lives of their family and friends and sharing the moment from their lives and bickard says Facebook does take steps to downplay the
• 09:30 - 10:00 angriest posts can you find Angry political content online you can you walk into the average family's Thanksgiving dinner and hear people having an angry political conversation you can Tristan Harris says that all the social media platforms are making those conversations even more heated what I think there's been a failure to recognize is the direct conflict between
• 10:00 - 10:30 an engagement for profit business model and what's good for democracy another way you could say it is that the business model is to ruin Thanksgiving dinner we are as divided as I can remember in my lifetime yeah a lot of people say well hold on a second partisanship and division we've had that in many times throughout history always that's true also has partisanship in television and radio pre-existed social media yes have we ever wired up the most powerful
• 10:30 - 11:00 artificial intelligence in the world pointed at your brain stem to show you the most enraging content on a daily basis and the longer you scroll the more you get we have never done that before Facebook's Monica bickard insists it's just wrong to blame it for America's anger also if we look at who's becoming more polarized in the United States the greatest increase is among people over the age of 65. and they are the least likely to be using social media many
• 11:00 - 11:30 people watching us will say well I don't use social media why should I care about this but we're all Downstream from social media affecting television affecting radio affecting journalism more and more of Journalism is about covering the outrage exchange of what happened on Twitter first Harris believes the best path to reform would be stricter government regulation of social media platforms or at least a requirement that they be more transparent now Facebook will tell you
• 11:30 - 12:00 that they're all about transparency now it's not convincing they publish reports that they Define what the metrics are and it's like creating your own homework Harris has launched an online course which aims to give people working in Tech the tools to push for reform from within and what can an individual user do Jonathan Heights says simply refuse to be Gladiators in the Coliseum of social media
• 12:00 - 12:30 you can't win a war on social media just don't engage don't engage in the public battles because that's just feeding the Beast you don't mean disengage from the political process you you mean just disengage from these platforms yes when public discourse was moved into the middle of the Roman Coliseum I'm saying disengage from that walk out of the Coliseum and still be politically active Tristan Harris says real change may have
• 12:30 - 13:00 to be forced in court I think we have to do with social media what happened with big tobacco What stopped big tobacco was that the Attorneys General in different states that's right actually went after them the attorney's General in big tobacco had an enormous role to play in litigating that there was harms to people and their families is that what it's going to take with I think that's what's going to social media companies yes and we're seeing attorney general move already one step in that direction Attorneys General in at least eight states are coordinating a nationwide
• 13:00 - 13:30 investigation of social media platforms we now know that there's all these Harms in social media products designed for engagement we've done it before we did it with seat belts we've done it with big tobacco we've taken lead out of gasoline we have made these changes once we recognize that certain products were toxic for us we can do it again the government regulation that Tristan Harris says is needed I don't mean
• 13:30 - 14:00 regulate speech or censorship at 60 Minutes overtime.com sponsored by Pfizer