Why in News?

The World Wide Web, once envisaged as a force for global connection and democratic exchange, is increasingly implicated in social fragmentation and affective polarisation

Introduction

• When Tim Berners-Lee created the World Wide Web, the goal was universal access to information and easier global communication. Over three decades, the web and social media platforms have transformed communication, commerce, and politics.
• Yet empirical studies and public discourse now indicate that rather than only uniting people, online ecosystems can deepen social divides — producing echo chambers, amplifying misinformation, and incentivising polarising content.

How the Web Amplifies Division: Mechanisms and Evidence

ngagement-driven algorithms:

• Most major platforms optimise for engagement (clicks, time on site, reactions). Emotionally charged content — outrage, fear, moral indignation — elicits strong reactions and shares, so algorithms preferentially surface such content.
• Simulation and observational studies show that anger and high-arousal emotions spread faster and wider, creating feedback loops that reward polarising posts.

Partisan sorting and affective polarisation:

• Repeated exposure to political messaging from in-group influencers and adversarial coverage of out-groups leads not only to policy disagreement but to affective distancing — liking those who think like us and disliking others.
• This “affective polarisation” is associated with reduced social trust and increased hostility in public life.

Information cascades and confirmation bias:

• Users searching for more information after seeing a sensational post often encounter content that reuses the same framing and keywords, reinforcing the original (sometimes false) impression.
• Cognitive states such as high emotion reduce critical evaluation and increase susceptibility to misinformation.

Platform economies and incentives:

• Platforms monetise attention via advertising; therefore, content that maximises attention (often polarising content) is financially rewarded. Internal metrics — including emphasis on reaction types like anger — have historically amplified divisive signals.

(Image Source: Down TO Earth)

Societal Costs

• Democratic erosion: Polarised publics find compromise harder; civic discourse degrades; trust in institutions falls.
• Public health and safety: Misinformation (e.g., health myths) can endanger lives; online hate and coordinated harassment can lead to offline violence.
• Economic and governance burden: Counter-misinformation campaigns, policing of online harms, and mental-health costs place burdens on public resources.
• Social capital decline: Community ties and cross-cutting networks weaken, affecting cooperation at local and national levels.

Why Individual Behaviour Alone Is Insufficient

• Research suggests people do encounter opposing views and sometimes seek them out. However, when the platform economy monetises outrage, individual restraint becomes costly to the attention marketplace. While better digital behaviour (not sharing “rage bait”, seeking diverse sources) helps, it cannot correct structural incentives that favour polarisation at scale.

Policy and Structural Responses: A Multi-Pronged Approach

• Algorithmic transparency and oversight:
• Require disclosure of ranking criteria, amplification metrics, and impact assessments for political content.
• Establish independent audits (public or regulator-appointed) to evaluate whether algorithms disproportionately amplify polarising content.
• Platform accountability & regulation:
• Update intermediary liability frameworks to balance free expression with responsibilities to curtail demonstrable harms (hate speech, coordinated disinformation).
• Regulatory sandboxes can allow testing of de-amplification interventions with oversight.
• Economic levers — tax and regulation:
• Consider targeted levies on platform advertising revenue to fund public interest journalism, digital literacy, and moderation capacity.
• Tie certain tax or regulatory benefits to demonstrable reductions in harmful amplification (e.g., quarterly harm-reduction audits).
• Competition and data portability:
• Promote interoperability and data portability so users can migrate across platforms, lowering network-effect lock-in and enabling new entrants with healthier incentive models.
• Antitrust interventions where platform market power distorts public discourse.
• Promote alternative platform economics:
• Encourage non-advertising models (subscriptions, public funding, cooperative ownership) for social platforms to reduce dependency on outrage-maximising metrics.
• Support public or mission-driven platforms for civic discourse and local governance.
• Strengthen content governance & moderation capacity:
• Invest in transparent, rights-respecting content moderation systems with appeal and redress mechanisms.
• Combine automated tools with human moderators, especially for nuanced political and cultural content.
• Boost public interest infrastructure:
• Fund high-quality public-interest media and fact-checking networks that can compete for attention with polarising narratives.
• Support civic platforms that facilitate deliberative engagement (e.g., moderated townhalls, deliberative polling tech).
• Digital literacy and civic education:
• Scale up programs that teach source evaluation, emotional regulation online, and the mechanics of platform amplification.
• Embed media literacy in school curricula and public campaigns.
• International cooperation:
• Online harms and platform markets are transnational; regulatory coordination (standards, cross-border data access for law enforcement and audits) is essential.

Practical Trade-offs and Safeguards

• Free speech considerations: Any intervention must be careful not to stifle legitimate dissent; rulemaking should be transparent, narrowly tailored, and subject to judicial review.
• Regulatory capture risk: Ensure oversight bodies are independent, with multi-stakeholder governance (civil society, academia, industry).
• Innovation vs safety balance: Avoid measures that inadvertently entrench incumbents; promote open standards that enable innovation in healthier platform design.

Role of Citizens and Civil Society

• Personal conduct: Individuals reducing engagement with polarising posts, avoiding sharing unverified claims, and promoting cross-cutting dialogue can blunt incentives at the margin.
• Collective action: Civil society can advocate for regulatory reforms, audit platforms, and build alternative public-interest communication tools.
• Research & evidence: Independent research into platform impacts, replication studies, and public disclosure of harms will guide better policy.

Conclusion

• The fragmentation of discourse online is less a technology failure than an economic and governance problem. Fixing it requires structural change: reframing platform incentives, regulatory oversight, investment in public interest alternatives, and broad civic engagement.

CARE MCQ

Q6. With reference to the increasing polarisation caused by social media and the structural changes suggested to address it, consider the following statements:

1. Affective polarisation refers to emotional division where people tend to like those with similar beliefs and dislike those with opposing views.
2. Online engagement algorithms amplify divisive content because it generates more user interaction and advertising revenue.
3. The article suggests that reducing polarisation will primarily require voluntary behavioural change by users, without any need for government intervention.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

A) 1 only
B) 1 and 2 only
C) 2 and 3 only
D) 1, 2 and 3

Answer 6-B

Explanation

• Statement 1 is correct: Affective polarisation refers to emotional hostility between ideological groups, where individuals favour those with similar beliefs and resent those with different ones.
• Statement 2 is correct: Social media algorithms are designed to promote emotionally charged and divisive posts to maximise engagement and advertising profits.
• Statement 3 is incorrect: The article emphasizes that structural change—including government regulation and reform of platform economics—is essential to counter polarisation, not just voluntary user action.
• Therefore, option B is the correct answer.

UPSC PYQ

Q.  With reference to Web 3.0, consider the following statements: (2022)

1. Web 3.0 technology enables people to control their own data.
2. In Web 3.0 world, there can be blockchain based social networks.
3. Web 3.0 is operated by users collectively rather than a corporation

Which of the following given above are correct?

1. 1 and 2 only
2. 2 and 3 only
3. 1 and 3 only
4. 1, 2 and 3

Ans: (d)