The myth of free speech on social media
This article is far from done, but it should give an idea for its contents.
Part 1 of a 2 part series of articles on algorithmic social media and how it shapes our world view.
In Noemi Biasetton's 'Superstorm: Design and Politics in the age of information',1 Noemi writes the following:
"One of the many effects of the increasing use of SNS in political discourse has been to give rise to an alleged 'unmediated' or 'unfiltered' kind of communication. This idea has been often put forward by populist leaders and parties, who in recent years have accused the western media system of being controlled by 'intellectual élites' who represent the enemy of the people'. Building on this assumption, populist political actors often praise SNS as the only neutral and independent arena for political discourse because it allows them to communicate directly with their electorate, advocate unrestricted popular sovereignty and reinforce the image of a friendly approachability. But can political discourse on SNS be really disintermediated?"
Especially in recent years, social media such as X and Truthsocial, and to a lesser extent other social media platforms, have been touted to allow for free speech and unmediated media controlled by big actors.
However, this content is not unmediated and unbiased. Instead of a traditional news outlet being the mediary between the source of information and the public, algorithms govern what content we get to see. These algorithms are skewed in their bias in more ways than the traditional outlet mediated media.
This ties into the idea of Filter Bubbles, a term coined by Eli Pariser.2.
Algorithms designed to evoke negative engagement loops
How do algorithms affect what we get to see, and what are the effects? -> article 2 How the algorithmic internet is hurting us