Brand Dig: #NoFilter, The Brands Allowing Alternative Viewpoints On Social Media
In this blog series, we dig into the world of marketing and discuss brands, news, trends and examples that have made the digital headlines. In this week’s post, researcher Penelope looks at brands that are taking a step to battle fake news and allow users to read between the lines.
News: positive, negative, true, fake, relevant or irrelevant... our sources of information recently have been more newsworthy than the news itself. Opinions run rampant, but what seems to be forgotten by many is that opinion is not fact. With tempers flaring left and right, and actions following those opinions all seeming very possible in the current polarized political climate, how can you make sure you get the bigger picture - not just being pushed further into your echo chamber? Tolerance only has space to grow when you're trying to put yourself in someone else's shoes and understand 'the other side'. And isn't the internet the perfect place to set up technological protocols free from human emotion and biased opinions? These brands seem to think so.
The Wall Street Journal: Red vs Blue
While many journalists and polls failed to predict the outcome of Brexit and Trump’s election, the results of these votes came with little surprise to other parts of the population. A substantial amount of research has focused on - and shown - how the surprise came to those who solely interacted online, in their own isolated groups. And, like the cliques in high school, these people had limited connection between the clusters of nodes representing users from both sides on Twitter and Facebook. The Wall Street Journal goes further to demonstrate the reality of the disconnect on an individual basis.
The paper has launched two side-by-side live feeds showing news stories polarised in different political viewpoints. One feed is ‘red’ and the other ‘blue’. Sources were classified into each colour during a 2015 Facebook study depending on their political stance, this was based on the content they posted on Facebook (either produced by themselves or by a 3rd party). You can sort by specific topics such as 'President Trump' or the 'Affordable Care Act' to see the current news and posts on Facebook discussing the topics from both liberal and conservative sources. The aim is to allow for an easy comparison of the headlines and takeaways from each bracket.
The site definitely succeeds in highlighting the existent disparity in voters’ feeds, but offers no solution to the issue of convergence - you could however argue that that's not part of the responsibilities of a publication that aims to reflect as objectively as possible the times we live in. Perhaps there is space for a 3rd tier, one that sits in the middle - or is that something that is disappearing from society rather rapidly?
Buzzfeed’s Bubble Bursting
Social networks are inevitably built around common interests; as individuals are more likely to connect with like-minded users who post content you find both engaging and interesting. There are concerns that this has led to social media bubbles, online cliques where users post and see content that aligns perfectly with their own viewpoint, but offering no exposure to alternative perspectives.
Last week Buzzfeed announced its “Outside Your Bubble” feature that will be added to trending news pieces. The module is going to appear at the bottom of articles offering brief summaries from the different viewpoints from across the internet. Click through and you’ll be presented with verbatim from a variety of other platforms including Reddit and Twitter. What’s more, the feature is going to allow for user input to ensure the perspectives are comprehensive. Think your viewpoint is missing? Go ahead and email it to them.
As the tool is rolled out, it will soon become apparent whether it’s enough to break through news bubbles and create constructive social media conversation. Or if it will just add more fuel to the fire for keyboard warriors on all sides of the arguments?
Twitter’s Naughty Step
Since the dawn of Twitter, the platform has come under fire for not doing enough to prevent users from harassment and trolling online. There have been innumerable calls for Twitter to provide a safer environment for online interaction. However, like most public institutions, Twitter faces a hard challenge in tackling online bullying without restricting free speech.
In an attempt to reduce negative and offensive content on Twitter, they have launched a new scheme that limits the capabilities of users indulging in behaviour its algorithm has deemed as abusive. Users who are classed as abusive receive a message informing them that their account’s usage has been temporarily limited. This essentially works as a ‘time out’ during which tweets from these users are only visible to their own followers, dramatically reducing their reach online.
How is the social media platform that once described itself as the “free speech wing of the free speech party” going to build a balance between a safe space and a platform for representative and varied discussion? After all, can it really ban all the Twitter users that think Trump is a bellend?
As we realize we can get stuck in our social echo chambers, the trend for other voices and opinions - the lifeblood of democracy - is rising, and media outlets and social platforms alike will have to start taking responsibility for what filters through to it's users. If you’d like to hear how we’ve been able to help agencies and brands with get through to the right feeds and connect with them on a human level, then get in touch with us here.
