Toronto Star

What dumping Trump can teach us about the digital divide

Avoiding people you disagree with has never been easier. But that doesn’t mean it’s a good thing

- CAITLIN DEWEY THE WASHINGTON POST

Facebook doesn’t track data on unfriendin­g rates — but one imagines they spike dramatical­ly after each of the Republican presidenti­al debates.

Sites from Mic to Quartz to Buzzfeed have published how-tos on blocking Donald Trump news and supporters from your Facebook news feed. A site called FriendsWho­LikeTrump.com helps ID offending Trump fans so you can expel them from your social circles more efficientl­y.

In the past week alone, thousands of American Facebook users have publicly promised to unfriend each and every Trump supporter in their network, regardless of — in the words of one Trump critic — “how long I’ve known you or how close we are.”

“Did a search for ‘my friends who like Donald Trump,’ ” wrote one man after Tuesday’s Republican debates. “Unfriended about 30 bigots! I don’t need friends like that!”

Political scuffles aren’t unusual among friends and acquaintan­ces, of course — it’s part of the reason the topic is typically never raised in polite conversati­on. But in an era when we’re both more polarized than ever and better able to tailor our environmen­ts to our pre-existing views, standard disagreeme­nts have veered in an ugly, intolerant direction: one that’s inconsiste­nt, critics argue, with our most fundamenta­l democratic values.

“Since the 16th century, we’ve figured out ways of going about disagreeme­nts that don’t involve killing each other,” said Mark Kingwell, a political philosophe­r at the University of Toronto.

“It’s a basic liberal notion that when people disagree on something, they can’t just go their own way — there has to be a discourse.”

In the era of news feeds and content blockers, however, avoiding discourse and dissent has never been so easy.

Thanks to Facebook and Google News, it’s now possible to tailor the informatio­n you get to your pre-existing politics

Geographic­ally and socially speaking, people have always clustered with other people who share their background and views: if you’re a conservati­ve, or an atheist, or a member of the middle class, then it’s likely that your best friends and next door neighbours are, too.

But thanks to the proliferat­ion of partisan media and the rise of intermedia­ries such as Facebook and Google News, it’s now also possible to tailor the informatio­n you get to your pre-existing politics. And while activists have long championed the Internet as a means to encounter more diverse and “cross-cutting,” or opposite, views, experience suggests that hasn’t happened quite the way we thought it would.

On Twitter, for instance, people who tweet about politics tend to tweet primarily at and with people who belong to the same party, creating what one team of researcher­s called “pockets of political polarizati­on.”

On Facebook, the average user agrees with the politics of more than three-fourths of her friends. The social network has found that affinity is more pronounced among liberals than it is among conservati­ves; it’s also found that, because most users signal to the algorithm (through their clicks) that they’re more interested in stories that agree with their politics, the algorithm tends to surface more of that agreeable, reaffirmat­ive content.

“Individual choice has a larger role in limiting exposure to ideologica­lly cross-cutting content (than the news feed algorithm),” a recent study by Facebook’s own data team found. “We show that the compositio­n of our social networks is the most important factor limiting the mix of content encountere­d in social media.”

In other words, the thing most polarizing people online is people themselves — a phenomenon that the latest string of anti-Trump apps, browser extensions and add-ons would not appear to help. On top of the unfriendin­g site, there’s an iPhone app called Trump Trump that will eliminate the candidate’s name from the websites you’re browsing, as if he didn’t exist. “Remove Donald Trump From Facebook” will, as its name suggests, scrub the candidate from your news feed. A mountain of Chrome extensions will replace Trump’s name or picture with a series of other things: “Voldemort,” “your drunk uncle at Thanksgivi­ng” — even the smiling poop emoji.

Some of these may seem pretty funny — and in practice, they can be. But they all share the rather serious goal of helping users avoid engaging their civic and political reality.

“I can imagine people installing these apps to ‘protect’ themselves from contrary opinions: global warming, women’s rights, gun owner’s rights, vegetarian­ism, CrossFit, whatever it is that they don’t like,” said Julio Castillo, the (apparently regretful) creator of the Trumpblock­ing app Trump Trump. “It’s a little like everyone creating their own Great Firewall of China to censor everything that annoys them.”

Somewhere far down the road, he fears, we might find ourselves in a world like the one depicted in the BBC’s Black Mirror, where dissenters or outcasts can be “blocked” from other people’s views as a form of punishment. Once blocked, their reality diverges from everyone else’s.

“This is basic to the fundamenta­l liberal aspiration: to put yourself in the position of the other,” Kingwell said. “If we don’t do that, we’re not a community. We’re a bunch of microcommu­nities and . . . to me that’s quite dystopian.”

We’re not quite there yet, the experts reassure us — and steps could be taken away from that ledge. A social network called Roust, currently in testing mode, promises to gather an ideologica­lly diverse crowd to “discuss tough topics like politics, religion and social matters.” Web extensions such as “Balancer” analyze your browsing history and tell you when it skews liberal or conservati­ve.

And yet the big issue remains users themselves. Kingwell, the philosophe­r, has spent his career attempting to convince people that civility and discourse are political virtues worth aspiring to.

“You have to be willing to read the comments section (of a website). You have to be willing to make yourself uncomforta­ble,” he stresses. “You can’t possibly realize how limited your bubble is from inside of it.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada