The development and expansion of today\u2019s communications platforms have led to a radical change in how public discourse is conducted and public opinion formed. In particular, the traditional boundary between personal and public communication has disappeared.<\/p>\n
A prime example is a 2017 case involving the American actor William Shatner \u2013 best known for having played the character Captain Kirk in the 1960s TV series Star Trek<\/em> \u2013 tweeted about the organization Autism Speaks<\/a><\/strong>, known for its claims that autism is caused by vaccines. Among others, David Gorski, an oncologist at Wayne State University in Detroit who advocates for evidence-based interventions, replied to Shatner\u2019s tweet and explained why Autism Speaks is a controversial organisation. In response, Shatner searched for Gorski\u2019s name on Google and shared articles about him from a conspiracy-oriented website called TruthWiki. Asked why he had not read and linked Gorski\u2019s Wikipedia entry<\/a><\/strong>, Shatner responded that TruthWiki was higher up in his Google search results. You can find it \u201call on Google,\u201d he maintained<\/a><\/strong>, as if that itself was a sign of high quality.<\/p>\n Google and other platforms are incredibly powerful tools that allow all of us \u2013 and Shatner, too \u2013 to locate information in the blink of an eye. To do so they use computer algorithms that measure \u201crelevance\u201d, but the standards used often do not correspond to the criteria that reputable journalists or researchers would use.<\/p>\n Algorithms work mostly descriptively<\/em> and individually<\/em>. For example, they adjust relevance for a user based on what links he or she has clicked in the past. Yet many users assume the results are normative (\u201chigher up in the Google results\u201d). In the Shatner\/Gorski case, the assertion of a correlation between autism and vaccines is encouraged a small but highly motivated user group in their online activities and ensured that a significant divergence occurred between content quality and \u201crelevance\u201d as determined by Google\u2019s algorithms.<\/p>\n This is not simply a matter of a handful of telling cases. Because of their ubiquity, so-called intermediaries such as Google and Facebook now influence how public opinion is formed. 57% of German Internet users <\/a><\/strong>get their information about politics and social affairs from search engines or social networks. And even though the share of those who say social networks are their most important source of news is relatively small \u2013 6% of all Internet users<\/a><\/strong> \u2013 it is considerably higher among younger users.<\/p>\n As researchers at the Hamburg-based Hans Bredow Institute put it in 2016, the formation of public opinion is \u201cno longer conceivable without intermediaries<\/a><\/strong>\u201d.<\/p>\n The design principles used by intermediaries are leading to a structural change in public discourse. Anyone can now publish whatever they like, but not everyone will find an audience. Attention is generated only when people interact with algorithmic decision-making (ADM) processes. ADM processes determine the individual relevance of content items on social networks such as Facebook and select the items to be displayed for each user. In assembling an individual user\u2019s feed, Facebook examines which content that person and his or her friends prefer or hide. Both signals are based on actions that are relatively straightforward.<\/p>\n Facebook also undoubtedly deploys signals that users are not consciously aware of sending, such as the amount of time they view a certain entry in the feed. Users who spend more time with any one item signal approval without explicitly doing so<\/a><\/strong>. ADM systems play a significant role in other areas, like assisting in legal matters or determining where and when police officers are on duty<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n There is much less diversity among intermediaries than among editorially curated media. Even if each person using the services provided by today\u2019s major intermediaries is given an individual choice, the same selection principles are applied to all users, and these are controlled by centralised curators. The new, crucial role played by users reactions and ADM processes is that both determine how much attention the content gets when disseminated.<\/p>\n Studies of networking platforms show that content that rouses emotion is commented on and shared most often \u2013 and above all when negative emotions are involved.<\/p>\n Such polarizing effects seem to depend on a number of additional factors such as a country\u2019s electoral system. Societies with \u201cfirst past the post\u201d systems such as the United States are potentially more vulnerable to extreme political polarisation<\/a><\/strong>. In countries with proportional systems, institutionalised multiparty structures and ruling coalitions tend to balance out competing interests.<\/p>\nCustom-fitted \u2018relevance\u2019<\/h4>\n
Maximising engagement<\/h4>\n
Negative emotions and cognitive distortions<\/h4>\n