The Danger of the Repost

Photo via Getty Images

***

It has become a fact of life that everyone and their dog has an online presence. While those who love videos of pets predicting sports scores view this positively, we’d be remiss not to take this moment in our country’s history to critique the way we interact online. I know that link to a prophetic puppy looks really good right now, but I promise, it will only get better after reading this article! 

The availability of ultra-political discourse, ushered in by social media, is an issue that has proven to be a double-edged sword.  

On one edge, social media presents the opportunity for people to feel represented and engaged in a community. 

Because online media has made news more publicly accessible and interactive, people who have not previously felt compelled to make public political statements now have an opportunity to make a statement on current events that will be widely received. This behavior surfaced in the light of the Charlie Kirk assassination and various other recent events. 

Instagram stories were flooded with people posting a wide array of responses to this tragedy. Some were sympathetic to Kirk and his family; others used it as an opportunity to lobby for gun regulations. There were so many posts that it raised questions about how many of them were earnest in their interest.  

Thus, the other side of the sword. 

With the ease of hitting “Add To Story,” the weight of political statements online has diminished. People often just want to feel involved, so they’ll make statements on issues they may not be fully informed about as a form of performative activism. This phenomenon, at best, causes indifference and, at worst, exacerbates polarization in our society. 

In a Zoom meeting with Paul Levinson, a professor of Communication and Media Studies at Fordham University, he described our country’s polarization as a pendulum.  

“At this instant, we’re pretty much at the apex of polarization,” warned Levinson. What we must do now is hope that this polarization acts like a pendulum, and if so, find a way to swing it back in the right direction. A good starting point could be increasing self-control and regulating our online actions. 

The first rule we must set for ourselves is to ensure that the information we receive is reliable. A caveat to so much access to current events at our fingertips is the trap of confirmation bias, a circular way of thinking where we seek only for evidence that reaffirms our opinions. We want to see our opinions represented, but is that desire being acted upon at the expense of accuracy? 

Verification seems to be pushed to the back burner in modernity; honestly, it may have completely exited the kitchen at this point. The sentiment of not believing everything you see online is commonplace for a reason, yet we often let our emotional impulses override any fact-checking. Social media prioritizes emotional response and virality over fact. Our desire to feel involved in online discourse can often bypass our obligation to fact-check or second-guess what message we are conveying with an innocent repost. 

The problem that arises from free speech online is that it is much more impulsive than other forms of communication. Individual accounts are even more susceptible to this impulsivity because there are no PR teams or safeguards in place to screen what they post before it goes live. 

“You almost don’t have time to moderate what you are saying and thinking and expressing,” said Levinson. Before you decide to hit ‘post,’ ask yourself if you would advocate for your position in a room full of people. 

Just as the author should exercise restraint and forethought before making a statement, the viewer has an equal responsibility not to instantly lash out at every post they disagree with.  

Social media can tend to dehumanize us, restricting our ability to gauge the reactions and emotions of others before permanently posting an opinion for all our followers to see. As a result, we must constantly remind ourselves that there is a person on the other side of the words we read on our screens. We need to take what we’re reading online with a grain—or maybe at this point, a whole handful—of salt. 

Ironically, social media shouldn’t be taken as a standard for how our society is or should conduct itself. Recognizing the highly emotive and opinionated nature of the internet is, in Levinson’s opinion, “an important—at least first and major—step to dampen polarization.” 

We need to adopt tenacity to stop falling victim to the rage-bait we see online like a dog to a bone. Leave the canine activities to the dogs of football score predictions. 

***

This article was edited by Mariella Richards and Whitney Woodrow.