Terrible Article is Terrible

Watching TV news is honestly a form of self-inflicted torture, but unfortunately, articles can often be just as bad. I was sent a link to an article recently, and I found the story so absurdly, idiotically terrible that I absolutely had to write about it.

For reference, this is the link to the article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/upshot/how-social-media-silences-debate.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0

This, of course, is how the article wants you to react: 

How Social Media Silences Debate? What a title! I'd better click on it to read more, which will also give them some advertising revenue!

But this article is not news. It's not newsworthy. It's sensationalist hyperbole.

The article asserts that social media platforms stifle dissenting opinions on the internet. It alleges that people are unwilling to voice their opinions on social media outlets because they fear the backlash of saying something other people disagree with. And that this phenomenon is creating a "spiral of silence" that polarizes opinions online.

When explained like that, it almost sounds reasonable.

HERE'S THE PROBLEM:

The conclusion that social media stifles debate is based on ONE study on ONE news event and measures people willingness to express opinions on that event on TWO social media platforms: Facebook and Twitter.

It even admits this: "These findings are limited because the researchers studied a single news event."

This is not science. This is a fallacy of composition.

What this study found is that people didn't always like expressing opinions about a news event (in this case the Snowden story) on Facebook and Twitter. What it didn't find is that people don't express their opinions on all social media. Because Facebook and Twitter are not the entirety of social media. What is really didn't find was that the entire internet causes people to stop sharing their opinions and discussing news events. 

AND YET: "The Internet might be a useful tool for activists and organizers, in episodes from the Arab Spring to the Ice Bucket Challenge. But over all, it has diminished rather than enhanced political participation, according to new data."

What about reddit? Tumblr? People's blogs? This article could have exclusively examined the reddit thread ChangeMyView and asserted that the entire internet was a perfect place for thoughtful political discourse. Or it could have looked at YouTube comments and declared that the whole internet is a cesspool of uneducated masochists. It's amazing what conclusions you can draw when you only use two pieces of the internet to diagnose the entire internet.

Reading the original study upon which this article is based is a slightly better read. ( http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/08/26/social-media-and-the-spiral-of-silence/ ) But even then, it's not going to tell you something you don't already know. People don't like expressing complex political opinions on Twitter, a social media outlet that only allows 160 characters per message? What a shock. People who know their Facebook friends have different political ideologies are slightly less willing to discuss political topics with those friends in person? OH GOD WHAT HAS THE WORLD COME TO. The phrase "avoid politics and religion" is a pre-internet sentiment, people. Social media isn't worsening a divide, it's just showing you that there is one, which you knew already. 

If the stupidity article can be summed up at all, it's with this quote: "Interestingly, those with less education were more likely to speak up on Facebook, while those with more education were more likely to be silent on Facebook yet express their opinion in a group of family or friends." Fascinating, isn't it. The smarter someone is, the more they realize that Facebook isn't a great outlet for comprehensive political discourse. They know that shouting a controversial opinion on Facebook is like shouting your opinion to people on the street. It's useless and they're not going to get anything done there. They know that they're better off in person, where the setting is more intimate and they can usually get a better grasp on what other people actually mean, because they can see their expressions and hear their tone of voice. They also know that the internet is made up of many, many more websites and social media outlets than just Facebook and Twitter, which is more than I can say for this article.