# Social Media Discourse

**Published by:** [The Middle](https://paragraph.com/@themiddle/)
**Published on:** 2022-09-28
**URL:** https://paragraph.com/@themiddle/social-media-discourse

## Content

Political polarization, at face value, is at an all time high. Take for instance the following chart from [The Economist](https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/08/17/how-democrats-and-republicans-see-each-other), based on a Pew Research Centre poll. 62% of Republicans and 54% of Democrats have a ‘Very Unfavorable’ view of their opposing party. ![](https://storage.googleapis.com/papyrus_images/4ce9e3ffa77a314501785d43a50efed5) \ Social media is not to blame 100%, as seen from the upwards trajectory in the chart beginning before widespread adoption of social media. However, it is a partial contributor. Aside, from the algorithms that decide what content to feed you or the censorship of what not to show you, there is a flaw at the very core of it’s design. It was designed for short form communication and the sharing of pictures. 140 characters or less. 500 pixels by 500 pixels. These platforms were designed for letting your followers know you ate at Chipotle on Thursday, not arriving at a consensus between an opposing party on drug legalization. For any given stance one might have, if you are passionate about it, chances are your views and thoughts expand far beyond 140 characters. Social media does not allow for you to fully explain your thoughts, reasoning, and research. Instead, the platform of your choice allows you to communicate your stance one hot take at a time. Now, compare this form of discourse to a dinner party. A vegan and a hunter end up sitting next to each other. Assuming neither one is a complete asshole, the debate would probably conclude with neither minds changed, but far more understanding and respect for one another. The hunter may now understand the environmental and health reasons, as well as the history of the vegan’s decision. The vegan now may better understand the preservation impact of buying a tag, as well as how far a single kill goes towards feeding a family. Perhaps they may even agree that the meat industry is inherently flawed. There is bound to be middle ground. The back and forth, the challenging and defending of ideas, is simply not natural on social media. Your hot take allows for the opposition to make all kinds of assumptions and ultimately feeds polarization. If you read someone’s hot take and do not agree, please do not compartmentalize them. Chances are, there is a whole story of thoughts and you are just reading the headline.

## Publication Information

- [The Middle](https://paragraph.com/@themiddle/): Publication homepage
- [All Posts](https://paragraph.com/@themiddle/): More posts from this publication
- [RSS Feed](https://api.paragraph.com/blogs/rss/@themiddle): Subscribe to updates

## Optional

- [Collect as NFT](https://paragraph.com/@themiddle/social-media-discourse): Support the author by collecting this post
- [View Collectors](https://paragraph.com/@themiddle/social-media-discourse/collectors): See who has collected this post