Is Social Media Inherently Evil?
Tags: Morality, Politics, Culture, Social Media, Fake News

Evil affects a diverse collection of individuals in society, leaving many interpretations of its authentic significance. It is nearly impossible to formulate a universal understanding because no two people have the same experiences or beliefs. Some may consider a rather broad collection of acts evil, while others may offer a very precise definition. Certain intangible evils are not selective, while other more relational ones can be deliberate. From what I have gathered, interpersonal evil is the process of dehumanization in which society faces division and violence. We live in a time where technology influences our daily lives and results in the unjustified characterization of others, epitomizing the root of evil. Social media contributes to both dehumanization and deindividualization in society, thus revealing evil: the foe of mankind.

Dehumanization is not solely the act of denying a person or faction benevolence. It also concerns the repercussions that follow. When one loses respect for another individual’s humanity, they no longer deem it necessary to employ morality, allowing vindication to ensue. This exoneration permits evil to transpire with no apparent consequences, even though these behaviors are among the most immoral.

In the social media realm, categorization contributes significantly to dehumanization. We are constantly labeling others exclusively based on their profiles, idolizing creativity and intelligence while steering clear of pessimism and carelessness. If you think about it, there is little personability in a world with seemingly limitless interconnection. Most of the time, we draw conclusions about others subconsciously. We assume Democrat or Republican, feminist or racist without questioning. Despite the harmless intentions behind these associations, they can quickly escalate. Does the average person truly recognize the difference between an ideological disagreement and disassociation because of a difference in ideology? The first will merely cause a debate, while the latter is a form of dehumanization. I would argue that the past couple of months demonstrate the very point that people cannot make this distinction. Millions of Americans have ended lifelong friendships and even cut ties with family members solely because of political affiliation. For example, one woman took to her blog to speak about her disgust with Trump supporters, saying “I know, I know, I should be rising above the muck and coming together with those with whom I disagree, but you know what? Fuck that.” Unfortunately, with the media today, statements like this one are common and widely accepted by the general public. It is human nature to associate with those who share similar values with us because it is comfortable. That being said, with this comfort comes consequences. Our ability to grow as people and as a society is dependent upon the diffusion of ideas and inquiry. We need to hear alternative perspectives and understand different points of view to function in society. With the heightened polarization on social media, we are not regularly exposed to diverse perspectives. We consider those with opposing viewpoints part of the outgroup and reduce them to a singular idea. We criticize them as if they are that idea and no longer view them as human beings. It is only a matter of time before true evil will manifest.

Deindividualization arises when one’s actions and beliefs are so heavily influenced by those in their crowd that their self-depiction is of the group. They do not formulate their own views but instead adopt principles with little questioning, resulting in the loss of conscience. Although different from dehumanization, deindividualization is another element that precedes evil. When the two are coupled, their effects are heightened. Dehumanization is the deprivation of rights because of perceived inhumanity, but deindividualization determines who is inhumane.

When submitting themselves to a group, individuals are essentially ceding their humanity in return for the ability to deny outsiders compassion. Proponents are required to support all endeavors and assume the overarching ideals associated with the group while alienating others who do not promote the agenda. Many find their identity so intertwined in these ideals that they fail to see and accept reality. This is evident with the sudden rise of fake news. The public is less inclined to authenticate claims found in articles because of the findings they may uncover, substantiating division. Furthermore, individuals would rather support false information than risk societal isolation. Social media algorithms further this narrative by merely displaying one-sided content that contributes to indomitability and separation in society. These computer programs can determine an individual’s fundamental ideals by tracking what photos and videos they find agreeable and what beliefs they may resist. Since social scientists have recognized that viewers will continue to engage in networks that display their outlooks on issues, algorithms appease us by spitting our views back at us. This only reinforces our reasoning and does not introduce any contradiction. Upon viewing opposition, we tend to be very dismissive, closing out the app or being outright ignorant. This can be extremely dangerous because we no longer tolerate interaction with the outgroup. We make broad assumptions about their beliefs and do not make an effort to learn more. For example, one woman remarks “everyone says what we need to do is ‘understand’ Trump voters, but at this point, I feel I understand them all too well.” With this statement, she is not only alluding to the fact that all Trump voters have homogeneous beliefs, but she is also placing them in an ambiguous outgroup. She suggests disassociating with the people based on their views, consequently dehumanizing them.

Dehumanization initiates many multifaceted elements in society that are not limited to just division and violence. These different components also determine the severity of the resulting evil. For example, in the case of the holocaust, atychiphobia significantly contributed to one of the cruelest atrocities in history. The most apparent contribution to the dehumanization of the Jews was violence. Hitler had internal aggression that developed because of his troublesome childhood. He was physically and emotionally abused by his father and abandoned by his mother. This extreme and untimely exposure to such cruelty and deception established itself within Hitler’s mind, expanding as he aged and leaving him with an intense build-up of hostility. Hitler felt extreme pride in his German identity, originally serving as a private in the first world war. After combat, he did not want to accept defeat and was incredibly frustrated by the result. Down the line, he was elected on the basis of restoring a pure Aryan society and providing economic prosperity to a country that was in shambles. Millions of Germans welcomed him with widespread support, worshiping him and even naming him the nation’s savior. It did not take him long, however, to realize that he was failing at reviving his country. His exorbitant rage supplemented with fear became too much, and he needed to change the course of events. He could not be responsible for failing Germany, so he blamed the Jews for the nationwide unemployment and economic depression. He even labeled them parasites feeding off of German society and exploiting the Aryan race.

I do acknowledge that there are many levels of dehumanization and, although important and potentially dangerous, polarization in society due to social media certainly does not equate to the horrors of the holocaust. Nevertheless, the basic principles are relatively similar, and presently, dehumanization due to social media poses a threat to society.

What can we do on a personal level to combat this problem that seems to be compounding daily? First, we need to become aware of the dangerous online culture social media is generating. We need to stop drawing conclusions about others based upon an online presence and revert to communicating on a personal level. It is imminent that we actively open our minds to new ideas and perspectives. Whether that be through following an unfamiliar news site or having an intellectual conversion, at the very least, this will introduce some differences in opinions. Lastly, we need to perform some introspection to find out what it is that we are passionate about. From there, we can form both political and unpolitical beliefs that we can further pursue. We should never feel obligated to support a particular notion just because of political affiliation or any other outside factor. This type of dehumanization is evil, and it contributes to division and animosity within society, hindering our ability to connect and evolve.