Social media echo chambers and the deepening of sociopolitical polarisations

Social media platforms such as YouTube and Facebook primarily aim to increase users’ views, likes, comments, and shares. To achieve this, the platforms need to understand what kinds of articles, videos, or opinions a user prefers. They analyse data such as the user’s browsing history, who is on their friend list, and whom they follow in order to determine the nature of the user’s interests. Once the user’s preferences and interests are identified, the platform repeatedly presents content that aligns with those preferences and further reinforces the user’s existing beliefs. At the same time, it suggests following people or sending friend requests to people who share their outlook. As a result, the user gradually becomes confined within a kind of information wall, where opposing viewpoints no longer reach them. This is known as an “echo chamber.”

In an echo chamber, individuals cling more firmly to their own ideology, and their ability to accept or tolerate differing opinions gradually declines. Because opposing viewpoints can no longer penetrate the walls of the echo chamber, even when a different opinion does appear on their feed, it is often rejected with irritation or hostility. Over time, democratic tolerance and respect for differing opinions steadily diminish among individuals immersed in an echo chamber.

Eli Pariser, a US author and technology critic, notes that echo-chamber algorithms create a unique universe of information for each of us, and we slowly become confined within our own cultural or ideological bubbles. He warns, “Algorithms are reshaping the world we see—without realising it, we are moving toward deeper division.” A person trapped in an echo chamber—driven by algorithmic social media platforms—gradually becomes so accustomed to one-sided analysis that impartial judgment becomes almost impossible.

Even among university teachers, journalists, lawyers, and cultural activists, it is often observed that instead of engaging with differing opinions through reasoned argument, they choose to remain within the safe confines of their own political or ideological circles. As a result, a social climate is taking hold in which truth is judged less by evidence and more by which side it serves. In such circumstances, social media is no longer merely for expressing opinions; it has instead become a powerful tool for deepening social divisions. These divisions are affecting families, friendships, professional relationships, and even marital relationships.

In Bangladesh’s context, the impact of echo chambers is most clearly visible in political and religious issues. Whether it is national elections, the quota reform movement, the war crimes tribunal, or relations with a major power in international politics, opinions on social media become so sharply polarised that merely expressing a differing view often leads to individuals being labelled as “traitors,” “razakar,” “fascists,” “atheists,” or “extremists.” As a result, reasoned discussion quickly degenerates into personal attacks and the language of hatred.

The effects of echo chambers have also been evident in several instances of religious tension. On Facebook, deliberately misleading posts, manipulated screenshots, or images from old incidents have been circulated, rapidly provoking anger within specific religious or political groups. In most cases, users shared only information that aligned with their existing beliefs, with little or no effort made to verify the accuracy of the information.

A 2022 report by Amnesty International stated that Facebook’s engagement-driven algorithms significantly fueled ethnic and religious hatred in Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Ethiopia, and India, resulting in intensified communal tensions and violence in those countries. To protect society from the effects of disorder and instability, it is crucial to free ourselves from the harmful impacts generated on social media.

Users can free themselves from the effects of echo chambers only by increasing their awareness of the phenomenon. Research from the MIT Media Lab (2018–2022) shows that consciously diversifying one’s online social network is crucial for escaping echo chambers. Recommendations include following people outside one’s familiar social group, engaging with individuals of different ideologies and experiences, and regularly clicking on articles or content outside of one’s usual interests.

Just as we gather food from diverse sources to create a balanced diet, social media users must cultivate the habit of accessing information from varied sources—international news, local mainstream media, and viewpoints from different political and religious groups. This develops the ability to listen to opposing perspectives, one of the most effective ways to break out of an echo chamber. Additionally, verifying information through fact-checking tools before believing or sharing it is essential to preventing misinformation from gaining traction.

Unesco recommends that school and college curricula include education on echo chambers, fake news, and algorithmic influence. If students learn early how information affects their thinking, they will grow into more informed and responsible citizens. Freedom of information becomes meaningful only when it is received from diverse perspectives.

The responsibility of mainstream media is to present information and opinions to the public in an impartial, multidimensional, and balanced manner so that society fosters mutual understanding and dialogue rather than division. Portraying disagreement not as hostility but as a natural and healthy part of democratic debate is one of the fundamental principles of responsible journalism. Biased and one-sided journalism not only violates professional ethics but is also profoundly harmful to society in the long run.

Intellectuals who regularly appear in talk shows or publish their views online must distance themselves from partisan loyalties and the pursuit of popularity. Their moral obligation should be to present the truth impartially, objectively, and with courage.

Taking effective action against social media users or platforms that deliberately spread false and misleading information is an important responsibility of the state. In this regard, the government’s role should be lawful, transparent, and accountable. While ensuring that freedom of expression is not undermined, it is necessary to regulate misleading information, hate speech, and content that explicitly incites violence.

At the same time, in cases where organised misinformation or antisocial propaganda is conducted from abroad, the government may take action through lawful processes in coordination with the relevant social media platforms. Equally important state responsibilities include enhancing citizens’ digital literacy, encouraging fact-checking initiatives, and formulating transparent policies. Individuals trapped in echo chambers are essentially bound by an invisible chain of intellectual limitation. To break free from this mental confinement, individuals, society, and the state must all move forward together with awareness and a shared sense of responsibility.

Saifur Rahman is a senior IT specialist and certified professional.

Views expressed in this article are the author's own.

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.