Lydia Laurenson Polarisation and Peacebuilding Strategy on Digital Media Platforms: Current Research 5 or from social media are the groups seeing the largest increase in polarization in the U.S.” (emphasis added) — i.e., polarisation seems to be happening faster in groups that use digital media less. This is strong evidence that digital media platforms are not a driver for polarisation. 3. Caveats Specific to the Polarisation Research Some digital platforms may have different impacts on polarisation than others, and those different impacts could get lost in broad studies like the one above. For example, it is possible that Facebook increases polarisation among the groups that use it, while Twitter decreases polarisation. Or it is possible that Twitter increases polarisation and Facebook decreases it... and so on. Additionally, the effects could be changing over time, especially given how fast and how significantly digital platforms can change. For instance, even if we assume that digital media was not a causal factor in polarisation in 2015, it could be more of a factor today. To drill down on this question, it may help to test specific affordances rather than platforms. Some research (detailed later in this brief) has tried, but more is needed. (An “affordance” is an interactive aspect of design. For example, the “retweet” button is an affordance on Twitter, the “Like” button is an affordance on Facebook, and the handle on a tea mug is an affordance on the tea mug.) Most importantly: • Even if polarisation is not caused or driven by digital media, its effects can be seen on digital media • And there may be digital media interventions that can depolarise offline society, even if digital media is not causing polarisation. We will return to these two ideas frequently over the course of these briefs. 4. Echo Chambers and Filter Bubbles are Largely Debunked A relevant, albeit less broad and more debunked, concept is “echo chambers” or “filter bubbles,” which gained currency among media theorists over the last decade. Indeed, though the phrase “filter bubble” was first used in 2010, it is already in Merriam-Webster, which defines it as “an environment and especially an online environment in which people are exposed only to opinions and information that conform to their existing beliefs” (definition retrieved 3/6/2019). The idea is so prevalent that in 2018, the Knight Foundation published a white paper by Guess, Nyhan, Lyons and Reifler (scholars affiliated with Princeton, Dartmouth, and Exeter) titled “Avoiding The Echo Chamber About Echo Chambers: Why selective exposure to likeminded political news is less prevalent than you think.” In that paper, the researchers state that “the data frequently contradict or at least complicate the ‘echo chambers’ narrative.”