Lisa Schirch Social Media Impacts on Social & Political Goods 17 While professional news services have oversight and public accountability, social media producers of fake news are far less likely to be held to account. The increase in social media as a source of news and information correlates with a decline in professional journalism, and it's "general interest" intermediaries who help to provide common, accurate information and experiences that enable informed deliberation. (Sunstein 2017) Social media promised the democratization of information, but some counter that it has resulted instead in the weaponization of information. Many commentators believe social media is enabling “information pollution” making it more difficult for society to have a conversation based on shared understanding of what is or is not true. 32. Creating “Information Filter Bubbles” and “Echo Chambers.” Human cognition already has a bias toward confirming what we already think and overlooking information that disproves or complicates our understanding of the world. People endorse information on social media by sharing it with their friends. Misinformation and disinformation passed on through friends are more likely to be read and viewed as credible. People want to reinforce their own views. Eli Pariser called these “filter bubbles” anticipating years before most that people receiving information through social media filters may view other people, with different sources of information, with suspicion and dislike. Information bubbles are a result of both self-selection and algorithms that ensure people with similar experiences and opinions see the same types of information. (Pariser 2011) People in an information bubble may experience a type of “echo chamber” where most of their social contacts post information that is similar to what they believe. This environment can create an illusion that "everyone believes as I do" or that a person is validated in their beliefs because they perceive that they are a "majority" even if their echo chamber is relatively small, and most of the population believes differently. Social media enables “enclave deliberation” or caucus groups between likeminded people. These internal negotiations could, in some circumstances, improve how groups relate externally. But misperceptions shared by a group of people are more likely to persist, even in the face of information that counters the perception. Individuals are more likely to change their mind when they are not part of a “group think” that reinforce each other’s misperceptions. Discussion among like-minded people can contribute to people becoming overconfident that their views are right, and others are wrong. 33. Worsening Polarization. The design of social media platforms inherently drives polarization and undermines democratic deliberation and dialogue. Social media platforms use algorithms to link people with similar interests. Social media offers an “architecture of participation and control” where people participate in choosing what they want to see and hear from others on the platform.