Verified by 
Key points
- Misinformed social media easily short circuits common sense and persuades broad swaths that their values are under existential threat.
- Debate becomes foreclosed in a polarized climate, replaced by knee-jerk denouncements by those ready to vent.
In previous posts, I examined the costs wrought by heavy screen use during pandemic lockdowns. My first two columns explored the terrible loneliness and debilitating anxiety that can be triggered by digital distractions and screen immersion. This column looks at how reactionary outrage is an understandable reaction to the stress of prolonged isolation.
A year with surplus time in which to stare at screens has shown how easy it is to stir up and succumb to reactionary outrage. Social media exploits long-standing grievances as well as fresh ones for global audiences eager to be offended. It is astonishingly easy for Twitter and the sprawling social media sphere to short-circuit common sense to persuade broad swaths of all ages that their values are under existential threat.
In my own Twitter poll, 61% said “the constant outrage” bothered them the most on social media, followed by “loneliness” at 28%, “screen addiction” at 11%, and “fomo” getting zero votes. Gerald Seib, Executive Editor of The Wall Street Journal wrote, “The national mood seems to be one of outrage,” while the Center for Strategic and International Studies called our present climate, “the age of mass protests.”
People who disagree with a point of view are now not merely wrong or have a different perspective: they are dismissed as asinine, stupid, idiots, or evil. Debate becomes foreclosed in a polarized climate, replaced by knee-jerk denouncements by those ready to vent their spleen.
Other countries capitalized on reactionary outrage to sow division, weaken national unity, and undermine international alliances. Mayhem occurred in India, Australia, Italy, Spain, Brazil, South Africa, and the United Kingdom, according to Just Security, a publication by the New York University School of Law.
Ideological protests can easily turn physical: witness the rampages of Seattle’s “summer of love;” Black Lives Matter demonstrations; the riots following the death of George Floyd; anti-lockdown protests; racist violence against Asian-Americans; and the televised storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6. All illustrated how easily invective spreads on social media and how people can be drawn into a mob mentality.
Storming the U.S. Capitol was hardly a furtive act: participants gladly posted incriminating selfies and angled to give press interviews. They didn’t imagine that anyone would recognize their online marauding and report them to the FBI. Similarly, organizers in Seattle’s “autonomous zone” blithely dismissed the property destruction the riots inflicted on the police station and residents within its border.
Behind the pandemic’s surge of civil disobedience lay a predilection, even an eagerness, to embrace conspiracy theories that no counterfactuals or amount of persuasion could dislodge. Anti-government protests spiraled around the globe despite a highly contagious virus in circulation. Demonstrations roiled politics from Chile, Hong Kong, and Lebanon to Philadelphia, Manhattan, and Kenosha.
According to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, online political ads were “especially effective at stoking anger because they convey messages targeted at individual voters with known profiles suggesting their own personal hot buttons.” This fed the combustible trifecta of confrontation, polarization, and populism. During the 2020 political cycle more than 4.9 million television ads aired during U.S. House, Senate, and Presidential races, more than twice as many compared to 2012 and 2016 cycles.
The way online media shape belief systems that are increasingly out of touch with reality has been widely reported. The January 6 Capitol protestors may have honestly believed that the election wasn’t really over despite recounts, reverifications, and fifty-six lost court cases. YouTube claims to have tweaked its recommendation engine to favor established journalism outlets over “borderline content and harmful misinformation.”
Yet continued exposure to false and unvetted opinion still led people away from reality to conspiracy theories. For various reasons, people are less frequently turning to established authorities or institutions with deep knowledge about the topic at hand. Instead, they open themselves to every voice that feels entitled to spout an opinion, whether it is qualified to give an informed one or not.
All the above left many in a state of exhausted numbness and burnout. During lockdowns we had to deal with issues from noise, interruptions, and the stress of multitasking, to isolation, uncertainty, and the disappearance of comforting routines. Each of these interfered with the brain’s ability to focus. It could spend energy trying to filter out distractions, but at a cost particularly dear to those who were already sleep-deprived and overwhelmed. It challenged many to be vigilant about the pandemic or latest political kerfuffle and still get work done as efficiently as before.
Kindly address questions for Dr. Cytowic via the author portal.
References
Carothers, T. and B. Press, Pandemic Consequences: The acceleration of confrontational politics. Just Security, December 17, 2020. doi: justsecurity.org/73905/pandemic-consequences-the-acceleration-of-confrontational-politics/.
Seib, G., The Perpetual Outrage Machine Churns On. The Wall Street Journal, March 8, 2021. doi: wsj.com/articles/the-perpetual-outrage-machine-churns-on-11615214342
Appiah, K.A., YouTube Videos Brainwashed My Father. The New York Times Magazine, April 20, 2021. doi: nytimes.com/2021/04/20/magazine/youtube-radicalization.html
Kaminski, M., C. Szmanska, and J.K. Nowak, Whose Tweets on COVID-19 Gain the Most Attention: Celebrities, Political, or Scientific Authorities? Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, February 11, 2021. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2020.0336.
