Diary #04
Embedded Files
UNIFY OR DIVIDE
UNIFY OR DIVIDE
YOUTH
Conflicting information about drones and a discussion among friends: when debate turns into taking sides.
THE STORY
THE STORY
A young man recounts encountering content on Instagram about drones attributed to Russia and violations of European countries' airspace, in the context of the war in Ukraine.
He had not searched for it. Yet, for days, his feed and those of his friends fill up with posts on the subject, coming from different pages. According to his account, the interpretations he encounters seem to be reduced to two: those who attribute responsibility to Russia and those who claim that the drones are Ukrainian and part of a provocation.
The young man finds this reduction of the debate to a rigid alternative suspicious. The news quickly moves from the screen into personal relationships.
"My friends and I started arguing heatedly and split into two factions almost instantly."
The discussion does not lead to a shared conclusion. The young man invokes the expression "divide and rule" to describe the feeling of being pushed to choose between two sides.
He does not know who originally produced the posts. The large number of publications and the short, sensationalist headlines increase his doubts. He searches for more information, but recounts coming across mainly the same opposing interpretations.
Repetition also plays a role. He writes: "Probably if the post hadn't completely taken over my feed and all my friends' feeds for days, I would have reacted less strongly and informed myself better." At a certain point, he adds, he develops an aversion to the subject.
Looking back on what happened, he recognises an ambivalent effect: highly visible political content can increase curiosity and public interest, but, in his view, the quality of debate declines when everything seems to lead to a "guided and restricted choice between the two factions".
In another example, he recounts having perceived many suggested posts on Instagram and activity that he attributed to bots or AI. These are personal observations, which cannot be verified through the questionnaire. To find one's bearings, he recommends looking for different sources and not stopping at the first results.
BEYOND THE STORY
— When debate turns into taking sides
BEYOND THE STORY
— When debate turns into taking sides
The episode allows us to distinguish the circulation of content, its reliability and the way people discuss it. The existence of two opposing narratives does not mean that they have the same factual basis, and the young man's perception does not demonstrate a manipulative plan on the part of the platform.
The element documented by the testimony is another: repeated exposure to controversial content was accompanied by heated debate and, in his account, by progressive information fatigue.
Getting informed and discussing issues are essential practices for democratic life; however, they can become more difficult when those involved feel forced to take a position quickly. Saturation does not equate to greater understanding.
Furthermore, to evaluate the claims about the drones, it would be necessary to identify exactly which posts and which period they referred to. An unfounded theory does not acquire the same credibility as a documented account simply because both circulate online.
A QUESTION FOR YOU
A QUESTION FOR YOU
"How can we understand who is trying to influence us?"
Page updated
Report abuse