Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

Why Social Media Makes You Less Chatty Than You Think

Welcome to Twitter and Facebook. Now, stop talking about that controversial thing or we’ll make fun of you.

Everett Collection / Shutterstock
Peter Kafka
Peter Kafka covered media and technology, and their intersection, at Vox. Many of his stories can be found in his Kafka on Media newsletter, and he also hosts the Recode Media podcast.

Tired of hearing all of your friends spout off on Facebook and Twitter? Here’s a consolation: If they weren’t on Facebook and Twitter, they would talk a lot more.

That’s the surprising conclusion from new research that argues that social media users are less likely to talk about controversial issues online than in the real world.

Just as surprising: People who use Facebook and Twitter are less likely to talk about hot-button issues in public than people who don’t use social media.

All of this comes from a provocative report from Pew Research Center, which tracked the way people talked about the Edward Snowden/NSA story that broke last year.

The main thrust is that social media users may be more aware that other people disagree with their opinions, which makes them less likely to share them, “for fear of ostracism or ridicule.” It’s a digital era update on “the spiral of silence,” a theory first proposed in the 1970s.

Pew’s researchers, led by a team from Rutgers University, found that 86 percent of Americans were willing to talk about Snowden and the NSA in person, but that only 42 percent of Facebook and Twitter users wanted to talk about it on those services.

Facebook Twitter Discussion of Snowden/NSA via Pew

And Pew says social media users are less vocal in the real world, too. An active Facebook user was half as likely to talk about the controversy “at a physical public meeting” as a non-user. Twitter users were 0.24 times less likely to chat in meatspace.

(Pew’s team considered, but rejected, the notion that people were less likely to talk about a digital surveillance controversy for fear that they would become digital surveilled.)

Two caveats: Pew’s research is supposed to gauge Americans’ willingness to talk about controversial stuff, not about Emmy snubs or kale salads or how freaking cute your kids/pets are. Which explains why there’s so much noise in your feeds.

Also, Pew gives itself an out by positing that for certain controversial topics, all of the above goes out the window — if you really feel strongly about a topic, and feel like you know a lot about it, you may sound off. Which explains all of the Gaza commentary you may have seen recently.

Still, the most surprising thing to me about Pew’s research is that exposure to Twitter and Facebook means exposure to opinions you don’t share.

I have a vague-yet-strong belief in Eli Pariser’s “filter bubble” theory, which argues that you create the online community you want to see, and it’s going to be filled with people who share your views. If that’s the case, then why would people be afraid to sound off?

But report author Keith Hampton, an associate communication professor at Rutgers, argues that we end up sharing more of ourselves on Twitter and Facebook than we think, and that our friends/family/followers take notice.

“In general, we tend to assume that the people we associate with are more like us than they really are,” Hampton said. “Social media lets us know about the ‘hidden diversity’ out there.”

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

More in Technology

Podcasts
Are humanoid robots all hype?Are humanoid robots all hype?
Podcast
Podcasts

AI is making them better — but they’re not going to be doing your chores anytime soon.

By Avishay Artsy and Sean Rameswaram
Future Perfect
The old tech that could help stop the next airborne pandemicThe old tech that could help stop the next airborne pandemic
Future Perfect

Glycol vapors, explained.

By Shayna Korol
Future Perfect
Elon Musk could lose his case against OpenAI — and still get what he wantsElon Musk could lose his case against OpenAI — and still get what he wants
Future Perfect

It’s not about who wins. It’s about the dirty laundry you air along the way.

By Sara Herschander
Life
Why banning kids from AI isn’t the answerWhy banning kids from AI isn’t the answer
Life

What kids really need in the age of artificial intelligence.

By Anna North
Culture
Anthropic owes authors $1.5B for pirating work — but the claims process is a Kafkaesque messAnthropic owes authors $1.5B for pirating work — but the claims process is a Kafkaesque mess
Culture

“Your AI monster ate all our work. Now you’re trying to pay us off with this piece of garbage that doesn’t work.”

By Constance Grady
Future Perfect
Some deaf children are hearing again because of a new gene therapySome deaf children are hearing again because of a new gene therapy
Future Perfect

A medical field that almost died is quietly fixing one disease at a time.

By Bryan Walsh