The overwhelming success of Netflix documentary The Social Dilemma brought increased public attention to the role platforms play in our access to information and exposure to extremist ideas and rhetoric. For years, academics have noted the perils of a platform-driven world (see here, here, and here, just to name a few). Their work sheds light on the exploitive nature of corporations whose design is rooted in keeping people engaged for as long as possible to maximize the data they can sell about us, as well as the pervasive, systemic racism coded into their design.
It looks like 2021 will be the year U.S. lawmakers and regulators finally do something about it. This year, executives from Facebook, Google, and Twitter repeatedly testified before the House of Representatives in response to allegations of antitrust violations, spreading misinformation, and censorship. The year wrapped up with 48 state attorneys general joining forces with the federal government to try and force Facebook to divest its ownership of Instagram and WhatsApp. The outcomes from the lawsuit are still up in the air, but deregulation could pave the way for more social networks and search engines.
While the pursuit of breaking up these monoliths is a step in the right direction, more options will not necessarily solve the problem of misinformation, privacy violations, and the amplification of extremism. These problems will persist on niche platforms and won’t change how relevance is manipulated to spread propaganda. Regulation does little to change our role in how we interact with these platforms to find news and information that we rely on to make important decisions.
Breaking up Facebook would mean a 2021 with more niche platforms tailored around audience needs. More options are great in theory, but new platforms could also provide a haven for misinformation and hate speech and further prevent us from engaging with opinions that challenge our existing beliefs. If anything, more choices will likely increase political polarization. This is already happening on spaces like Parler or Rumble, who saw an uptick in users after platforms like Facebook and YouTube began labeling and removing misinformation pertaining to the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.
In the case of Google, a breakup wouldn’t necessarily change how people seek out news and information, nor adequately combat the media manipulation efforts currently at play. My work has shown how conservative content creators use search engine optimization to effectively ensure information confirming conservative beliefs dominate the top returns. These sophisticated digital marketing techniques are about exploiting data voids, not Google’s monopoly on search. The tactics of keyword curation and strategic signaling are not bound to any one search engine; digital impact is contingent on a network’s resources and skill sets.
Much like tailoring social networks around user identity, producers’ ability to manipulate search is about understanding the concerns of one’s audience. Over the last year, I’ve spent a great deal of time thinking about how the keywords we start with shape the kinds of returns we receive. Searching for “illegal aliens” vs. “undocumented workers” produces dramatically different results.
A Google search for the phrase “illegal aliens” returns content from conservative thinktanks like the Heritage Foundation, a press release from the Trump White House indicating that illegal immigrants murder U.S. citizens, links to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and news from conservative networks like Fox News. “Undocumented immigrants” returns news coverage about how to protect exploited immigrants, news from The New York Times about Trump’s plan to exclude undocumented immigrants in the Census count, and websites that outline immigration labor laws.
These bifurcated results aren’t contingent on Google personalizing the internet experience (although customization is a big part of why we mostly see news that we agree with). Bing and DuckDuckGo return similar, ideologically siloed, information. DuckDuckGo may be better at protecting users’ privacy, but it is still designed to best match a query based on relevance.
Efforts at thwarting misinformation often focus on the creator of the content. Tools like “Spot the Troll” and information literacy campaigns designed to evaluate the credibility of a source or the sender are important steps in helping users identify false information, but we need more resources that help users construct good questions and find resources to begin with.
Indeed, the power vested in these corporations comes, in part, from our overreliance on them. Some of this power differential can be solved through antitrust regulation; we can’t help but depend on Google when they crush competition through acquisition (e.g., buying YouTube or Waze). But the power of Twitter, Facebook, and Google also comes from the trust we place in them and the continued belief that they are neutral arbitrators of truth.
My hope in 2021 is that we will stop thinking of these spaces as the new “public square.” As Safiya Noble has routinely noted, these corporations are quickly displacing public knowledge infrastructure, filling the gaps legislators have long left behind (high-quality public education, access to libraries, and other traditional sources of knowledge). From the vantage point my data provides, we’re living in parallel internets driven by distinct worldviews. As 2021 commences, I think more of us will try and pop the filter bubbles we’re living in by considering how we too play a role in building the algorithmic walls that surround us.
Francesca Tripodi is an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina’s School of Information and Library Science.
The overwhelming success of Netflix documentary The Social Dilemma brought increased public attention to the role platforms play in our access to information and exposure to extremist ideas and rhetoric. For years, academics have noted the perils of a platform-driven world (see here, here, and here, just to name a few). Their work sheds light on the exploitive nature of corporations whose design is rooted in keeping people engaged for as long as possible to maximize the data they can sell about us, as well as the pervasive, systemic racism coded into their design.
It looks like 2021 will be the year U.S. lawmakers and regulators finally do something about it. This year, executives from Facebook, Google, and Twitter repeatedly testified before the House of Representatives in response to allegations of antitrust violations, spreading misinformation, and censorship. The year wrapped up with 48 state attorneys general joining forces with the federal government to try and force Facebook to divest its ownership of Instagram and WhatsApp. The outcomes from the lawsuit are still up in the air, but deregulation could pave the way for more social networks and search engines.
While the pursuit of breaking up these monoliths is a step in the right direction, more options will not necessarily solve the problem of misinformation, privacy violations, and the amplification of extremism. These problems will persist on niche platforms and won’t change how relevance is manipulated to spread propaganda. Regulation does little to change our role in how we interact with these platforms to find news and information that we rely on to make important decisions.
Breaking up Facebook would mean a 2021 with more niche platforms tailored around audience needs. More options are great in theory, but new platforms could also provide a haven for misinformation and hate speech and further prevent us from engaging with opinions that challenge our existing beliefs. If anything, more choices will likely increase political polarization. This is already happening on spaces like Parler or Rumble, who saw an uptick in users after platforms like Facebook and YouTube began labeling and removing misinformation pertaining to the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.
In the case of Google, a breakup wouldn’t necessarily change how people seek out news and information, nor adequately combat the media manipulation efforts currently at play. My work has shown how conservative content creators use search engine optimization to effectively ensure information confirming conservative beliefs dominate the top returns. These sophisticated digital marketing techniques are about exploiting data voids, not Google’s monopoly on search. The tactics of keyword curation and strategic signaling are not bound to any one search engine; digital impact is contingent on a network’s resources and skill sets.
Much like tailoring social networks around user identity, producers’ ability to manipulate search is about understanding the concerns of one’s audience. Over the last year, I’ve spent a great deal of time thinking about how the keywords we start with shape the kinds of returns we receive. Searching for “illegal aliens” vs. “undocumented workers” produces dramatically different results.
A Google search for the phrase “illegal aliens” returns content from conservative thinktanks like the Heritage Foundation, a press release from the Trump White House indicating that illegal immigrants murder U.S. citizens, links to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and news from conservative networks like Fox News. “Undocumented immigrants” returns news coverage about how to protect exploited immigrants, news from The New York Times about Trump’s plan to exclude undocumented immigrants in the Census count, and websites that outline immigration labor laws.
These bifurcated results aren’t contingent on Google personalizing the internet experience (although customization is a big part of why we mostly see news that we agree with). Bing and DuckDuckGo return similar, ideologically siloed, information. DuckDuckGo may be better at protecting users’ privacy, but it is still designed to best match a query based on relevance.
Efforts at thwarting misinformation often focus on the creator of the content. Tools like “Spot the Troll” and information literacy campaigns designed to evaluate the credibility of a source or the sender are important steps in helping users identify false information, but we need more resources that help users construct good questions and find resources to begin with.
Indeed, the power vested in these corporations comes, in part, from our overreliance on them. Some of this power differential can be solved through antitrust regulation; we can’t help but depend on Google when they crush competition through acquisition (e.g., buying YouTube or Waze). But the power of Twitter, Facebook, and Google also comes from the trust we place in them and the continued belief that they are neutral arbitrators of truth.
My hope in 2021 is that we will stop thinking of these spaces as the new “public square.” As Safiya Noble has routinely noted, these corporations are quickly displacing public knowledge infrastructure, filling the gaps legislators have long left behind (high-quality public education, access to libraries, and other traditional sources of knowledge). From the vantage point my data provides, we’re living in parallel internets driven by distinct worldviews. As 2021 commences, I think more of us will try and pop the filter bubbles we’re living in by considering how we too play a role in building the algorithmic walls that surround us.
Francesca Tripodi is an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina’s School of Information and Library Science.
Loretta Chao Open up the profession
Jennifer Choi What have we done for you lately?
Cherian George Enter the lamb warriors
Jonas Kaiser Toward a wehrhafte journalism
A.J. Bauer The year of MAGAcal thinking
Jim Friedlich A newspaper renaissance reached by stopping the presses
Edward Roussel Tech companies get aggressive in local
Raney Aronson-Rath To get past information divides, we need to understand them first
Danielle C. Belton A decimated media rededicates itself to truth
Benjamin Toff Beltway reporting gets normal again, for better and for worse
Ashton Lattimore Remote work helps level the playing field in an insular industry
María Sánchez Díez Traffic will plummet — and it’ll be ok
John Garrett A surprisingly good year
Marie Shanahan Journalism schools stop perpetuating the status quo
Chicas Poderosas More voices mean better information
Logan Jaffe History as a reporting tool
Linda Solomon Wood Canada steps up for journalism
Hossein Derakhshan Mass personalization of truth
Rodney Gibbs Zooming beyond talking heads
AX Mina 2020 isn’t a black swan — it’s a yellow canary
Beena Raghavendran Journalism gets fused with art
Talmon Joseph Smith The media rejects deficit hawkery
Kevin D. Grant Parachute journalism goes away for good
Don Day Business first, journalism second
Jennifer Brandel A sneak peak at power mapping, 2073’s top innovation
Juleyka Lantigua The download, podcasting’s metric king, gets dethroned
Nabiha Syed Newsrooms quit their toxic relationships
Ernie Smith Entrepreneurship on rails
Shaydanay Urbani and Nancy Watzman Local collaboration is key to slowing misinformation
Ariane Bernard Going solo is still only a path for the few
Sonali Prasad Making disaster journalism that cuts through the noise
Mark Stenberg The rise of the journalist-influencer
Mike Caulfield 2021’s misinformation will look a lot like 2020’s (and 2019’s, and…)
Brandy Zadrozny Misinformation fatigue sets in
Laura E. Davis The focus turns to newsroom leaders for lasting change
Imaeyen Ibanga Journalism gets unmasked
Meredith D. Clark The year journalism starts paying reparations
Francesca Tripodi Don’t expect breaking up Google and Facebook to solve our information woes
Charo Henríquez A new path to leadership
Nicholas Jackson Blogging is back, but better
Rachel Glickhouse Journalists will be kinder to each other — and to themselves
Jesse Holcomb Genre erosion in nonprofit journalism
Nikki Usher Don’t expect an antitrust dividend for the media
Jessica Clark News becomes plural
Jeremy Gilbert Human-centered journalism
Mandy Jenkins You build trust by helping your readers
Francesco Zaffarano The year we ask the audience what it needs
Kate Myers My son will join every Zoom call in our industry
Mariano Blejman It’s time to challenge autocompleted journalism
Errin Haines Let’s normalize women’s leadership
Julia B. Chan and Kim Bui Millennials are ready to run things
Andrew Donohue The rise of the democracy beat
Brian Moritz The year sports journalism changes for good
Aaron Foley Diversity gains haven’t shown up in local news
Michael W. Wagner Fractured democracy, fractured journalism
Ben Collins We need to learn how to talk to (and about) accidental conspiracists
Alfred Hermida and Oscar Westlund The virus ups data journalism’s game
Jacqué Palmer The rise of the plain-text email newsletter
Joshua P. Darr Legislatures will tackle the local news crisis
Masuma Ahuja We’ll remember how interconnected our world is
Kerri Hoffman Protecting podcasting’s open ecosystem
Gonzalo del Peon Collaborations expand from newsrooms to the business side
Hadjar Benmiloud Get representative, or die trying
Patrick Butler Covid-19 reporting has prepared us for cross-border collaboration
Cindy Royal J-school grads maintain their optimism and adaptability
Pablo Boczkowski Audiences have revolted. Will newsrooms adapt?
Matt Skibinski Misinformation won’t stop unless we stop it
Garance Franke-Ruta Rebundling content, rebuilding connections
Sarah Stonbely Videoconferencing brings more geographic diversity
Rick Berke Virtual events are here to stay
Jer Thorp Fewer pixels, more cardboard
Tim Carmody Spotify will make big waves in video
Annie Rudd Newsrooms grow less comfortable with the “view from above”
Nico Gendron Ask your readers to help build your products
Candis Callison Calling it a crisis isn’t enough (if it ever was)
Eric Nuzum Podcasting dodged a bullet in 2020, but 2021 will be harder
Tauhid Chappell and Mike Rispoli Defund the crime beat
Julia Angwin Show your (computational) work
Cory Bergman The year after a thousand earthquakes
Anthony Nadler Journalism struggles to find a new model of legitimacy
Nonny de la Pena News reaches the third dimension
Pia Frey Building growth through tastemakers and their communities
Ståle Grut Network analysis enters the journalism toolbox
Joni Deutsch Local arts and music make journalism more joyous
José Zamora Walking the talk on diversity
Ray Soto The news gets spatial
Chase Davis The year we look beyond The Story
Zainab Khan From understanding to feeling
Joanne McNeil Newsrooms push back against Ivy League cronyism
David Skok A pandemic-prompted wave of consolidation
Catalina Albeanu Publish less, listen more
Natalie Meade Journalism enters rehab
Tamar Charney Public radio has a midlife crisis
Steve Henn Has independent podcasting peaked?
C.W. Anderson Journalism changed under Trump — will it keep changing under Biden?
David Chavern Local video finally gets momentum
Victor Pickard The commercial era for local journalism is over
Alyssa Zeisler Holistic medicine for journalism
J. Siguru Wahutu Journalists still wrongly think the U.S. is different
Jean Friedman-Rudovsky and Cassie Haynes A shift from conversation to action
Richard Tofel Less on politics, more on how government works (or doesn’t)
John Saroff Covid sparks the growth of independent local news sites
Andrew Ramsammy Stop being polite and start getting real
Zizi Papacharissi The year we rebuild the infrastructure of truth
Jody Brannon People won’t renew
Gordon Crovitz Common law will finally apply to the Internet
Taylor Lorenz Journalists will learn influencing isn’t easy
John Davidow Reflect and repent
Ryan Kellett The bundle gets bundled
Ben Werdmuller The web blooms again
John Ketchum More journalists of color become newsroom founders
Astead W. Herndon The Trump-sized window of the media caring about race closes again
Alicia Bell and Simon Galperin Media reparations now
Marcus Mabry News orgs adapt to a post-Trump world (with Trump still in it)
Colleen Shalby The definition of good journalism shifts
Parker Molloy The press will risk elevating a Shadow President Trump
Rachel Schallom The rise of nonprofit journalism continues
Whitney Phillips Facts are an insufficient response to falsehoods
M. Scott Havens Traditional pay TV will embrace the disruption
Gabe Schneider Another year of empty promises on diversity
Megan McCarthy Readers embrace a low-information diet
Marissa Evans Putting community trauma into context
Stefanie Murray and Anthony Advincula Expect to see more translations and non-English content
Doris Truong Indigenous issues get long-overdue mainstream coverage
Mike Ananny Toward better tech journalism
Nisha Chittal The year we stop pivoting
Sam Ford We’ll find better ways to archive our work
Celeste Headlee The rise of radical newsroom transparency
Ariel Zirulnick Local newsrooms question their paywalls
Christoph Mergerson Black Americans will demand more from journalism
Bo Hee Kim Newsrooms create an intentional and collaborative culture
Delia Cai Subscriptions start working for the middle
Kristen Muller Engaged journalism scales
Anna Nirmala Local news orgs grasp the urgency of community roots
Kawandeep Virdee Goodbye, doomscroll
Rasmus Kleis Nielsen Stop pretending publishers are a united front
Burt Herman Journalists build post-Facebook digital communities
Sarah Marshall The year audiences need extra cheer
Bill Adair The future of fact-checking is all about structured data
Matt DeRienzo Citizen truth brigades steer us back toward reality
Sumi Aggarwal News literacy programs aren’t child’s play
Mark S. Luckie Newsrooms and streaming services get cozy
Tonya Mosley True equity means ownership
Renée Kaplan Falling in love with your subscription
Tanya Cordrey Declining trust forces publishers to claim (or disclaim) values
Heidi Tworek A year of news mocktails
Samantha Ragland The year of journalists taking initiative
Moreno Cruz Osório In Brazil, a push for pluralism
Sara M. Watson Return of the RSS reader
Sue Cross A global consensus around the kind of news we need to save