Why are We So Mean? The Social Media Effect on Empathy

Image: verkeorg on Flickr

 

Perhaps you’re part of this epidemic. Perhaps you realise, perhaps you don’t. It would be deceitful to claim I myself am separate from it. But, if you- like the millions of people across the globe- are an avid or even simply a social media user at all, you’re likely culpable in this ‘crime’: that of disregarding empathy for others.

The popularity of social media platforms is canvassed largely through entertainment value in this day and age: think of the cultural significance of Tiktok, of Instagram Reels, YouTube (namely YouTube Shorts) and the like. These specific platforms are broad in audience chiefly due to the dominance of short form content, though that in and of itself is an entirely new can of worms.

The general population’s dopamine receptors have been shot to pieces by the quickness and attention grabbing nature of a 10 second TikTok, making a 10 minute YouTube video on the same topic an incomprehensible bore. However, with this popularity comes a large and varied audience. Hence, a vast range of opinion- and criticism.

This decline in patience for long form content seems to evidence a growing generation marred by the relentless modern day presence of social media, a generation warped by the instant gratification of the Internet as it is now. The days of waiting for your family’s prehistoric PC to boot up in the back room are gone, and now that it is at our fingertips, the impact on our collective wellbeing and social function is palpable, especially on the impressionable minds of the youth.

Being provided an entire world of simulated connection and entertainment at the click of an iPhone button has proved incredibly damaging on the cohesion and practice of social skills, and on human empathy. There is comfort and safety to seek in the anonymity of the Internet: it almost acts as a cloak of invisibility, leading many to push the boundaries of social interaction further and further. This idea of simulated social interaction is simultaneously real and false- we know social media is populated largely by real, living beings, yet the removal of true human interaction also removes social consequence, making it much simpler to be cruel online, as it exists in somewhat of a vacuum. 

The combination of anonymity, and the modern day psychological wiring towards instant gratification, makes online cruelty largely rewarding. No matter if you want to negate its existence, online snarking and harassment is a perennial presence, especially in increasingly popular short form media.

How easy is it to scroll through a bizarre,  algorithmically crafted slew of Instagram Reels and read hundreds of comments mocking the subject’s looks, demeanour, behaviour, et cetera? How often do we see TikTok comments urging a creator to ‘post this on Instagram Reels’ as a means to insult them? How easy is it to become part of this online hivemind? This is only furthered by the setup of the algorithm on such sites, which rewards these cruel comments and behaviours by boosting the videos of the creators they demean in order to garner more views through mockery and mirth. It has become a vicious cycle, and one that is almost devoid of humanity.

On a superficial level, these creators exist in a vacuum- to an almost dystopian extent, they are simply virtual figures of entertainment and mirth, nothing more- and their real selves and feelings are consequently forgotten. Where this behaviour becomes even more warped is that in face to face interaction, such contemptuous and cruel comments would be close to unthinkable.

The human instinct for empathy is more easily activated in human interaction. The barricade of the phone screen, however, acts as a block for empathy in its users: and the more exposure we are given to these instances of virtual humiliation and degradation, the more desensitised we become to a lack of compassion. The way in which this type of online cruelty becomes competitive deepens the cut further.

 Reading comments appears as some convoluted game of one-upmanship, where the funniest comment is rewarded with an abundance of likes and replies. This taps into the modern psychological wiring towards instant gratification- this is satiated by online likes- but the mirage of popularity and affirmation it provides to the commenter spurs on further online harassment, feeding into a cycle that seems inescapable.

This degradation of human empathy becomes an even more concerning thought where the new generations of tweens and teens is considered: a generation already dependent on technology for entertainment, education and interaction; a generation where parenting often relies heavily on thrusting a phone or iPad screen into a child’s clammy, juice-sticky hands in order to satiate their cries or complaints.

This is already proving to have detrimental effects on educational and cognitive development, such as a study that found ‘reading on a smartphone elicits fewer sighs, promotes brain overactivity in the prefrontal cortex, and results in reduced comprehension’ (Honma et al., 2022). If cognitive development is being so detrimentally affected by social media and Internet usage, what hope is there for a resurgence of empathy and kindness in the next generation, when this is their learned model of behaviour? 

It is safe to say many social media users do not possess the faculties to provide criticism that is constructive; rather, it’s a quest for validation of their own humour. If the general consensus is that a creator or their video, on such platforms, is subversive or ridiculous in any way, they are the object of mirth from the online hivemind. Though, this isn’t unbreakable. You, and everyone else, can consciously choose not to participate- even if it can be funny to do so. Let’s hope the next generation of young adults manage to pull through with at least some semblance of empathy and understanding.

Work Cited

Honma, M., et al. “Reading on a smartphone affects sigh generation, brain activity, and comprehension.” Scientific Reports, vol. 12, 2022, p. 1589. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-05605-0#citeas. Accessed 17 10 2024.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Our YouTube Channel