A Finnish political media, Verkkouutiset, had drawn attention to the fragmentation of political discussion on social media, resulting from the fact that many people follow only those whose opinions are close to their own. As a result, the term “social media” no longer really describes what it is; rather, it has become a platform for bubble formation or— as it used to be put— a like-minded circle jerk.
An excellent example of this is X, formerly Twitter, where discussion is almost unmoderated. However, there are several ways to shape one’s feed toward such a circle and eventually drift into a so-called rabbit hole, where a person is drawn ever deeper into one type of content.
As a result, the discussions one encounters on social media end up consisting almost entirely of messages representing a single worldview—one whose challenges remain unseen and perhaps even unrecognized.
* * *
It does not necessarily have to be this way, even though X—like, as far as I understand, nearly all social media platforms—uses an algorithm that serves users content based on their past behavior, “inferring” what they want to read.
In addition, everyone can choose whose posts they follow: for many, this means people whose opinions align with their own. But one could just as well follow the entire political spectrum on X, from the far left to the far right, from Nazis to anarchists.
Likewise, those who prefer their own circle can choose to make their posts visible only to selected audiences, excluding those whose views they do not wish to engage with. In doing so, however, they also forgo those people’s comments—and the challenge those comments might pose to their own thinking.
Even this has not been enough for everyone. Politically liberal and left-leaning groups created their own platform, Bluesky, a few years ago. Similarly, U.S. President Donald Trump launched his own platform, Truth Social.
Thus, what was once a platform known for lively political debate among adults has evolved into something where the very “social” nature of social forums can be questioned—something that fosters people raised in rabbit holes, whose worldview grows narrower day by day.
* * *
Blogs are also considered social media, including this one, Thoughts of the Professor, whose subtitle emphasizes the importance of freedom of speech.
As long-time readers know, my own writings are also politically opinionated and express my views on the issues at hand. But that does not mean I would not want to see opinions differing from my own in the discussions following each post—even ones that challenge me radically.
On the contrary, such views are highly welcome, as they offer alternative perspectives and provide material for both myself and my readers to develop our thinking and worldview.
That is why I hope criticism does not disappear from discussions related to Thoughts of the Professor – or its Finnish equivalent, Professorin ajatuksia – but instead evolves into high-quality, serious argumentation. After all, the blog’s original purpose is ultimately to be part of the broader political conversation in our society.
Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Most Finnish Journalism Students Lean Toward the Ultra-Liberal Far Left
English or Finnish — That’s the Question
Citizen Journalism, Free Speech, and EU Challenges
