The biggest motivation for digital mobilization is hatred

A study by Michael Bang Petersen and Alexander Bos (Aarhus University) analyzes the psychological motivations of more than 2,500 Twitter users in the U.S. By linking some 500,000 news items viralized by the networks, the conclusion of the study is: "The study is a very interesting one, but not a complete one.Fake news is not shared by the dumbest or most ill-informed users, but by the most radicalized ones.".

Those who share more false information are just as thoughtful as others and know more about politics. They just hate members of the other party more.

The real problem is not spreading fake news, but spreading news in a biased way.

Michael Bang Petersen

In short, the digital network users with the most bile they are not interested in knowing whether or not the news they disseminate is real.but if they serve to go against their rivals, political or social. To do this, in their digital discourse they mix fake news with other real news that support their ideology. The important thing is to hurt those who do not think like you, rather than to assert your ideology.

Hence, we have reached a climate of constant tension on any topic that is addressed on the Internet. The polarizationThe entrenchment in an immovable position is something that certain individuals need like air. And in the end these are the noisy ones, the ones who create the discourse, because the silent majority goes "about their business".

Two groups are thus created, one composed of the silent many and the altered few composed of. It is the latter that feed social tension by polarizing ideas and radicalizing positions. You are either with me or against me.

Our natural tendency is to want to be rightand let others know about it. This is why false information is shared as a way to confirm our bias, we seek validation of our ideasbecause we need to reaffirm ourselves in them.

We like to read news that prove us right, and those that don't, we scorn them, accusing them of being false. When they are about our position, we share them as a way of telling others "you see how right I am". And those that take it away from us, we accuse them of being false at the root, we do not go beyond the headline. We do not seek the truth, we seek our personal reaffirmation.

By being more immovable, less adaptive to the environment, and more faithful to our emotions than to our capacity for reasoning, we have created a company that has become more agitated, angry and polarized. And this is reflected on the Internet. But in the digital world, to which everyone is hooked 24 hours a day, it makes this mood more visible, which further increases the perception of hostility.

That is why, in any situation, the "insurgents" emerge, those positioned against or in favor, and who become entrenched in their ideas the more evidence is given to them that it is wrong. We see it in the conspiracy theories on the Internet, such as coronavirus or vaccines, and how impossible it has proved to be convince them otherwise. Their personal identity is at stake. Hence, there are parents who prefer to let their children die of flu because they did not vaccinate them rather than give in to their ideology. Or that some enlightened people decide invade your congress representative.

And according to all behavioral studies, the situation is only going to get worse in the near future.

What can we do? Perhaps we should be less passionate with our ideas, more pragmatic. To have an open mind, both to what we have already assimilated as true, as well as to what they want to teach us. More open, more critical, more empathetic. But above all, more serene and respectful.

Cover image by  Andre Hunter at Unsplash