SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Birey ve Toplum Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 15 Sayı: 2

THE ROLE OF SOCIAL MEDIA FILTER BUBBLES AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE RECOMMENDATION SYSTEMS ON POLITICAL POLARISATION

Sosyal Medya Fi̇ltre Baloncuklarının ve Yapay Zekâ Öneri̇ Si̇stemleri̇nin Si̇yasi̇ Kutuplaşmadaki̇ Rolü

Ertuğrul Buğra Orhan(FIRAT ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-2455-5441
Seda İşgüzar(TURGUT ÖZAL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-1103-8384
Pages
101–120
Publication Date
2025-12-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It also calls for international cooperation in establishing legal structures to regulate the digital public sphere, guaranteeing democratic responsibility and social cohesion in the age of digitalisation.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines the formation of filter bubbles in social media ecosystems and analyses how they contribute to the intensification of political division.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Drawing on a range of academic sources, the research examines the consequences of filter bubbles on key events such as the Arab Spring and Brexit, highlighting their impact on political mobilisation and communication.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It also calls for international cooperation in establishing legal structures to regulate the digital public sphere, guaranteeing democratic responsibility and social cohesion in the age of digitalisation.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Filtre baloncukları · sosyal medya · yapay zeka

Abstract

This study examines the formation of filter bubbles in social media ecosystems and analyses how they contribute to the intensification of political division. Drawing on a range of academic sources, the research examines the consequences of filter bubbles on key events such as the Arab Spring and Brexit, highlighting their impact on political mobilisation and communication. It also explores the complex relationship between social media, politics and law, and examines issues related to government control. Suggested measures to reduce polarisation include increasing the diversity of social networks and implementing policy reforms based on empirical evidence. However, balancing political sway, the right to self-expression and privacy protection remains a challenging task. This article emphasises the importance of multidisciplinary work in understanding and addressing the complex dynamics of the impact of social media on politics and society. It also calls for international cooperation in establishing legal structures to regulate the digital public sphere, guaranteeing democratic responsibility and social cohesion in the age of digitalisation.

Özet

Bu çalışma, sosyal medya ekosistemlerinde filtre baloncuklarının oluşumunu incelemekte ve bunların siyasi bölünmenin yoğunlaşmasına nasıl katkıda bulunduğunu analiz etmektedir. Araştırma, bir dizi akademik kaynaktan yararlanarak, filtre balonlarının Arap Baharı ve Brexit gibi önemli olaylar üzerindeki sonuçlarını incelemekte ve bunların siyasi mobilizasyon ve iletişim üzerindeki etkilerini vurgulamaktadır. Ayrıca, sosyal medya, siyaset ve hukuk arasındaki karmaşık ilişkiyi araştırmakta ve hükümet kontrolü ile ilgili konuları incelemektedir. Kutuplaşmayı azaltmak için önerilen tedbirler arasında sosyal ağların çeşitliliğinin artırılması ve ampirik kanıtlara dayalı politika reformlarının uygulanması yer almaktadır. Bununla birlikte, siyasi salınım, kendini ifade etme hakkı ve mahremiyetin korunması arasında dengenin sağlanması zorlu bir görev olmaya devam etmektedir. Bu makale, sosyal medyanın siyaset ve toplum üzerindeki etkisinin karmaşık dinamiklerinin anlaşılması ve ele alınmasında multidisipliner çalışmanın önemini vurgulamaktadır. Ayrıca, dijitalleşme çağında demokratik sorumluluğu ve toplumsal birliği garanti altına alarak dijital kamusal alanı düzenleyecek yasal yapıların oluşturulmasında uluslararası işbirliğini gerekli kılmaktadır

🔖

Cite This Article

Orhan, E. B., İşgüzar, S. (2025). THE ROLE OF SOCIAL MEDIA FILTER BUBBLES AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE RECOMMENDATION SYSTEMS ON POLITICAL POLARISATION. Birey ve Toplum Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 2, 101–120. https://doi.org/10.20493/birtop.1829212

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (85)

  1. Alaimo, K. (2015). How the Facebook Arabic page “We are all Khaled Said” helped promote the Egyptian revolution. Social Media+ Society, 1(2), 2056305115604854.
  2. Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211–236.
  3. Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W., Bumpus, J. P., Chen, H., Hunzaker, M. F.,. & Volfovsky, A. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(37), 9216-9221.
  4. Bail, C. A., Guay, B., Maloney, E., Combs, A., Hillygus, D. S., Merhout, F.,. & Volfovsky, A. (2020). Assessing the Russian Internet Research Agency’s impact on the political attitudes and behaviors of American Twitter users in late 2017. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 117(1), 243-250.
  5. Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130-1132.
  6. Barnidge, M., Huber, B., de Zuniga, H. G., & Liu, J. H. (2018). Social media as a sphere for “risky” political expression: A twenty-country multilevel comparative analysis. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 23(2), 161-182.
  7. Bozdag, E., & van den Hoven, J. (2015). Breaking the filter bubble: Democracy and design. Ethics and Information Technology, 17(4), 249–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-015-9380-y
  8. Bozdağ, Ç., & Koçer, S. (2022a). Skeptical inertia in the face of polarization: news consumption and misinformation in Turkey. Media and Communication, 10(2), 169-179.
  9. Bozdağ, Ç., & Koçer, S. (2022b). Algorithmic filtering and selective exposure on social media. Information, Communication & Society, 25(8), 1167–1184. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1864002
  10. Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2017). Greater Internet use is not associated with faster growth in political polarization among US demographic groups. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(40), 10612-10617.
  11. Bruns, A. (2019a). Are filter bubbles real? John Wiley & Sons.
  12. Bruns, A. (2019b). It’s not the technology, stupid: How the ‘Echo Chamber’and ‘Filter Bubble’metaphors have failed us. International Association for Media and Communication Research.
  13. Bruns, A., Highfield, T., & Burgess, J. (2014). The Arab Spring and its social media audiences: English and Arabic Twitter users and their networks. In Cyberactivism on the participatory web (pp. 86-116). Routledge.
  14. Bulck, H., & Hyzen, A. (2020). Of lizards and ideological entrepreneurs: Alex Jones and Infowars in the relationship between populist nationalism and the post-global media ecology. International communication gazette, 82(1), 42-59.
  15. Calisir, E., & Brambilla, M. (2020, May). The long-running debate about brexit on social media. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (Vol. 14, pp. 848-852).
  16. Cerón, A. (2015). Internet, news, and political trust: The difference between social media and online media outlets. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 20(5), 487-503.
  17. Chen, A., Lu, Y., Chen, K., & Ng, A. Y. (2024). Pandemic nationalism: Use of government social media for political information and belief in COVID-19 conspiracy theories in China. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 29(3), 710-732.
  18. Cohen, J., & Fung, A. (2023). Democratic responsibility in the digital public sphere. Constellations, 30(1), 92-97. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12670
  19. Combs, A., Tierney, G., Guay, B., Merhout, F., Bail, C. A., Hillygus, D. S., & Volfovsky, A. (2023). Reducing political polarization in the United States with a mobile chat platform. Nature human behaviour, 7(9), 1454-1461.
  20. Daus, Z. (2024). Socializing the political: rethinking filter bubbles and social media with Hannah Arendt. Ethics and Information Technology, 26(2), 20.
  21. Deri, S. (2019). Internet Use and Political Polarization: A Review.
  22. Elghamry, K. (2018). Periphery discourse: an alternative media eye on the geographical, social and media peripheries in Egypt's spring. In Arab Spring and Peripheries (pp. 129-146). Routledge.
  23. El-Sayed, A., & Yarovaya, L. (2019). Financial stress dynamics in the MENA region: Evidence from the Arab Spring. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 62, 20-34.
  24. Enjolras, B., & Salway, A. (2022). Homophily and polarization on political twitter during the 2017 Norwegian election. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 13(1), 10.
  25. Enikolopov, R., Petrova, M., & Zhuravskaya, E. (2020). Political effects of the internet and social media. Annual Review of Economics, 12, 415–438. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-081919-050239
  26. Flaxman, S., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public opinion quarterly, 80(S1), 298-320.
  27. Fox, S. (2021). Political alienation and referendums: How political alienation was related to support for Brexit. British Politics, 16(1), 16-35.
  28. Frenette, M., & Vermette, M. F. (2013). Young adults and the digital public sphere: a cross-cultural perspective. Comunicação e Sociedade, 23.
  29. Fuchs, C. (2021). The digital commons and the digital public sphere: How to advance digital democracy today. Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture, 16(1).
  30. Garimella, K., De Francisci Morales, G., Gionis, A., & Mathioudakis, M. (2018). Political discourse on social media: Echo chambers, gatekeepers, and the price of bipartisanship. In Proceedings of the 2018 world wide web conference (pp. 913-922).
  31. Gillani, A., Ali, A., & Pirzada, G. (2021). Political activism, social media, and regional development: A narrative analysis of Arab Spring movement. Pakistan Journal of International Affairs, 4(3), 716-729.
  32. González-Bailón, S., Borge-Holthoefer, J., Rivero, A., & Moreno, Y. (2011). The dynamics of protest recruitment through an online network. Scientific reports, 1(1), 1-7.
  33. Goode, B. J., Krishnan, S., Roan, M., & Ramakrishnan, N. (2015). Pricing a protest: Forecasting the dynamics of civil unrest activity in social media. PloS one, 10(10), e0139911.
  34. Hall, N. A. (2023). Trajectories towards political engagement on Facebook around Brexit: Beyond affordances for understanding racist and right-wing populist mobilisations online. Sociology, 57(3), 569-585.
  35. Hee, J., & Yun, S. (2018). Selective exposure and political polarization in social media. Asian Journal of Communication, 28(4), 360–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2018.1474914
  36. Hemsley, J., Eckert, J., & Taylor, J. R. (2018). Twitter revolutions? Journal of Communication, 68(5), 973–995. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy041
  37. Howard, P. N., Duffy, A., Freelon, D., Hussain, M. M., Mari, W., & Maziad, M. (2011). Opening closed regimes: what was the role of social media during the Arab Spring?. Available at SSRN 2595096.
  38. Johnston, J., McMenemy, D., & Burton, P. (2021). Public libraries and the digital public sphere. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 53(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000620904549
  39. Kaun, A. (2016). Crisis and critique: A brief history of media participation. Media, Culture & Society, 38(3), 368–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443715607842
  40. KhudaBukhsh, A. R., Auddy, S., & Sen, A. (2021). Disinformation and polarization on social media. ACM Conference on Web Science Proceedings, 143–152.
  41. Kligler-Vilenchik, N., Baden, C., & Yarchi, M. (2020). Interpretative polarization across platforms: How political disagreement develops over time on Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp. Social Media+ Society, 6(3), 2056305120944393.
  42. Kubin, E., & Von Sikorski, C. (2021). The role of (social) media in political polarization: a systematic review. Annals of the International Communication Association, 45(3), 188-206.
  43. Latif, A., Hussain, S., & Abid, R. (2020). Social media polarization and political discourse. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 17(3), 254–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2020.1732091
  44. Levy, R. E. (2021). Social media, news consumption, and polarization: Evidence from a field experiment. American economic review, 111(3), 831-870.
  45. Lin, T. T. C., Kwon, K. H., & Lee, Y. (2021). Social media, filter bubbles, and civic engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 115, 106610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106610
  46. Liu, P., Shivaram, K., Culotta, A., Shapiro, M. A., & Bilgic, M. (2021). The interaction between political typology and filter bubbles in news recommendation algorithms. In Proceedings of the web conference 2021 (pp. 3791-3801).
  47. Loader, B. D., Vromen, A., & Xenos, M. A. (2014). Introduction: The networked young citizen: Social media, political participation and civic engagement. In The networked young citizen (pp. 1-13). Routledge.
  48. Luqiu, L. R. (2017). The cost of humour: Political satire on social media and censorship in China. Global Media and Communication, 13(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742766517704471
  49. Mahlouly, D. (2014). The digital public sphere and political discourse. Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture, 10(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.16997/wpcc.195
  50. Maryani, E., Adiprasetio, J., & Rachmiatie, A. (2022). Digital media and civic awareness. Media and Communication, 10(2), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v10i2.5017
  51. Margetts, H. Z., John, P., Hale, S. A., & Reissfelder, S. (2015). Leadership without leaders? Starters and followers in online collective action. Political Studies, 63(2), 278-299.
  52. Maulana, A., & Situngkir, H. (2021). Information diffusion and echo chambers on Twitter. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 563, 125437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2020.125437
  53. McCoy, J., Rahman, T., & Somer, M. (2018). Polarization and the global crisis of democracy: Common patterns, dynamics, and pernicious consequences for democratic polities. American behavioral scientist, 62(1), 16-42.
  54. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual review of sociology, 27(1), 415-444.
  55. Mitchell, A., & Weisel, R. (2014). Political polarization and media habits. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits
  56. Nelimarkka, M., Laaksonen, S. M., & Semaan, B. (2019). Social media is polarized but not polarizing. Social Media + Society, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119865692
  57. Nguyen, T. T., Hui, P. M., Harper, F. M., Terveen, L., & Konstan, J. A. (2014). Exploring the filter bubble: The effect of using recommender systems on content diversity. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 677–686).
  58. Noskov, A., Kuznetsova, A., & Safonov, A. (2022). Law, politics, and digital governance. Journal of Law and Society, 49(2), 312–330.
  59. Obar, J. A., & Wildman, S. (2015). Social media definition and the governance challenge: An introduction to the special issue. Telecommunications policy, 39(9), 745-750.
  60. Papacharissi, Z., & de Fatima Oliveira, M. (2012). Affective news and networked publics: The rhythms of news storytelling on# Egypt. Journal of communication, 62(2), 266-282.
  61. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin UK.
  62. Pew Research Center. (2020). The role of social media in the Arab Spring. Pew Research Center.
  63. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/09/17/the-role-of-social-media-in-the-arab-spring Piazza, J. (2021). Fake news and political polarization. Political Psychology, 42(3), 491–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12713
  64. Qin, B., Strömberg, D., & Wu, Y. (2017). Why does China allow freer social media? Protests versus surveillance and propaganda. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(1), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.1.117
  65. Quattrociocchi, W., Scala, A., & Sunstein, C. R. (2016). Echo chambers on Facebook. Available at SSRN 2795110. Rainie, H., & Wellman, B. (2012). Networked: The new social operating system (Vol. 10). Cambridge, MA: Mit Press.
  66. Rasul, A. (2018). Electronic media regulation and political authority. Political Communication, 35(4), 567–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2017.1402005
  67. Rogers, R., Niederer, S., & Borra, E. (2019). Political mobilization and social media. Information, Communication & Society, 22(8), 1099–1116. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1581246
  68. Salikov, A. (2019). Digitalization and civic participation. International Journal of Communication, 13, 3101–3120.
  69. Sanfilippo, M., & Strandburg, K. J. (2021). Privacy and political participation in digital environments. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 34(2), 475–530.
  70. Scherman, A., Arriagada, A., & Valenzuela, S. (2022). Social media, polarization, and protest participation. Political Communication, 39(3), 345–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2021.1975448
  71. Seeliger, M. (2023). Power, platforms, and polarization in the digital public sphere. New Media & Society, 25(6), 1527–1545. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211063118
  72. Seeliger, M., & Sevignani, S. (2022). Digital transformation of the public sphere. Communication Theory, 32(4), 563–581. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtac021
  73. Sharma, S., & Sivakumar, K. (2023). Social media nationalism and polarization in India. Journal of Asian Studies, 82(1), 75–96. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021911822000817
  74. Skoric, M. M., Zhu, Q., Koc-Michalska, K., Boulianne, S., & Bimber, B. (2021). Selective avoidance on social media: A comparative study of Western democracies. Social Science Computer Review, 40(5), 1241–1258. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393211005468
  75. Stier, S., Schünemann, W. J., & Steiger, S. (2018). Of activists and gatekeepers: Temporal and structural properties of policy networks on Twitter. New Media & Society, 20(5), 1910-1930.
  76. Sunstein, C. R. (2002). Philippic. com. Calif. L. Rev., 90, 611.
  77. Tufekci, Z., & Wilson, C. (2012). Social media and the decision to participate in political protest. Journal of Communication, 62(2), 363–379. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01636.x
  78. Urman, A. (2020). Context matters: political polarization on Twitter from a comparative perspective. Media, culture & society, 42(6), 857-879.
  79. Villa-Cox, R., KhudaBukhsh, A. R., & Carley, K. M. (2021). Exploring polarization of users behavior on twitter during the 2019 south american protests. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.05611.
  80. Vries, R., & Majlaton, D. (2021). Digital discourse and political participation. New Media & Society, 23(9), 2768–2787. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820952414
  81. Wolfsfeld, G., Segev, E., & Sheafer, T. (2013). Social media and the Arab Spring. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 18(2), 115–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161212471716
  82. Zhou, M. X., Chen, Y., Wang, Y., & Agarwal, R. (2020). I read, you read, we gain: The role of personalization and copersonalization in online learning. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 4(CSCW2), 1–25.
  83. Zhuravskaya, E., Petrova, M., & Enikolopov, R. (2020). Political effects of the internet and social media. Annual Review of Economics, 12, 415–438. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-081919-050239
  84. Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W., Bumpus, J. P., Chen, H., Hunzaker, M. F.,. & Volfovsky, A. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(37), 9216-9221.
  85. Bail, C. A., Guay, B., Maloney, E., Combs, A., Hillygus, D. S., Merhout, F.,. & Volfovsky, A. (2020). Assessing the Russian Internet Research Agency’s impact on the political attitudes and behaviors of American Twitter users in late 2017. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 117(1), 243-250.