For the philosopher Fernando Savater, the internet is the digital age’s agora. It houses very diverse opinions on the hottest contemporary topics, as well as on perennial issues. But in many cases, exclusion and radicalism win out. Some ask if we take off our offline mask as soon as we sit down in front of a device.

"The Internet is a reflection of society, but sometimes it distorts reality in one way or another," according to Javier García-Manglano, a Juan de la Cierva researcher at the Institute for Culture and Society (ICS) of the University of Navarra. Within the framework of his project, Youth in Transition, he organizes the Tech & Society Seminar for students to reflect on the influence technologies have on their lives, relationships and society.

One of the issues addressed there is precisely how public opinion and many people’s ideas become polarized in digital forums. "The internet works according to mechanisms that cause outlandish material to earn higher rankings and go viral," he says.

This does not mean, in his view, that no one is willing to maintain reasonable dialogues, but rather that, in this sea of positions, "whoever breaks the mold and says something radical often has wider influence. The internet rewards these views and their ranking rises." Faced with this, he argues that, "We are responsible for being moderate and for interacting with moderate content and people."

Anonymity and distance: Factors that favor radicalism

García-Manglano points to two factors that explain whypeople are more willing to sustain radical positions in the virtual world, namely anonymity and distance.

"Although not everything is anonymous," he says, "some forums allow for anonymous participation, which engenders irresponsibility with our words and saying things that we would not say if we were identified."

Given this, he asks if we are more ourselves without the social pressure to express acceptable arguments. And that's where the distance factor comes in: "We are social beings and when we lose our social context, ideas may arise that do not actually reflect us." He argues that, "The experience is different when you have a person in front of you and you can see their reactions to your words, including their gestures, eyes... With them, we perceive that our words have consequences, which adds depth and rigor to our thinking."

Filter bubble and echo chambers

Roberto Ramírez is a junior majoring in International Relations at the University and is among the students who participate in the Tech & Society Seminar. He is working on filter bubbles and echo chambers, which are related to the polarization of opinions.

With respect to the former, he mentions that companies that operate on the Internet want users to spend more time on social networks to collect data and thus advertise in line with their interests, such that "they regulate the content they show to reflect users’ comments and arguments." He warns of the risk of radicalization because “we only receive content most related to our thinking, hindering access to other ideas."

Along with this, he points out the phenomen on of echo chambers. "On our feeds, we see opinions and arguments similar to ours, which creates the false sense that our opinions are majority positions and that those who have different ideas are wrong." Thus, "we are encouraged to close ourselves off to other ways of thinking," he points out.

García-Manglano concludes that the internet "was born with the promise of giving us access to other places, cultures, and opinions, which seemed to carry the hope of making us more sensitive, open and diverse." To recover that promise, he urges everyone to get out of the vicious cycle that involves "repeating what you already know and talking to similar people" and to always start from a position of moderation.