Do social media strengthen conformity?

In early October, an opEd/blog in Sueddeutsche Zeitung stated that Google, Facebook, Twitter and others strengthen conformity.

Instead of simply checking it off as a piece of limited value with very predictable arguments, the blogster put it on the reading list.

Here is our meta opinion: a piece of limited value with very predictable arguments.

To us, the main value of the article lies in the introduction of the term Schweigespirale (spiral of silence), a German take on the concept of the silent majority with the simple fact that humans like to be on the side of the majority and fear social isolation.
In terms of international science on public opinion research, the concept is classified by TheEditor as a slick move of one-up-manship over the idea of "silent majority". In terms of its use in Germany, it was a favorite attack term of conservatives in their fight against an alleged left leaning pubic radio and TV. TheEditor finds the latter pretty amusing in light of the fact that the inventor of the term had a distinguished propaganda career during the Nazi era, which became the poster child of the influence of radio, which, in turn, became one of the foundation myths of West Germany.

More to the point, the article highlights filtering of search results and social media contributions for the individual user. This, says, the author creates a devious bubble in which users are not confronted with opinions outside of their existing preferences. According to this, conservatives get lots of opinions which reinforce their view, liberals would get more of the liberal take on the world. And "if you hate Facebook, you get more Facebook hating opinions".

The article calls this "censorship" and states that it is all the more dangerous, even endangering democracy itself, because it is not the content that's censored but the delivery of content in that the content is tailored to the individual without his or her prior consent or knowledge.

Well, we'll talk about consent in a second, but the question of knowledge is probably less of an issue because a lot has been said and written about this sort of delivery. The article itself is an example of that.
And at least some social media sites do tell you that they tailor suggestions and results to you. 

Consent is trickier.

The K-Landnews TheEditor has had a consent issue for a long time, and many German politicians and media workers have recently shown some of the same feelings in the context of Google's 90% or so share of the search market over here: what does consent mean in such an environment, they ask.

Because consent is about control. And consent gets attributed to you even if you do disagree - both in real life and on the internet. It is no coincidence that German web sites must have a link disclaimer stating that the operator does not condone the contents page this link points to.

So, loss of control is what a good part of internet criticism is about. It has happened with every new medium, from printed matter in general to teens getting their hands on dirty books to the internet.

Why is the internet blamed these days?

In part because of the supposed great expectations: an untamed, uncontrolled world of free information and new thinking.

So, a case of unrequited love.

The opEd writer knows that you can go and find new places, some of "that freedom" but laments that it no longer is the rule and needs extra effort. We disagree. Look the Internet Archive Way Back machine. While you are at it, read some of the early scholarly warnings re. the internet.

And if you are afraid of conformity, stay away from the history of Christianity, any party convention, and any government press conferences.

[Update 15 Oct. a couple hours after posting] Minor style edits.
Oh, and don't you talk about "extra effort" at a time in history when huge, mindbogglingly effing huge amounts of information and opinion require only moderate typing skills (love spell check) and a cheap internet connection. You may never have researched for a paper longer than 10 pages in the pre-web world, or maybe you forgot - as a result of over-stimulation by the webby web, perhaps?