Emma Conde, co-president of the Peacemaker Project and political science major at BYU, checked her phone one day and found a screenshot of a social media post her friend sent.
When she looked at the post, Conde saw that her picture was used in an article about a campus debate event she helped host.
“With my face attached to it, and the comments of people who hadn’t read the article, I felt very misunderstood,” Conde said.
The social media post became a hotbed of political debate, garnering more than 1,000 comments on Facebook.
Commenters wrote about the political ideology of BYU students and the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Some comments read, “Is BYU going liberal?” and “They should be shouting Free Shavocadoo.”
This post prompted several meetings with Conde and the Peacemaker Project about how to rectify the situation and create positive discourse online.
Conde questioned whether social media was the best place for these conversations.
Professor Kevin John, full-time faculty in the BYU School of Communications, specializes in media effects research. He explained that each message is framed by the messenger, and when someone receives it, they naturally filter.
“Every message that we receive from someone else is limited by their understanding,” John said. “When we create something (and) once we decide to share it, we lose ownership over the interpretation."
Referring to social media communication, John said it is impossible to separate the message from the messenger or the receiver.
“You have to consider what people are bringing to that viewing experience,” he said.
That’s why, in Conde’s case, the social media comments quickly expanded beyond the debate.
“I do think social media is the worst platform to have productive conversations,” Conde said.
As someone avid in political discourse, Conde said she's had other instances where social media turned hostile with political discourse.
She cited the Charlie Kirk shooting on Utah Valley University's campus, when she had two friends post incorrect information online about how “the radical left has gone crazy."
In that instance, Conde messaged them about the harm of their posts. One friend quickly took it down, and the other became upset and sent Conde long rebuttal paragraphs.
“It was not productive,” Conde said. However, she said she is not afraid of reaching out to those she disagrees with.
“I like engaging curiously and asking questions,” Conde said.
Social media use is extremely prevalent among college students. Roughly 98% of current university students use some sort of social media daily, according to the National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments.
Social media's hostile comment sections aren’t an unknown phenomenon. John said this has been cited in his research.
“When it comes to online communication, negative communication results in more conversation,” John said.
John said it could be the anonymity, the lack of consequences, or the spiral of silence that causes this.
The spiral of silence is a media theory that claims people stay silent for fear of isolation when they think they are in the minority. When in reality, they are part of the silent majority.
No matter the reason, the vocal minority takes control of the conversation. Sometimes, this happens with online trolls.
Scott Church, another professor in the BYU School of Communications, has researched online trolls.
“Trolls aren’t trying to figure things out and make things right. They’re trying to watch the world burn,” Church said.
Church said social media is not just mass communication anymore; it has become a “spectacle … wielding emotions to get attention.”
Platforms like Facebook and Reddit push posts that attract attention and engagement to the top of the feed, according to Church.
“It’s an algorithmic problem,” Church said.
He said this could become a problem by taking the start of a productive conversation and giving attention to internet trolls.
Church also said trolls find “pleasure in someone else's pain.”
Outside of the intention of the messenger, social media posts are vulnerable to trolls and comments from a vocal, more extreme minority.
“It gives us the illusion that there is no middle ground,” John said.
The rise of using social media as a source for news has made these problems more prominent.
According to a Pew Research study, 53% of U.S. adults “say they at least sometimes get news from social media.”
John said people's access to news around the world can be a great benefit if it's balanced with in-person relationships.
“How many times have we gone through the day bearing the weight of something that is happening halfway around the world?” John said.
While there is positive news and conversation on social media, that’s not what is being pushed to us through the algorithms, Church said.
John mentioned that the same news story can be framed in a positive light or in a negative light, regardless of the intention of the news outlet, based on the resources and setting of the reporter.
“They’re not showing the whole truth, because that’s just a natural limitation of our attention,” John said.
One's communication on social media may not be due to a lack of clarity, but a lack of ability to understand all sides of an issue.
In-person communication is “rich with interpersonal cues, we’re talking about body language,” John said.
In-person communication doesn’t face the same issues as social media, because people are more likely to give others the benefit of the doubt and come to conclusions on their own, according to John.
With social media, John said, we are shifting toward passive internet consumption. Students have started to recognize this as well.
“If you’re scrolling, you’re not controlling,” Conde said.
According to experts like John and Church, one should not be so quick to give up entirely on social media communication and news.
“It’s easy for us to look at something and say we are in a damned state,” John said.
The hostility on social media is a fairly new issue, and has possible solutions.
When it comes to new technologies, “at first people don’t know what to do with it, over time it fulfills its purpose,” Church said.
John agreed. “I don't think we’re in some downward spiral that we’re never going to get out of,” he said. “I think there are always individuals who will break the cycle.”
He said students can participate in that cycle-breaking, but that a lot of it is also inspired.
“Everyone has a responsibility to be better online,” Church said. “That’s become more of an important ethical choice for young internet users to make.”
Conde has been making this choice, emphasizing that while it’s “okay to hold people accountable, it should always be followed up with grace.”
John agreed, saying people need to exercise agency and recognize the control that one does have over their feeds and engagement with others.
“You can try to rewire the algorithm by creating better content,” Church said.
Recognizing that these problems don’t arise from people but from algorithms and platforms can make it easier for individuals to connect.
“We should be remembering the people behind those communications,” John said.