The ensuing conflict in Israel and Palestine has filled social media feeds, creating a polarized and partisan environment. When contentious issues come to the forefront of the media, it is important to remind ourselves of the role social media plays in spreading misinformation, pressuring uneducated voices to share opinions and promoting performative activism. Social media can be a convenient place to stay informed on current issues. However, social media on its own is not sufficient for education or activism.

Recently, social media has fostered the spread of large amounts of misinformation. This has become an especially large issue surrounding the Israel-Hamas war, as fabricated disinformation has made its way onto numerous social media platforms. There have been numerous instances of people pretending to be authoritative figures in voice memos and videos with the intention of sparking conflict and spreading hateful messages. For example, one video of a woman claiming to be a former soldier on the Gaza Strip sparked rumors of Israel’s government aiding Hamas’ entry into the area. This video rapidly spread through the internet, spreading an almost sensationalist claim that has not been proven. In another instance, a voice memo from someone claiming to be an intelligence soldier for Israel’s Arab population described a false attack plan in which Palestinian citizens would ambush Israeli citizens using vehicles with Israeli plates. This, again, was spread rapidly on social media and taken to be true. These fabricated messages have been used to dehumanize both groups of people and has created contention in a conflict that is deeply intricate, leading to extreme polarization on social media. Some say misinformation is being intentionally spread by both sides to garner larger support which has ultimately sparked violent sentiments and confusion and created mistrust of authorities.

This isn’t the first time social media has created deep polarization. The past two presidential elections in the United States have been notably polarized, in a large part because of social media disinformation. But polarization over a political election is not the same as in a conflict where so many human lives have been lost on both sides. In a political election, people’s livelihoods are not being actively threatened and destroyed through violence. By treating conflicts like politics, we lose sight of the larger issue of violence and turn people’s lives into statistics to use in a debate. Social media separates us from the issue at hand and focuses people’s attention on who is posting rather than what is actually being shared. People base their opinions on a few short posts they read — which likely come from biased sources — instead of fully educating themselves on what they are seeing. People’s opinions are also easily swayed by what they are seeing from their friends or celebrities, and there is a large pressure to post despite not being invested in or educated on an issue, further spreading misinformation.

There is almost an expectation that exists in the current nature of social media that when there is a contentious issue in the news, you should post your reaction to it. This expectation has largely been the reason for much of the performative activism and misinformation we are seeing now on social media and that we’ve seen in the past. This idea isn’t a new one, but why has nothing changed? Social media platforms benefit from mass user engagement when polarizing issues are trending and their automated systems and algorithms seem to push out more contentious media. Research on these platforms and their attempts to limit this is minimal, but it is clear that they do not do a good job of policing themselves to limit the polarization they create and prevent the spread of misinformation. Many have called for governments to take action against these platforms through policy, but, realistically, it would be difficult to pass a law to police everything on the internet. Because of this, it is important for social media users themselves to be vigilant and cautious of what they share and see on social media.

There is power in connecting people who share similar beliefs through social media, but when action doesn’t continue beyond these platforms, no real change is being made and the importance of these issues is diluted to trends or criticism of others for what they do or don’t share. In this way, social media has disincentivized activism through the surface-level satisfaction people feel after sharing a post instead of becoming more involved in the issues they are posting about. Education is only the first step of activism and much more — like pressuring leaders and rallying — needs to be done if real change is to happen. Social media has played a large role in separating us from the issues we see and dividing people in polarized sides, fostering dangerous dehumanization and performative activism. During times like this, it is important to remain diligent and take action to educate yourself before sharing information with others.

Antonia Kladias is a sophomore majoring in biochemistry.