Breaking Free from the Social Media Bubble: How to See the Whole Truth
In today’s era of media confusion and limited transparency from governments, it is a human responsibility to pause each day and think critically about what the truth really is. When we allow social media to control the narrative, we give up one of our greatest powers—the ability to think and decide for ourselves what is genuine and what is manufactured. Social media platforms are designed to keep users engaged, often by showing information that reinforces existing beliefs. This narrowing of perspective can lead to a more closed mind, rather than an open one. As Moujtaba Akhwand, Director of Freemuslim, explained, “People need to select multiple sides of the same topic to follow in order to see different angles of the truth. Otherwise, they are stuck with manufactured news that comes out of a narrow-minded social media feed, regardless of political affiliation.” His statement reflects the growing body of research showing that algorithms encourage echo chambers—Cinelli et al. (2021), for example, found that platforms like Facebook and Twitter consistently expose users to ideologically similar content, deepening polarization.
Studies consistently show that social media algorithms tailor what you see based on your previous searches and interactions. If someone looks up a specific keyword or engages with one political viewpoint, the platform’s algorithm will deliver more of the same, limiting exposure to opposing perspectives. Nikolov et al. (2015) found that this “social bubble” effect significantly reduces the diversity of sources a user encounters. Similarly, research by Reviglio and Agosti (2023) highlights how personalization systems filter out alternative viewpoints, creating “filter bubbles” that distort reality. Sunstein et al. (2020) have also documented how personalization reinforces “homophily”—the human tendency to connect with like-minded people—thus amplifying political polarization. Flaxman et al. (2016) conclude that while algorithms may not create polarization on their own, they strengthen it by limiting exposure to diverse content. The solution, as experts agree, is to intentionally seek out opposing angles on the same topic—whether by following media outlets across the political spectrum or engaging with credible commentators who present multiple sides.
Akhwand emphasized that the power to change society begins with strengthening our own intellect. “We cannot act like parents who rely solely on schools, babysitters, or outside influences to educate our children if we are not spending the necessary time to do it ourselves,” he explained. The same principle applies to how we approach information. Allowing social media to “think” for us is the first mistake. A well-rounded view of truth requires deliberate effort, critical thinking, and the willingness to step outside our comfort zones. If we do not actively broaden our horizons, we contribute to an uneven playing field where manufactured narratives dominate over genuine truth. By seeking out different perspectives, we reclaim our ability to shape our understanding—and, ultimately, our society.
References
Cinelli, M., Morales, G. D. F., Galeazzi, A., Quattrociocchi, W., & Starnini, M. (2021). The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(9), e2023301118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023301118
Flaxman, S., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 298–320. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw006
Nikolov, D., Oliveira, D. F., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2015). Measuring online social bubbles. PeerJ Computer Science, 1, e38. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.38
Reviglio, U., & Agosti, C. (2023). The risks of personalization: An analysis of filter bubbles, echo chambers, and polarization. Telematics and Informatics, 82, 102021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2023.102021
Sunstein, C. R., Halberstam, Y., & Knight, B. (2020). Echo chambers, social media, and political polarization. Annual Review of Political Science, 23, 503–524. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-033819
