Solutions for
healthier discourse

Speech‑preserving interventions, aligned with research, to reduce affective polarization while improving information quality and transparency.

Policy Snapshot

US polarization challenge

📘

Social media’s engagement incentives amplify divisive content and reduce shared facts. Targeted transparency, literacy, and scoped accountability can rebalance incentives without censoring speech.

Why polarization grows

Mechanisms on social platforms

Algorithmic amplification

Engagement-optimized ranking isolates users into echo chambers and preferentially boosts emotionally charged content, intensifying in‑group loyalty and out‑group hostility.

Misinformation + AI deepfakes

Erodes a shared factual baseline and collapses cross‑group dialogue; synthetic media increases plausibility and scale of false claims.

What increases susceptibility

Vulnerabilities

Media literacy gaps

Low lateral‑reading skills and source verification increase reliance on biased or low‑credibility content, entrenching selective exposure.

Online disinhibition

Perceived anonymity lowers social inhibitions and raises incivility, making extreme views more common and contagious.

Policy gap

US efforts target symptoms, not incentives

⚖️

Federal reforms remain constrained by legacy interpretations of Section 230, while state bills are narrow and geographically limited, focusing on minors. Neither adequately addresses the core economic incentive: engagement‑maximizing design that profits from polarization.

What we recommend

Seven policy recommendations

  1. 1

    Narrow Section 230 immunity

    Differentiate passive hosting from active curation to align responsibility with algorithmic amplification risks.

  2. 2

    National media‑literacy framework

    Establish a K‑12 baseline that scales beyond state pilots; standardize lateral reading and verification skills.

  3. 3

    Default chronological feeds

    Expand middleware access so users opt‑in to recommendations rather than defaulting to engagement optimization.

  4. 4

    DSA‑style transparency

    Mandate plain‑language disclosures and regular risk assessments for Very Large Online Platforms.

  5. 5

    Researcher data access

    Provide vetted researchers region‑ and cohort‑level access on feeds and ranking to enable accountability.

  6. 6

    Scoped identity verification

    Allow pseudonymity, but verify identities for high‑reach political content; limit reach of unverified accounts.

  7. 7

    Integrate fact‑checking + notes

    Pair expert fact‑checking with community annotations to strengthen shared context without suppressing speech.

Source

Policy paper

SSRG International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2025