MbShea@PWP@English@UMCP

ABSTRACT (WC=208):

The invention of the Internet was the most significant innovation in communication since the Gutenberg revolution. Information now passes instantaneously between millions of people all across the world. If access to differing perspectives is easier than it has ever been, why are we more polarized and insular as ever? Online discourse faces three central challenges: filter bubbles, niche subcultures, and framed language. Latent biases within an individual's browsing habits cause search engines to narrow results to fit that bias, creating a filter bubble. Present within these filter bubbles are isolated communities which tend to dogmatically espouse a particular perspective. Conversation within these subcultures tends to reinforce a single frame, causing a specific parlance to dominate. This process makes intra-group communication effortless, but inter-group discourse more difficult. Independently, these features of digital communication do not pose a great threat to productive dialogue. However, the confluence of these factors puts into question whether the Internet can ever be a forum for constructive dialogue. The decentralized structure of the Internet itself encourages niches to develop. Market forces put pressure onto search engine providers to create ever tighter filter bubbles. If current trends continue, the future progression of online conversation will be toward greater segmentation, not a more understanding or empathetic populace.

READER'S PROFILE:

A technologically optimistic reader, immersed in Internet culture, may be hostile to the idea that online discussion is deficient at all.

READER'S RESPONSE:

This is just a poor neo-Luddite argument against a technology that has already proved its worth. Better engineering will continue to improve civility online. Even so, none of the problems mentioned pose any serious threat to discourse on the Internet. The author is probably just an old tech-illiterate codger.

CITATION:

Formal APA style in the body paragraphs. Less formal language in the introduction and conclusion.

C -- yes. Such readers. You cannot always reach all people. :(

I am not sure you need to incorporate Michael Wesch's work into your paper but you may want to be aware of this line of inquiry:
https://www.k-state.edu/sasw/faculty/wesch.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeaAHv4UTI8

And, the idea of re-mediation is important.
Classic about Web 2.0 by MW and his students at Kansas State
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmP4nk0EOE