Banner
    Social Media Intolerance: Liberals Far More Likely To Unfriend Opposing Views
    By Hank Campbell | March 15th 2012 04:00 PM | 22 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Hank

    I'm the founder of Science 2.0® and co-author of "Science Left Behind".

    A wise man once said Darwin had the greatest idea anyone...

    View Hank's Profile
    People on the left - to international readers they go under the umbrella of 'liberals' in America, but run the gamut from social authoritarian progressives to activists to freedom-loving liberals in the traditional sense - are a lot less concerned about tolerance and diversity when it comes to differing viewpoints.

    New Pew research shows that the left is far more likely than the right - 75 percent more - to have unfriended someone for posting opposing political views.  More telling, they also unfriended and even blocked people more if the person with opposing views argued with one of their friends and did so even if they were concerned the person with differing views might offend another friend.

    Liberals in America regard themselves as part of the intellectual and technological elite and if social media usage is an indicator, they're right; 23 percent more who identify as liberals use social media than who identify as conservative. The intolerant people are actually a small subset - only 18 percent of people have blocked or unfriended a previous friend at all - so that 75 percent has to be taken in context. The angry left is more likely than the angry right to react harshly to diversity of thought but outside that the poles have a lot in common.  Very liberal and very conservative people were dramatically more likely than more moderate people to 'like' a post they agreed with, with liberals doing so slightly more, and they were more likely to post a positive comment.  The only area where conservatives edged out liberals was in friending someone who posted something that corresponded to their world view. Conservatives are more likely to 'friend' someone new who is similar and less likely to unfriend people who disagree.



    Considerate or unwilling to step outside the lines?

    Self-identified liberals were also less likely to post something at all if it might be considered politically sensitive to people on their friend lists. With 40% of all adults posting political content on social media, it can't be easy to navigate the feelings of everyone in a substantial social media group.

    Self-described liberals were nearly 50% more likely than conservatives to have friends on their lists discussing politics yet moderates also had social media friends with more political content than conservatives.  Do conservatives just use social media to be social?  The long tail of each side of the spectrum is somewhat similar but at the top of the curve their motivations and behavior seem to be different.  

    On the fringes, though, there is one area where the very liberals edge out the very conservatives in tolerance.  Liberals are 25% less likely to claim they 'always agree' with things their friends post.  I can't even get 5 of my friends to agree on where to go to lunch so if you always agree with everything your friends say regarding politics, you are picking friends because they already agree with you on how to vote.

    Comments

    rholley
    ... a less let concerned ...



    Robert H. Olley Quondam Physics Department University of Reading England
    Hank
    I know, I know, who cares.  But I felt like writing about it.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Gerhard Adam
    Well, then it's alright.
    rholley
    Hank,

    It was late at night this side of El Estanque.  Now I think you mean a lot less concerned, ¿verdad?
     
    The Telegraph has recently run 12 or more comment articles concerning our government’s consultation over its gay marriage proposals, and I have been noting a similar asymmetry in the readers’s comments.
     
    Those opposed to the proposals tend to say things about homosexuality or less often homosexuals as a group, while those for the proposals often reply to the former individuals by calling them bigots, or whatever.
     
    The BBC does, I think, bear a large share of the responsibility for making this word common currency over here, by its handling of the Northern Ireland controversy.  Rarely if ever did I hear them applying it to Catholics, but (almost) always to Protestants.

    Robert H. Olley Quondam Physics Department University of Reading England
    Conservatives are more likely to have conservative friends. The article says that clearly. So, is it really surprising that liberals defriend more often? They are less likely to have a friend list that makes an echo chamber of people all agreeing with each other in the first place. Now, if they controlled for conservatives and liberals that were equally likely to friend people with dissimilar views, then there would be something meaningful to say about who is more likely to defriend.

    Halliday

    Anonymous:

    You would be correct about a need to adjust for "Conservatives [being] more likely to have conservative friends" if there were any real discrepancy.  However, take a look at the graph of how likely various "classifications" of users were to "Friend someone who shared [their] views":  A single percentage point difference is what needs to be "controlled for"?

    Yet, take a look at the "blocked, unfriended, or hid" statistics:

    Yeh.  That really needs to be "controlled for" the 1 percentage point discrepancy in the likelihood that someone would "Friend someone who shared [their] views".

    David

    Halliday

    Anonymous:

    Oh, and check out how much more likely "Conservatives are" to have friends they "always or almost always" agree with, compared to liberals:

    Yeh.

    David

    vongehr
    Why put it in terms of "tolerance"; why not instead use "seriousness". If I do not deeply care about political positions being relevant, no reason to de-friend.
    Hank
    Left wing people (in America) do not claim to be serious (conservatives do), they claim to be more tolerant.  I completely understand that outside America this whole notion is nonsensical.  That's politics in general.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    vongehr
    That is precisely the difference perhaps, claiming to be versus actually being. It isn't news that especially US culture is all about appearance rather than substance.
    you can't fix stupid. When my facebook feed is flooded with "Obama is a socialist muslim who wants to abort your baby." I'm going to get sick of them and defriend them. And btw, that is not a joke, I have seen at least 4 utterly racist quips and quotes like that from my conservative "friends."

    The left doesn't have that crazy wackiness like the right does. It's as simple as that.

    Hank
    Well, they certainly do, it just doesn't annoy you as much.  I retain a detached amusement for the 'Obama is a Muslim' silliness but anti-vaccine mentality people absolutely enrage me because believing Obama is a Muslim kills no one.   Anti-vaccination and anti- lots of other science things are overwhelmingly held by left wing people.

    It really all comes down to which side's nonsense annoys you the most.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    "Obama is a muslim" silliness is racism. Millions of people have been murdered as a result of racism. So claiming that it "kills no one" is utterly ridiculous. Racism kills people every day. The anti-vaccine people are idiots but comparing them to racists is just silly.

    Hank
    This is like claiming spoons kill people every day because people die from obesity.  If you have evidence that the knuckleheads behind the 'Obama is Muslim' nonsense are racist and have killed people, cite it.  If not, it is just emotionally-charged verbage.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    the barest of google searches would show you that several people have been killed across the US, including Sikhs who were mistaken for Muslims because of their head garb.

    Gerhard Adam
    ... and how is that racism?
    Hank
    And there are more hate crimes against Jews in America per capita than there are Muslims. The fact that he thinks attacking a religion is now magically racism explains some of the confusion.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    HedgehogFive
    socialist muslim who wants to abort your baby
     
    Socialist - a political movement or principle;
    Muslim - adherent of a particular religion;
    abort - a medical practice with strong ethical implications.

    So what is racist about that?

     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    seriously?

    HedgehogFive
    Seriously – please explain.
     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    Gerhard Adam
    You're right.  The comment is not racist by itself.  It is generally perceived as racist because of how it is applied, since the implication is that Obama [being a black man] is automatically assumed to be a muslim with all the current rhetorical nonsense that represents.

    In short, you would never hear someone accuse a white president of being muslim.  That's the point being made here.  Whether you agree with it or not is a different matter.
    According to the statistics, the number of very liberal is often the highest. Then comes very conservative. The opinion of expressing about different groups entirely depends on anyone's own interest. We have nothing to do with that personally.