Exposure and desensitisation: The double-edged blade of social media
The arrival of social media changed the game forever by decentralising the control of information — for better or worse.
KARIN CHAN11 Jan 2025 01:00pm
Thanks to social media, people can now instantly create, view and share all types of content from and to anywhere in the world. Pexels
That era of one-way information flow is long gone. When social media arrived, it changed the game forever by decentralising the control of information — for better or worse.
Thanks to social media, people can now instantly create, view and share all types of content from and to anywhere in the world. If enough people feel the content matters, it can even go viral.
There are definite advantages to this. Causes and issues that might never have seen the light of day now have an easily accessible platform, which by enables more balanced discourse by giving equal voice to overlooked perspectives.
However, now that everyone is a creator, viewers may get overwhelmed by a flood of repetitive content. Given enough time — especially for negative and/or violent content — they become desensitised to cope with the deluge of information.
Why does this matter?
In the beginning, exposure for a key topic or issue is always seen as positive. The idea is that if people notice, then people will care; if enough people notice and care, then maybe something will be done about the issue.
Issues such as #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo are great examples. Both these movements started on social media and were fuelled by keystone events. The first saw public outrage triggered by violent deaths; the second took off after news broke on a sexual harassment scandal, leading to a call to action for harassment survivors.
In both instances, social media was the catalyst for change. People posted their stories, testimonials, summaries and analyses on X (then Twitter), Instagram and TikTok, while others shared these far and wide for awareness — something that would not have been possible via traditional media.
Such was the strength of social media that these issues were picked up and extensively discussed by everyone from the traditional media to the European Parliament.
Over the course of a few years, policy and organisational improvements were implemented, offenders were held accountable, survivor-centric funds were created, and public opinion was shifted as a result of these social media-driven causes.
Overexposure doesn’t always work
The ongoing war in Gaza between Israel and Hamas is a good example of how not every issue derives the same benefit from social media exposure.
Since the war escalated dramatically in late 2023, pro-Palestinian supporters in particular — grieved by the suffering and angry at the aggression, as well as perceived global inaction — have been posting constantly about the plight of Palestinians.
Some popular hashtags that these supporters use include #AllEyesOnRafah and #FreePalestine. Their hope is that the conflict stays top of mind and puts unrelenting pressure on leaders to act.
However, researchers note that a constant flood of negative content can have the opposite desired effect by desensitising audiences instead of rallying them.
This involves people having progressively less intense feelings for or care about a subject over time, due to repeated exposure without achieving emotional resolution.
Desensitisation turns to apathy
Psychologist Mark Travers explains that “desensitisation occurs because our emotional responses, particularly anger, diminish every single time we are exposed to a trigger”.
BBC features correspondent Amanda Ruggeri, in turn, describes a study by European researchers that found consumers were more likely to be annoyed by and even avoid repetitive coverage of an issue.
She further notes that, “it’s also that people get especially annoyed when they perceive that nothing’s changing or improving.”
This means that the more we are exposed to news about the horrors of Gaza, the less likely we are to react intensely towards them — and in fact may actively ignore them.
It’s important to find the balance
Mass desensitisation can be dangerous, says Ruggeri, because “there are various subjects where ignoring them upholds the status quo and the powers-that-be”.
However, in an already overwhelmed and overstimulated world, it can be hard to muster the energy to intentionally expose yourself to — much less care about — social media content about issues that you cannot personally and immediately influence.
To preserve mindful engagement, Travers recommends creating some distance between yourself and the subject.
This doesn’t mean closing yourself off completely to bad news. It may just mean coming back to engage when you are in the correct headspace to do so; your response may be different when you have free time versus if you are stressed out by work or family.
It can also help, says Ruggeri, to consume a diverse media diet. Watching repeated reels of horror and tragedy on the same topic can rapidly trigger emotional burnout.
However, you could choose to read in-depth written analyses instead or seek out perspectives from both sides of the issue to achieve deeper understanding.
Activism as a solution
Finally, research has found that doing any act in support — no matter how small — of your stance on something distressing can help you avoid burnout on that subject.
Whether it’s donations, activism, or even something as everyday as talking to others and having discussions about the issue in question, every little gesture can help you feel more connected and less hopeless.
Like any technology, what matters with social media is how you use it. Use your awareness to keep yourself informed while protecting yourself from being overwhelmed via disciplined use.
This is part and parcel of being a responsible global citizen in the digital age, as well as the only way to leverage social media’s full potential to enact true, lasting, and meaningful change.
