The internet has revolutionised the way we communicate, access information, and form communities. However, this technological advancement has also brought about unintended consequences. Over the past decade, there has been a growing concern about the rise of online tribalism, political correctness, cancel culture, and the suppression of dissenting voices. These phenomena, while seemingly disparate, are interconnected and contribute to a worrying trend: the decline of critical thinking and constructive dialogue in the digital public sphere. [The MLA convention is used for all headings and any subheadings in this post].
The Echo Chamber Effect
One of the key factors contributing to this trend is the rise of online “silos” or “echo chambers.” Social media algorithms, designed to maximise user engagement, often deliver content that aligns with an individual’s existing beliefs and preferences. This can create online environments where users primarily encounter information that confirms their biases, strengthening their existing views and limiting their exposure to alternative perspectives [Echo Chambers and Algorithmic Bias: The Homogenization of Online Culture in a Smart Society (2024)]. This tendency is further amplified by the natural inclination of individuals to seek out and interact with like-minded people online, leading to the formation of online communities that reinforce shared beliefs and values [Online Knowledge Communities: Breaking or Sustaining Knowledge Silos? (2019].
These online silos can be psychologically appealing, providing a sense of belonging and validation. However, they can also lead to overconfidence and uncritical acceptance of information. As noted by one commentator, “Silos make us feel like we belong. They reinforce our core assumptions and give us easily-digestible talking points, obviating the necessity of difficult individual thought.” This can hinder the development of critical thinking skills, as individuals become less likely to question information that aligns with their pre-existing beliefs.
While the concept of echo chambers and filter bubbles is widely discussed, it is important to acknowledge that empirical evidence on their impact is not definitive. Some studies suggest that social media algorithms and homophilic interactions can indeed limit exposure to diverse viewpoints and contribute to polarisation.
The Rise of Tribalism and No-Platforming
The internet has undeniably facilitated the formation of online communities based on shared interests, identities, and ideologies. While these communities can provide a sense of belonging and support, they can also contribute to a tribalistic mindset. Tribalism, in this context, refers to a strong identification with a particular group and a tendency to view those outside the group with suspicion or hostility [Nation v Tribe (2017)]. This can lead to increased intolerance, prejudice, and conflict between different online communities.
One manifestation of this tribalism is the trend of “no-platforming” individuals with controversial views. No-platforming involves preventing someone from speaking at an event or publishing their work because their views are deemed unacceptable or offensive. While historically, practices like ostracism and excommunication were used to exclude individuals seen as threats to the social order [A Brief History of Cancel Culture #HistoryMonth], no-platforming in the digital age often targets those who challenge prevailing narratives or express dissenting opinions.
Katie Hopkins, a controversial British media personality, has been vocal about this issue. In a debate at Oxford Union, she argued that institutions of higher learning were becoming increasingly intolerant of dissenting voices and that the trend of no-platforming posed a threat to free speech and open dialogue. She warned against the dangers of restricting access to diverse perspectives, stating, “Once someone starts to mandate what you can’t hear, how narrow, how small is this window going to get? How tiny your space, your world view—just how small do you want it to be?”
However, the issue of no-platforming is not without its nuances. Some argue that it can be justified on epistemic grounds, particularly when providing a platform might lend undue credibility to harmful or misleading views [No-Platforming and Higher-Order Evidence, or Anti-Anti-No-Platforming (2019)]. This perspective suggests that in certain cases, restricting access to a platform can be a responsible action to prevent the spread of misinformation or the normalisation of harmful ideologies.
Furthermore, the phenomenon of “quiet no-platforming” adds another layer to this discussion. Quiet no-platforming refers to the pre-emptive self-censorship that occurs when individuals or organisations choose not to invite certain speakers or address controversial topics for fear of potential backlash or controversy [Freeman 2022]. This can create a chilling effect on open discourse and limit the range of perspectives considered in public forums.
Political Correctness and Cancel Culture
The concepts of political correctness and cancel culture are closely intertwined with the rise of online tribalism. Political correctness, broadly defined, involves avoiding language or behaviour that may be considered offensive or discriminatory. However, the term has become increasingly politicised, with some arguing that it stifles free speech and creates an environment where people are afraid to express their true opinions for fear of social repercussions [Political Correctness Gone Viral – PhilArchive (Aly & Simpson 2019)]. Historically, the term “political correctness” has been associated with various social and political movements, often used to criticise perceived excesses or restrictions on language and behaviour [Cultural Tribalism – ECPS – European Center for Populism Studies].
Cancel culture, an extension of this phenomenon, refers to the practice of withdrawing support for public figures or organisations that have expressed views deemed unacceptable. This can manifest in various forms, including online shaming, boycotts, and calls for resignation or dismissal. While proponents of cancel culture argue that it is a necessary tool for holding people accountable for their actions, critics contend that it creates a culture of fear and intimidation, where individuals are afraid to express dissenting opinions or challenge prevailing narratives [#Cancelled! Exploring the Phenomenon of Cancel Culture (Cummings et al Oct 2023)].
It is important to acknowledge that cancel culture is a complex phenomenon with both potential benefits and drawbacks. While it can be a powerful tool for social justice and accountability, it can also be misused to silence dissenting voices or punish individuals for minor transgressions. Some argue that the term “cancel culture” itself is part of a moral panic, exaggerating the frequency and severity of online shaming and overlooking the positive aspects of holding powerful individuals accountable for their action [Cancel Culture: Nothing To See Here? – The Philosophers’ Magazine. Others point to the importance of cancel culture in amplifying marginalised voices and challenging systemic inequalities [Cancel culture can be collectively validating for groups experiencing harm – PMC (Traversa et al 2023)].
The rise of cancel culture has also been linked to increased collective action and empowerment among marginalised groups. Studies have shown that episodes of cancel culture can have an indirect positive effect on collective action intentions, mediated by feelings of collective validation and empowerment (Traversa et al 2023). This suggests that cancel culture can serve as a catalyst for social change, mobilising individuals to challenge injustice and advocate for greater equality.
The debate surrounding cancel culture highlights the tension between freedom of expression and the responsibility to create a more just and inclusive society. Navigating this tension requires careful consideration of the potential consequences of both silencing and amplifying different voices in the digital public sphere.
The Erosion of Critical Thinking

The combined effect of echo chambers, tribalism, and cancel culture is a decline in critical thinking skills. Critical thinking involves the ability to analyse information objectively, evaluate evidence, and form reasoned judgements. However, in an online environment where individuals are primarily exposed to information that confirms their biases and dissenting voices are suppressed, critical thinking is often replaced by confirmation bias and groupthink. This can be exacerbated by the tendency to accept information uncritically within online silos, as individuals become less likely to question or challenge ideas that align with their pre-existing beliefs [WHAT *SHOULD* WE BE WORRIED ABOUT? (2013).
This lack of critical thinking has real-world consequences. It can lead to the spread of misinformation, the polarisation of society, and the erosion of trust in institutions and experts. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German theologian and anti-Nazi dissident, observed, “Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice.” [On Stupidity | By Dietrich Bonhoeffer – YouTube]. He argued that stupidity is often fuelled by a lack of independent thought and a willingness to blindly follow authority or popular opinion.
Perspectives from Great Thinkers
Throughout history, many intellectuals and social commentators have expressed concerns about the dangers of conformity, tribalism, and the suppression of dissent. These concerns are not limited to the internet age but have been recurring themes in philosophical and political discourse.
For example, John Stuart Mill, in his seminal work “On Liberty,” argued that the free exchange of ideas is essential for intellectual and social progress. He warned against the dangers of silencing dissenting voices, stating that “he who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.” Mill’s ideas resonate with contemporary concerns about echo chambers and the suppression of diverse perspectives in the digital age.
Similarly, Erich Fromm, in his book “Escape from Freedom,” explored the psychological factors that contribute to conformity and authoritarianism. He argued that individuals often seek refuge in group identity and blind obedience to authority as a way to escape the anxieties and uncertainties of freedom. Fromm’s insights shed light on the psychological appeal of online tribalism and the tendency to conform to group norms in online communities.
These are just a few examples of how great thinkers throughout history have grappled with the challenges of maintaining intellectual freedom and critical thinking in the face of social pressure and conformity. Their insights provide valuable context for understanding the contemporary challenges posed by online tribalism and the decline of critical thinking in the internet age.
Potential Solutions
Addressing the negative consequences of online tribalism and the decline of critical thinking requires a multi-faceted approach. This includes:
- Promoting media literacy: Educating individuals about how to critically evaluate information online, identify bias, and distinguish between credible and unreliable sources. This can involve teaching critical thinking skills, such as evaluating evidence, identifying logical fallacies, and considering alternative perspectives.
- Encouraging diverse perspectives: Fostering online spaces where individuals are exposed to a wide range of viewpoints and encouraged to engage in respectful dialogue. This can involve creating platforms for civil discourse, promoting cross-cultural understanding, and encouraging empathy and perspective-taking.
- Rethinking social media algorithms: Exploring ways to mitigate the echo chamber effect and promote exposure to diverse content. This could involve incorporating mechanisms that prioritise diverse sources, highlight alternative viewpoints, and encourage users to step outside their information bubbles.
- Fostering critical thinking skills: Encouraging individuals to question assumptions, evaluate evidence, and form their own judgements. This can involve promoting independent thought, encouraging intellectual curiosity, and fostering a culture of open inquiry and debate.
Conclusion
The internet has the potential to be a powerful tool for promoting knowledge, understanding, and connection. However, the rise of online tribalism, political correctness, and cancel culture poses a significant threat to these ideals. These interconnected phenomena contribute to the creation of echo chambers, the suppression of dissent, and the erosion of critical thinking.
While these trends are concerning, they are not entirely new. History provides numerous examples of societies grappling with the challenges of maintaining intellectual freedom and critical thinking in the face of social pressure and conformity. By learning from the past and implementing effective solutions, we can work towards creating a more inclusive and intellectually vibrant online environment.
This requires a collective effort to promote media literacy, encourage diverse perspectives, rethink social media algorithms, and foster critical thinking skills. By embracing these strategies, we can harness the power of the internet for good, fostering a digital public sphere that is characterised by open dialogue, reasoned debate, and a commitment to truth and understanding.
Supplemental reading list
1. Echo Chambers and Algorithmic Bias: The Homogenisation of Online Culture in a Smart Society – SHS Web of Conferences, https://www.shs-conferences.org/articles/shsconf/pdf/2024/22/shsconf_icense2024_05001.pdf
2. Online Knowledge Communities: Breaking or Sustaining Knowledge Silos? – ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335388340_Online_Knowledge_Communities_Breaking_or_Sustaining_Knowledge_Silos
3. Internet Silos – Edge.org, https://www.edge.org/response-detail/23777
4. The echo chamber effect on social media – PNAS, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2023301118
5. Understanding echo chambers and filter bubbles: the impact of social media on diversification and partisan shifts in news consumption, https://www.darden.virginia.edu/sites/default/files/inline-files/05_16371_RA_KitchensJohnsonGray%20Final_0.pdf
6. Nation V. Tribe – Hoover Institution, https://www.hoover.org/research/nation-v-tribe
7. A Brief History of Cancel Culture #HistoryMonth – Creativepool, https://creativepool.com/magazine/features/a-brief-history-of-cancel-culture-historymonth.31186
8. Katie Hopkins | We Should NOT Support No Platforming (6/8) | Oxford Union – YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkSBfdXNWWk
9. We Should NOT Support No Platforming – Katie Hopkins at the oxford union – YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zuoOTAKnyQ
10. No-Platforming and Higher-Order Evidence, or Anti-Anti-No-Platforming – ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337046864_No-Platforming_and_Higher-Order_Evidence_or_Anti-Anti-No-Platforming
11. New study finds ‘quiet’ no-platforming to be a bigger problem than actual no-platforming, https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2022/10/13/new-study-finds-quiet-no-platforming-to-be-a-bigger-problem-than-actual-no-platforming/
12. Political Correctness Gone Viral – PhilArchive, https://philarchive.org/archive/ALYPCG
13. Cultural Tribalism – ECPS – European Center for Populism Studies, https://www.populismstudies.org/Vocabulary/cultural-tribalism/
14. (PDF) #Cancelled! Exploring the Phenomenon of Cancel Culture – ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375520893_Cancelled_Exploring_the_Phenomenon_of_Cancel_Culture
15. Cancel Culture: Nothing To See Here? – The Philosophers’ Magazine -, https://philosophersmag.com/cancel-culture-nothing-to-see-here/
16. Cancel culture can be collectively validating for groups experiencing harm – PMC, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10399695/
17. Beyond Echo Chambers: Unraveling the Impact of Social Media Algorithms on Consumer Behavior and Exploring Pathways to a Diverse Digital Discourse – CARI Journals, https://carijournals.org/journals/index.php/JMS/article/view/1799
18. On Stupidity | By Dietrich Bonhoeffer – YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKNNyDCwXv4