The Polarization Footprint (part 2)
5 things we learned from measuring the polarization footprint of social media platforms in Kenya.
This blogpost is part 2 of a 3-part series on the Polarization Footprint, a metric of affective polarization on social media platforms. Part 1 explores why we think it is important to measure affective polarization; part 2 shares the results of the polarization footprint in Kenya; part 3 explains the methodology for arriving at this metric.
The Kenya Polarization Footprint measures how social media is dividing Kenyans. Specifically, we measure “affective polarization”, where people dislike and distance themselves from others based on their identity. This is not the same as a difference of opinion: differences of opinion are good for democratic debate, and for our diverse society. Identity-based polarization is not: increasing dislike, distrust, and animosity towards other social groups results in societal divides that can eventually lead to violence.
The way content is shared on social media makes societal divides wider. Measuring just how much online polarization is present on each social media platform is an important first step to defending our society. For more on why we measure affective polarization, have a read of part 1 of this blogpost series. The full results report is available here, or just read on for our five main findings.
#1: X (Twitter) is the most polarizing platform in Kenya
The polarization footprint is a composite measure made up of three parts, each measuring a component of affective polarization — attitude polarization, norm polarization and interaction polarization. Across all measures of polarization that impact societal divides, X (Twitter) does worst. This means that when you scroll through content on X, you are most likely to experience polarization.
We rank platforms for each type of polarization, and then combine these rankings into a single overall ranking, which is what is shown in the table above. The three components are important to think about individually:
- Attitude polarization looks at how much language used in social media posts and comments expresses negativity towards an identity group, which we call “othering” (more othering = more polarization);
- Norm polarization looks at how often people challenge polarized attitudes in the comments in a social media thread (no challenge = polarization is “normal”);
- Interaction polarization looks at how much users of a social media platform are fragmented into different content universes (more fragmentation = more polarization).
#2: In Kenya, social media narratives on X and YouTube are very fragmented
There is one aspect of affective polarization that is particularly striking: we are all experiencing different versions of it. Interaction polarization is the extent to which users of a social media platform are fragmented into different content universes, which impacts both the interests and affiliations of people, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of polarization.
In the table above, the higher the measure, the more fragmentation of narratives, experiences and truth in our society. The scores above tell us that on X and YouTube people live in their own social media content universes separate from the universes of others.
These scores are also important to the overall ranking of platforms: Facebook and TikTok have a middling ranking for attitude and norm polarization, but on Facebook the interaction polarization score is much lower, meaning that people’s content networks are less fragmented. That’s what ends up making Facebook the least toxic platform, with TikTok ranking third most toxic.
#3: An average Kenyan spends up to 21 minutes per day reading threads that express negativity towards an identity group
Within these fragmented universes, Kenyans are seeing content that expresses negativity towards an identity group daily. The table belows details the minimum % of attitude polarization in the average person’s newsfeed. What this doesn’t tell us is how long people spend looking at each of these polarizing threads, but it seems reasonable to hypothesise that they hold our attention. Even more, this is a very conservative measure: 5 or more experts had to agree a post or comment was polarizing for us to count it.
To understand what these results mean for a normal social media user in Kenya, here’s one example. We expect a minimum of 3.81% of threads on X (Twitter) are polarizing. This means that for every hour you spend on X, on average you’re spending a minimum of just over 2 minutes on polarizing content. 55% of Kenyans are spending 3–9 hours on social media per day; if that time were spent on X, then your average Kenyan would spend at least 7 to 21 minutes exposed to polarizing content. Imagine being shouted at for 7 to 21 minutes every day. No wonder we feel angry.
Imagine breathing from a car exhaust pipe for 7 to 21 minutes every day. Polarizing content is making us sick.
What’s worse, some Kenyans (5%) spend more than 12 hours on social media per day, which means they are breathing in polarization for a minimum of 27 minutes every day; getting shouted at for a minimum of 27 minutes every day. These super users are often also the most prolific on social media — the influencers, the rabble rousers, the ones who drive narrative. The more they see, the angrier they get, the more toxicity that goes back out into our society. It’s a vicious cycle.
#4: Most of the time, Kenyans don’t challenge polarizing language on social media
As with the attitude polarization scores, our measure of norm polarization is conservative and reports the minimum % of polarizing threads where no-one challenges the polarization.
Imagine that you are being shouted at, and no by-stander steps in to defend you or to lower the tone. That’s what norm polarization is about.
When it comes to norm polarization, while X still has the worst score, the other platforms are close behind — meaning there are few challenges to polarized attitudes when they are expressed in posts or comments on all platforms. No challenge signals a norm shift towards negative expectations — that is, it signals that attacks on others are considered normal on this platform.
#5: On Facebook and X (Twitter), almost 50% of Kenyans report seeing content that is “bad for the world” in the past 4 weeks
Observing what polarizing language, challenges to this language, and patterns of interaction look like on social media platforms is an important measure of how these platforms are affecting Kenyan society. But we worried that we wouldn’t get the full picture of the impact this is having on Kenyans unless we asked directly about their experiences on social media.
We asked 5000 Kenyans whether, in the past 4 weeks, they had negative experiences on a social media platform or saw content they thought was “bad for the world”. On all platforms except YouTube, over 30% of the people we surveyed had a direct negative experience. The same was true of content they considered to be “bad for the world”.
These results tell us one thing clearly: X (Twitter) is a toxic platform, across all our measures. They also leave us with some questions: what is happening on Facebook and YouTube for people to self-report so differently to what we observe in their feeds? We’ll be taking that question forward with us, and conducting some further analysis of the survey results to try to unpack what is going on.
What next for the polarization footprint in Kenya?
The polarization footprint in Kenya has been developed in partnership with the National Coalition on Freedom of Expression and Content Moderation in Kenya (FECoMo), of which we are members. Over the coming weeks and months, we will be discussing these results with FECoMo members, and figuring out how we might take them forward.
We set out to measure affective polarization on social media in Kenya because we are worried that disagreements online spiral out of control, and that this happens because they become about people rather than ideas. Or in the words of Rachel Olpengs, Lead Coordinator of FECoMo: “The Kenya Polarization Footprint reveals deepening societal divides driven by affective polarization on social media where identity-based hostility fuels distrust and animosity. This growing digital harm is largely enabled by the presence of super users who perpetuate a cycle of division and platforms receiving perverse incentives from polarized content further fragmenting public discourse and posing a tangible threat to Kenya’s social fabric. The report underscores that polarization is not merely a digital nuisance but a measurable social harm.”
“ Addressing [the polarization footprint] requires a shift in perspective from individual responsibility to collective action. It demands platform accountability, participatory governance, and systemic interventions to safeguard democratic discourse and social cohesion.” — Rachel Olpengs, Lead Coordinator, National Coalition on Freedom of Expression and Content Moderation in Kenya (FECoMo)
The polarization footprint gives us an anchor from which to develop policies and campaigns that can help Kenyans take back their digital space. Join us as we take this forward.
