At a time when social networks are increasingly influencing the shaping of public opinion, the way issues such as gender equality are addressed in the digital space remains an important challenge. In a conversation for Mollëkuqja.mk, communications expert Bojan Kordallov spoke about the role of algorithms, polarization on social networks, the risk of sensationalist content and the need for more responsible, inclusive and fact-based communication in public discussions on gender equality.
How do you assess the impact of social platforms on shaping public discourse on gender equality, and what role do algorithms and the way content is distributed play?
Social networks and algorithms today have an extraordinary impact on which information will be distributed and consumed, and consequently also on the way the public perceives issues of gender equality. In practice, it is precisely the (mis)use of digital platforms that determines whether space will be created for greater visibility of the topic of gender equality through the sharing of positive examples and personal experiences, or for disinformation, the spread of fear and messages full of stereotypes and discrimination that hinder the freedom and economic progress of every individual. It is therefore important to emphasize that platforms are not neutral spaces, but places where people, individuals or organized groups place content and shape the digital media space.
Furthermore, today algorithms most often reward content that provokes a strong reaction, and not always that which is most accurate, most responsible or most useful. For this reason, the way content is distributed remains essential. If the algorithm continuously promotes polarizing, sensationalist or emotionally charged content, public discourse becomes superficial and conflictual. But if, in an organized manner — that is, institutionally, through media and democratically — content based on facts, experience, solutions and respect is promoted, the digital space can and will be a powerful ally of equality and the respect of the freedoms and rights of every individual.
Do social networks deepen polarization around gender issues or do they create space for more informed dialogue?
As I mentioned earlier, social networks can exist on both the bright side and the dark side. Where they will be positioned depends on us as people, on the regulation of platforms and on the willingness of competent institutions in this field to enforce laws and protect the democratic interests of every individual. Therefore, social networks can undoubtedly deepen polarization, especially when gender issues are presented as an ideological battle, and not as matters of rights, equal opportunities and a just democratic society. In such cases, people often remain in "echo chambers", where they only hear views similar to their own.
But social networks also create space for more informed dialogue, especially when there are well-moderated discussions, quality media content, personal testimonies, data and explanations from experts. Therefore, the problem does not lie only with the platforms, but also in the way we use them and what content we reward as a public.
How does the way content is "packaged" (sensationalist headlines, emotional narratives) affect the public perception of gender equality issues?
The way content is packaged can be decisive, especially considering that it has been statistically proven that both today and in the past, the vast majority of us read only the headlines and a few key sentences of any given piece of information. This means that sensationalist headlines can distort the perception of a serious topic within seconds. When gender equality is presented through conflict, and especially through the lens of fear or provocation, the public may react emotionally rather than rationally. This is then reflected in the public discourse of political parties and institutions and, instead of talking about functional democracy and functional institutions, we continue to move in circles of division, conflict and polarization.
The main problem arises when emotion is used for manipulation and not for information. It is therefore important that content be clear, human, but also responsible and inclusive, contain facts and exclude even the smallest possibility of additional stigmatization.
How sustainable is the impact of online campaigns and activism in changing attitudes and behaviors in real life — do they create only clicks or also real change?
Online campaigns can bring about real change, but only if they do not remain at the level of engagement or profit based on clicks, likes and hashtags. For there to be a sustainable impact, online activism must be connected to education, institutional measures, local activities, public policies and above all to changing the communication culture through which these important topics are discussed publicly.
Only public awareness campaigns that foster understanding, include representatives of all communities, offer concrete solutions, explain the benefits for every person from the full implementation of gender equality and build partnerships, can positively influence the sustainable change of public awareness. Therefore, the question is not whether online activism is important or necessary, but whether it is well thought out, connected to real life and inclusive of all those who are willing to join. Excluding no group, except individuals who commit criminal acts, for whom public institutions are responsible for taking action.
What concrete practices should media outlets, institutions and content creators follow for more responsible communication of gender equality issues in the digital space?
I would highlight a few basic principles: a positive tone in messages, the non-exclusion of any individual or group, factual information communicated in accessible language and many personal stories that explain why gender equality is important and positive for every individual.
Furthermore, and critically important, is the need to avoid language that creates stereotypes or reduces gender equality to partisan or ideological clashes.
Additionally, if we are speaking specifically about digital communication, I would emphasize once more that it must be clear and accessible to everyone: understandable language, visually engaging content in line with the latest trends and algorithmic adaptations of the most popular social networks, and messages that encourage dialogue and empathy, rather than division.
