Saturation

Up until last week, Charlie Kirk was merely a name I had heard, but I really knew nothing about him. If I were still working on campus, it is likely I would have known much more, since he had put a great emphasis on speaking to college students.

So, at the news last week of his assassination, I began searching on the internet about him. He had never appeared in any of my newsfeeds until I did this search. Suddenly, there were posts about him appearing every day. I quickly realized that the social media algorithms were to blame.

And by clicking on certain posts or videos, then the algorithm narrowed the scope of what he had said or what others were saying based on what it thought were my preferences. So, the overwhelming result was that I was being fed posts and videos that placed Charlie in a positive light with an emphasis on him being an outspoken Christian.

As with any human being, there were layers to Charlie Kirk, how he lived, what he believed, and what he said. Unfortunately, the standard operating procedure of algorithms is not very layered. It continually opts for one particular view or angle depending on your perceived preferences. And then it begins to saturate your newsfeed with those. As a result, your saturated with views that reinforce ones you already have. The viewpoints of any person or topic are thus skewed to your preferences.

So, in the case of Charlie Kirk, if you first clicked on stories about him that were negative, then that is what would saturate your newsfeed or appear when you opened YouTube. If they were positive, the same applies. Do you see the problem?

Algorithms are prejudicial. They are designed to take whatever they perceive as your preferences and magnify them by saturating your social media with things reinforcing what is perceived as your given viewpoint. They are not designed to provide nuance on a subject, but to reinforce what you already believe. The more we allow ourselves to be saturated by one perspective, the less open we will be to consider alternative ways of looking at something.

Is it any wonder that it seems now that people are living in two (or more) very different worlds. Because they are choosing to immerse themselves in viewpoints that reflect their own without any counterbalance. This is why views tend to be more extreme and resistance to any nuance.

With regard to Charlie Kirk, what has emerged over the past week are two disparate views of him. One is that he was a great Christian, an example for all of us to follow. The other is that he was evil, stirring up hate wherever he went. Neither shows the intricate layers of his life and his views. Each view came about, likely, because of saturation of information that reinforced it.

What we must understand if we are to get out of this algorithm-induced division, we are going to have to humble ourselves, recognize our fallenness, and realize our views are subject to fallibility. So many make social media posts arrogantly proclaiming, in one way or another, that their viewpoints are right, and anybody who disagrees is wrong. This arrogance often leads us intro error because no one has all the right answers on everything, regardless how often they are reinforced.

Secondly, as followers of Jesus, we are to love others, even those we consider enemies. You may not agree with someone, but you still have the obligation of loving them regardless, which Paul defines in I Corinthians 13:4-7.

Let’s not allow the social media algorithms to saturate our lives, but let us saturate our lives in the love of Jesus.

© Jim Musser 2025 All Scripture references are from the New International Version, 2011.