Maya Martin, Editor

Have you ever scrolled through TikTok and had a very radical political video pop up on your For You Page? Did that video strongly correlate with your political views, or did that video contrast your political beliefs?

TikTok, a social media platform in which users can post and interact with videos, is changing how we perceive the political world. One of the number one ways it does so is through increasing political polarization.

Polarization, according to Merriam-Webster, is the “division of two sharply distinct opposites.” So, political polarization refers to the increasing division between political beliefs, specifically enhancing the ideological extremes.

La Salle senior David O’Brien has noticed this for himself while using TikTok. “I’ve found that with TikTok use, videos have become more radical over time,” said O’Brien. “There really is no moderate take when it comes to the internet.”

When scrolling through social media, especially TikTok, many users have found that any political videos that show up on their For You Page often contain extreme political views whether they align or contradict their own political beliefs. For example, there are many videos that include a display of racist, sexist or homophobic behaviors and receive a lot of attention because of how radical they are.

Often, videos like this are placed on the For You Pages of TikTok users who find this behavior offensive. This may compel the users to leave disapproving comments and interact with the post, which in turn, gives the video more viewership, landing itself on the For You Page of other TikTok users. Additionally, because the original viewers interacted and watched the video, the TikTok algorithm will continue to place similar radical videos on their For You Pages.

On the other end of the spectrum, many political TikToks often are placed on For You Pages that align with a viewer’s beliefs and even influence their ideals to be more extreme or radical. By doing this, TikTok tries to captivate viewers with similar beliefs as a video displays so that they will interact with the video and continue to receive similar content on their For You Page.

“TikTok has also become a powerful means of spreading a political message, especially for politicians and campaigns seeking to connect with younger constituents,” according to Politico. “Biden’s 2020 campaign leveraged “influencers” posting on TikTok to explore his record on race, and political organizations are working with influencers to target voter groups.”

No matter which path TikTok takes to enhance your political beliefs, it has been working and escalating as time goes on. While TikTok leads some viewers to more extreme beliefs, this means an increasing shift in political views. Both Democrat and Republican TikTok and social media users are becoming more extreme as we know it.

Another way TikTok has the ability to enhance political beliefs is through the spreading of false information. Anyone can make a video on TikTok and share any information they would like, so users need to ask themselves, is the information I’m viewing really trustworthy or reliable? 

La Salle alumna Kylie McGovern studied this issue and wrote about it in her research paper for a former political science course. She stated, “Social media brought about dangerous consequences like the rapid and unprecedented spread of false information online through several channels including but not limited to foreign interference, accidental posting and spread of false information, and purposeful domestic posting and spread of false information.”

There is a wide range of possible repercussions social media has on politics. It can threaten society as we know it because of the negative effects political polarization causes, including a decrease in unity, more hostility amongst parties, and gridlock. According to the International Catalan Institution for Peace, “Polarization affects individual perceptions and is hard to reverse once in place.”

Because of the difficulties of reversing political polarization, it is important that TikTok– and all social media users– become aware of the matter.

“Personally, I don’t use TikTok because it feels dystopian and more of a distraction from what’s actually happening,” said McGovern. “I hope La Salle students are wiser than to consume politics from TikTok. I’d recommend something like NPR. They have informative podcasts that are usually a quick listen.”

As for the future of political polarization, there are a lot of questions on how social media will continue to impact politics. For now, it is important to use trustworthy news sources and to fact check information seen online, especially on TikTok.

Maya Martin, Editor

On Jan. 30, 2024 at 12:30 p.m. La Salle’s Explorer Cafe Series shared another thought-provoking presentation with students. The Explorer Cafe Series is a program that allows students to learn and engage in different educational topics outside of the classroom. This series’ presenter was Professor Charles Gallagher of the sociology department.

The series was entitled “Our Nation of Immigrants: Demonized, Hated and Absolutely Essential to America’s Success.” The presentation described in depth how immigrants are not only alienated from society but also accused of falsehoods.

Professor Gallagher began by highlighting important quotes from American politicians that painted a detrimental picture of immigrants. Attached to the flier for this explorer series was also a quote from former-President Donald Trump which reads, “Immigrants are poisoning the blood of our country.” As Gallagher explained, Hitler used this same terminology when speaking of the mixing of races.

Gallagher spoke about the importance of language and how the terms “illegal” and “alien” force you to paint a negative picture in your head. When these phrases are repeated by politicians and Americans, it forces them to come to fruition. So, in order to promote a heightened understanding of immigrants, Gallagher highlighted and disproved four prominent myths about immigrants.

The first myth Gallagher discussed was that immigrants take away jobs from the native population and hinder the economy. In his presentation, Gallagher explained that it is economically proven that immigration has an overall positive impact on economic growth. He admited that the only workers who are slightly affected by immigrant workers are white and Black workers who do not have a high school education. These workers are only affected by a small percentage, in contrast to the massive immigrant economic problem many Americans believe in.

The second myth Gallagher confronted was that immigrants take social welfare services, abuse and overuse them. However, typical immigrants pay more in taxes than they consume in government services, according to the Cato Institute. To access the social welfare services America has to offer, one must have knowledge of the system to access it, and an extra layer of difficulty is added for non-English speakers. In addition to this, as Gallagher described, working undocumented immigrants are paying taxes, but it is not connected to their name. Therefore, they will not be able to collect this money later in life and the current taxes they pay go to American citizens.

The third myth discussed is that immigrants are more prone to crime than the general population. According to Gallagher, 73% of Americans think that “more immigrants cause more crime,” meanwhile in actuality immigrants have lower crime rates than the native-born. He hypothesized that many immigrants come from countries in which they need to flee. This could result in fear getting kicked out of America and in turn a higher focus on abiding by the law.

Finally, the fourth myth busted in the presentation was that immigrants do not learn English and assimilate. Gallagher explained that 72% of Americans feel it is essential that immigrants living in the United States learn to speak English. However, in the twentieth century, more than 75% of immigrants speak English within the first five years of living in America. Even immigrants who do not learn to speak English in America are able to strive in society.

Gallagher concluded the presentation by showing quotes from famous politicians and presidents including Roosevelt, Reagan and Obama on how immigration should truly be recognized. The idea of a “typical American” is fictitious, and proper education needs to be spread about the importance of immigrants to our economy, population and well-being.

Cole Welsh, Staff

In response to the worsening drug problem that has taken over Philadelphia’s streets, Councilwoman Quetcy Lozada has begun calling for the Philadelphia Police Department to enforce already existing drug laws more aggressively.

Lozada, elected in a special election in November of 2022 to represent City Council District 7, serves much of Philadelphia’s Hispanic communities. Kensington, which is one of the neighborhoods she represents, is primarily considered to be one of the largest open-air drug markets in the world.

Describing the need for a holistic solution, Lozada is pushing for a policy that would see drug addicts being involuntarily committed to “stabilization centers,” where they would be compelled to choose between receiving long-term treatment or facing criminal charges. As such, she favors a much more robust law enforcement presence around Kensington Avenue that can be coupled with enhanced cleaning by sanitation workers.

This push comes amid a rapid increase in drug use in the city, which saw a record number of fatalities due to opioid overdoses in 2022. At the same time, crime in Kensington, which has been dubbed “ground zero” for Philadelphia’s drug crisis, has skyrocketed under self-described progressive prosecutor Larry Krasner.

However, this is not the first time that Lozada has embodied a “tough on drugs” stance. Shortly after the election victory, Lozada introduced a bill that would ban already controversial safe injection sites from opening up in her district. While she initially had the support of four of her city council colleagues, Lozada eventually won over an additional four members. After the legislative body voted to override Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney’s veto of Lozada’s legislation, her bill effectively banned these sites in approximately 90% of the city.

Her controversial stance, though, has put her at odds with those who favor less punitive approaches to the city’s drug problem, including Mayor Kenney and Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner, who are both fellow Democrats. Kenney, like other progressive Democrats, has voiced support for additional solutions, such as safe injection sites. The plan to open up a safe injection site in South Philadelphia, which Kenney openly endorsed, was scrapped following intense pressure from neighbors, city council members and federal officials. Krasner, in his position as Philadelphia’s chief prosecutor, has vowed not to prosecute those who establish or use these sites.

Despite this, as a new mayor will be sworn into office at the start of next year, it remains to be seen if Lozada can win over the support of her colleagues in City Hall to enact this policy. With a new mayor and city council assuming office, one will have to wait and see if Lozada can form a coalition of Republican, moderate Democrat and less progressive Democrat elected officials to make this policy a reality.