{"id":112864,"date":"2026-02-01T06:10:14","date_gmt":"2026-02-01T06:10:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2026\/02\/01\/nick-clegg-thinks-blaming-social-media-is-a-comforting-lie\/"},"modified":"2026-02-01T06:11:14","modified_gmt":"2026-02-01T06:11:14","slug":"nick-clegg-thinks-blaming-social-media-is-a-comforting-lie","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2026\/02\/01\/nick-clegg-thinks-blaming-social-media-is-a-comforting-lie\/","title":{"rendered":"Nick Clegg \u202fthinks blaming social media is a comforting lie"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a>\n
<\/p>\n

If belief is collapsing, Nick Clegg has a blunt message: cease blaming the algorithm.<\/strong><\/p>\n

At Edelman\u2019s Belief Barometer occasion in London, the previous UK deputy prime minister who additionally lately stepped down as Meta\u2019s President of International Affairs, delivered some of the bracing interventions of the day -not by defending tech platforms, however by puncturing what he sees as an intellectually lazy story about why society feels so brittle.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019ve turned ourselves into techno-determinists,\u201d he mentioned. \u201cIt\u2019s emotionally enticing to assume all it’s good to do is yell on the tech bros, tweak a knob, and all the things\u2019s mounted. It\u2019s simply not like that.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

That argument landed towards a sobering backdrop. The 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer<\/a> paints an image of a world retreating inward. Throughout markets, belief in establishments continues to fray. Persons are much less keen to interact with views in contrast to their very own. Seventy p.c say they’re hesitant to belief those that \u201csee the world in a different way.\u201d Many would slightly change jobs than work for a supervisor with opposing values.<\/p>\n

Edelman calls the situation \u201cinsularity.\u201d Clegg calls it human.<\/p>\n

Insularity isn\u2019t new -insecurity is<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Clegg rejected the concept that insularity is a novel digital pathology. In his view, it\u2019s a rational response to extended insecurity.<\/p>\n

\u201cMy intuition is it\u2019s not new. It\u2019s human nature,\u201d he mentioned. \u201cBelief in different folks and establishments is closely correlated as to whether you are feeling safe about your individual circumstances -your job, your loved ones, your future.\u201d<\/p>\n

Within the UK, he traced that insecurity by way of a protracted sequence of shocks. The monetary crash, a decade of stagnant actual wages, Brexit, political chaos. Every second weakened confidence in authority and competence.<\/p>\n

\u201cTens of millions of individuals thought, \u2018Crikey, the folks in positions of authority -governments, regulators, bankers -are charlatans.\u2019 After which their actual take-home pay fell behind costs for years. After all folks retreat. After all they flip inward.\u201d<\/p>\n

From that perspective, social fragmentation just isn’t one thing executed to society by know-how. It\u2019s one thing society does to itself below pressur<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019m extraordinarily sceptical\u201d of the social media scapegoat<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The place Clegg turned most animated was on the tendency guilty platforms for political polarisation and declining belief.<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019m extraordinarily sceptical, to place it mildly, of the thought there\u2019s some technical, algorithmic repair for this,\u201d he mentioned.<\/p>\n

He was cautious to not deny that social media has results. However he pushed again arduous on the declare that it’s the major explanation for division.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn the event you truly have a look at the analysis -the causal hyperlink between utilizing social media and polarisation -it simply isn\u2019t there in the best way folks assume,\u201d he argued. \u201cIn America, polarisation erupted earlier than social media was even a factor.\u201d<\/p>\n

Clegg cited longitudinal tutorial research exhibiting that affective polarisation\u2014the diploma to which individuals dislike these with opposing views -has generally risen quickest amongst teams least uncovered to the web.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe concept algorithms have herded us into sealed-off rabbit holes is far weaker, evidentially, than folks assume,\u201d he mentioned. \u201cIt\u2019s a way more handy story than confronting the financial and political shocks we\u2019ve lived by way of.\u201d<\/p>\n

He additionally pointed to vested pursuits shaping the narrative.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe established press hate social media as a result of it screwed up their promoting mannequin,\u201d he mentioned. \u201cIn order that they\u2019ve received an axe to grind. That doesn\u2019t make platforms saints. However it does imply we must be cautious of shortcuts.\u201d<\/p>\n

Virality issues greater than bubbles<\/strong><\/h2>\n

If Clegg rejects the \u201cfilter bubble\u201d thesis, he does imagine one thing genuinely new has entered the system: virality.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019ve by no means lived in a world the place, with the swipe of a display, hundreds of thousands of individuals can instantly see your personal ideas,\u201d he mentioned.<\/p>\n

Content material that provokes concern, anger or outrage spreads as a result of it’s emotionally potent -just as sensational headlines all the time have. The distinction now could be pace and scale.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat dynamic positively has an impact,\u201d Clegg acknowledged. \u201cHowever it\u2019s very completely different from saying know-how is the foundation explanation for social breakdown.\u201d<\/p>\n

In different phrases, platforms amplify what already exists. They don’t invent it.<\/p>\n

\n

Wish to go deeper? Ask The Drum<\/h4>\n


\n <\/p>\n

<\/miso-explore>\n <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

AI, energy and \u201cboiling the ocean\u201d<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Clegg prolonged this realism to synthetic intelligence, stripping away the mystique that usually surrounds it.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe name it intelligence, however what we\u2019re actually coping with are probabilistic engines with no understanding of the world,\u201d he mentioned. \u201cThey generate convincing solutions with out having ideas.\u201d<\/p>\n

He described massive language fashions in bodily phrases: information centres, GPUs, vitality and water.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s an exceptionally inefficient know-how,\u201d he mentioned. \u201cYou\u2019re actually boiling the ocean.\u201d<\/p>\n

That bodily actuality underpins what he known as the \u201cenergy paradox\u201d: digital instruments that really feel empowering to people are constructed on infrastructures which are radically centralising.<\/p>\n

\u201cSolely a handful of corporations and nations can afford to do that at scale,\u201d he mentioned. \u201cThat focus of energy isn\u2019t an accident -it\u2019s baked into the physics of the know-how.\u201d<\/p>\n

The hazard of searching for simple villains<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Clegg\u2019s broader warning -one that resonates strongly with the Belief Barometer\u2019s findings -is about society\u2019s urge for food for easy explanations.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe like the thought there\u2019s one factor guilty,\u201d he mentioned. \u201cAs a result of then accountability sits some other place.\u201d<\/p>\n

However belief, he argued, doesn\u2019t collapse due to one platform, one know-how or one group of individuals. It erodes when establishments fail repeatedly, when residing requirements stagnate, and when politics stops providing credible options.<\/p>\n

\u201cYou’ll be able to\u2019t repair that by tweaking an algorithm,\u201d he mentioned.<\/p>\n

If there was a problem in his remarks for the communications business, it was this: cease promoting consolation.<\/p>\n

As Edelman\u2019s information reveals, three-quarters of individuals imagine insularity have to be addressed. Clegg\u2019s intervention suggests the more durable fact is that addressing it means coping with economics, politics and energy -not simply platforms.<\/p>\n

Or, as he put it, with attribute bluntness: \u201cWhen you\u2019re trustworthy about what the issues truly are, folks change into inventive. However so long as we fake there\u2019s a magic technical repair, we\u2019re mendacity to ourselves.\u201d<\/p>\n

For a dialog about belief, that could be probably the most uncomfortable -and helpful -place to finish.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n