The spiral of silence on social media: how it affects our voices

The spiral of silence is a communication theory that explains why many people stop expressing unpopular or minority opinions. This idea was formulated in 1974 by German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann ( muyinteresante.com ). Noelle-Neumann observed that in any society, there is a strong need for social belonging. Those who perceive that their point of view does not fit with the dominant opinion fear being isolated or rejected. Therefore, instead of openly debating, they tend to hide their opinions to avoid ostracism ( muyinteresante.com puromarketing.com ). In her words, most people “are afraid of isolation” and therefore prefer to ally themselves with the majority opinion ( puromarketing.com ) . This mechanism creates a kind of “social control”: ideas that people perceive as majority attract more adherents, while opposing positions are progressively silenced.

This theory was classically illustrated in traditional media (press, radio, TV), but it remains relevant—and takes on new nuances—in today’s digital world. Social media amplifies the voices of a few and can make it even more difficult for dissenting opinions to be expressed freely (politicaexterior.com ). In theory, the internet promised a universal forum for open debate; in practice, numerous studies show that it doesn’t always liberate silenced voices ( pewresearch.org). For example, a Pew Research Center study found that people willing to remain silent in person rarely sought alternative space online (pewresearch.org ). Only a mere 0.3% of respondents who didn’t want to discuss the Snowden issue face-to-face admitted they would do so on social media (pewresearch.org ). In other words, digital platforms didn’t seem to offer a safe haven for minority opinions: many users simply choose silence, whether in the family room or on Facebook or Twitter.

spiral of digital silence manifests itself on platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. We’ll analyze the psychological and technological factors that fuel it, look at specific examples and case studies, and examine which groups it particularly affects. Finally, we’ll propose individual strategies, platform measures, and public policies that can help mitigate this phenomenon.

Origin and concept of the spiral of silence

The spiral of silence is based on two basic ideas: the perception of the climate of public opinion and the fear of social isolation . In her book The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion, Our Social Skin (1977), Noelle-Neumann describes public opinion as a kind of “skin” that binds society together. People—perceiving which beliefs are most accepted—adjust their behavior to avoid being excluded. es.wikipedia.org puromarketing.com . In this way, those who hold ideas contrary to the majority feel social pressure to remain silent.

The theory explains that individuals constantly “probe” the climate of opinion around them: they observe the attitudes of others and check whether their own ideas are close or not to those of the majority. If they perceive that their position is in the minority, they tend to self-censor so as not to be labeled or repudiated. es.wikipedia.org puromarketing.com . In the words of Noelle-Neumann, society threatens anyone who dares to disagree with isolation, so that the public ends up silencing minority voices to preserve their sense of belonging. es.wikipedia.org puromarketing.com . Only a few “hard cores” of inflexible believers break this rule, but generally the majorities comfortable with their dominant position do not defend their ideas, since they are not questioned.

In short, the spiral of silence describes a self-reinforcing phenomenon of public opinion : the belief that the majority supports a certain idea attracts more people to that idea, while dissenters withdraw and cease to speak out. Over time, apparent unanimity grows, while dissenting voices are marginalized or disappear from public debate.

The spiral of silence in the digital age

With the arrival of the internet and social media, many hoped that the conversation would become more diverse. Digital forums and platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram offered the promise of a more open and democratic debate, as anyone could voice their opinion instantly. However, the reality has been ambivalent: on the one hand, social media has given a voice to millions, but on the other, it has introduced new mechanisms of self-censorship and reinforced the dominance of majority opinions.

As journalist Myriam Redondo observes, when our opinion differs from the general opinion on social media, we tend to hide it. politicaexterior.com . In her analysis, she highlights two complementary factors: on the one hand, there is a psychological mechanism that protects us, leading us to avoid conflict and rejection. On the other hand, there are algorithms and platform rules that privilege dominant content, leading many topics to become trapped in a digital “spiral of silence.” politicaexterior.com . In her words: “When our opinion is contrary to the general opinion on social media, we hide it. This psychological protection mechanism combines with digital algorithms that prioritize dominant content and ends up condemning many topics to a spiral of silence.” politicaexterior.com .

Empirical studies confirm this finding. A 2014 Pew Research Center report on the Snowden-NSA leaks found that social media was not a lifeline for voices hesitant to speak out pewresearch.org politicaexterior.com . In fact, frequent Facebook users were much less likely to express their opinions face-to-face with friends if they felt their online contacts didn’t share them pewresearch.org . Even worse: Of those who were unwilling to discuss the Snowden issue in person, only 0.3% said they were willing to discuss it on social media! pewresearch.org . In other words, the digital medium did not allow them to overcome their fear of rejection; on the contrary, most preferred to remain silent regardless of the forum.

These findings illustrate that the arrival of the Internet did not end the spiral of silence , but rather has adapted it to new contexts. In practice, many users apply the same self-censorship filters on social media that they would use in a face-to-face conversation. The difference is that the potential audience on digital platforms is often much larger and indeterminate, which increases caution when expressing oneself on enriquedans.com (as we will see later). Furthermore, as we noted, social media’s technological systems (algorithms, moderation policies, network dynamics, etc.) tend to reinforce the effects of the original theory: ideas with the most likes and reposts gain echo, while minority ones are diluted.

Manifesto of the spiral of silence on social media

On modern platforms, the spiral of silence manifests itself through a series of specific dynamics. To understand them, it’s helpful to analyze different elements separately: the psychological motivations of users, the technological structures of networks, and the social characteristics of groups. We examine the most important ones below.

Fear of rejection and self-censorship

At the heart of the spiral of silence lurks the fear of social rejection . This fear arises from the human need to be part of a group. As we explained, those who believe they are in the minority tend to become inhibited. In the online world, this happens on a massive scale. Enrique Dans, a technology professor, describes it this way: as the perceived audience of a message grows, the personal and opinion-based information we share decreases dramatically. enriquedans.com . Let’s consider a simple example: a conversation with just one friend is intimate, but posting on Twitter or Facebook can feel like speaking to an entire audience. Dans points out that we dare to share many details of our identity when the audience is small (a family meal, a private chat), but as we expand our circle (for example, posting an opinion on Facebook and then Twitter), the tendency is to restrict what we divulge , unless we resort to anonymity. enriquedans.com . In his words: “If we move to Facebook… our inclination to share information… decreases… If we move from there to Twitter, or any page open to a global audience, the incentive to share that type of information may disappear, unless we move to anonymity” enriquedans.com .

This logic means that many internet users act cautiously: before expressing something publicly, they first test it in safe environments (a group of friends, a private forum). Only if they feel they’ll be accepted do they dare to speak in a mass forum. Otherwise, they prefer to remain silent. For example, on social media, it’s often said that “there’s a secret account meme”: users who have two profiles: one public—where they avoid controversial topics—and another private or “spam” profile, where they can share what they really think with a very small group.

Empirical data supports this self-protective behavior. The Pew study we referred to found that only a small percentage of people were willing to discuss sensitive issues on social media . As the following graph shows, while 40% of people were “very willing” to talk in person (e.g., at a family dinner) about government surveillance, only 16% of Facebook users in a similar situation said the same for Facebook, and only 14% for Twitter pewresearch.org . This shows that social media does not automatically free up the ability to express oneself: many people refrain from commenting online on topics they consider politically sensitive or that they believe their network would disapprove of .

(Source: Pew Research on willingness to discuss Snowden in different settings pewresearch.org . Social media is found to dramatically reduce willingness to discuss.)

The consequences of the fear of isolation are also seen in everyday debates. For example, journalist Susana Hidalgo reflects on what happens when a key event occurs on social media: “On Facebook, we’re going to see both extremes; we’re going to see people fighting behind a screen to defend their ideals. But then there are the people who watch in silence, not feeling empowered to express themselves” (forbes.es ). In other words, amid so much virtual “battle of egos,” it’s common for many users to simply not find “their place” to express their opinions and decide not to participate through no fault of their own. This reflects the basic effect of the spiral: the rumor of a powerful majority induces the timid to withdraw.

Algorithms and echo chambers

A crucial technical factor in the digital age is the social media algorithm . These platforms personalize the content we see based on our likes and relationships, creating what is called a filter bubble or echo chamber. Several experts have pointed out that these digital echo chambers reduce exposure to dissimilar opinions . policyexamination.com policyexamination.com On the most popular sites, algorithms collect interaction data (followed pages, previous reactions, friendships with certain groups) and show us primarily posts aligned with our interests. In this way, we not only receive information we feel comfortable with, but we are rarely exposed to opposing viewpoints.

For example, a recent analysis highlights that social media “limited exposure to diverse opinions and encouraged the formation of groups of users with similar opinions. This gives rise to echo chambers: a space where people only encounter beliefs, opinions or points of view that reinforce their own perspectives” policyexamination.com . Classic studies (such as those by Sunstein and Pariser) have documented that Facebook, Twitter and other platforms amplify this effect: algorithms prioritize news and messages in line with what users like, thus reinforcing their biases policyexamination.com unifranz.edu.bo . A user who thinks that topic X is trending in their network will receive even more news about X, confirming the impression that this is the actual majority trend.

These algorithmic dynamics directly influence the perceived climate of opinion. If we see repeated messages supporting a certain position on our news feed, we infer that “that’s what the majority thinks,” even though in the real world opinions are more diverse. This informational isolation silences dissenters : why express something different if practically no one will see it? As specialists warn, recommendation algorithms “have ceased to be neutral tools and have become mechanisms of manipulation,” as they “prioritize certain content over others” without needing to delete anything, thus deciding what information is visible and what is not. confilegal.com . Indeed, as Professor Borja Adsuara observes, “if we don’t review the algorithms… we allow social networks to decide what information is visible and what is not, which is even more dangerous than direct censorship” confilegal.com .

A related effect is ideological polarization . In highly polarized environments, the echo chamber becomes even narrower. When politics or society are divided into “us vs. them,” users are forced to choose sides. Under this strong binary, anyone who strays from the majority in a given chamber feels even more alone. Current studies of “affective polarization” show that partisan identities create mutual prejudices between opposing groups. jovencuba.com jovencuba.com . In this context, saying something different from one’s own group can be interpreted as betrayal. In fact, research on the Cuban case concludes that “affective polarization can provoke feelings of fear of isolation ” in those who sympathize with the marginalized political group, leading them to choose silence as a guarantee of continued acceptance. jovencuba.com .

Thus, when a social network or digital bubble is dominated by a strong political sector, people perceive that speaking out against it could cost them support and reputation. Consequently, the technological system of echo chambers and the polarized environment act as an accelerator of the spiral: dissenting voices are not only in the minority, but are systematically excluded from each user’s personal information cycle. policyexamination.com jovencuba.com .

Cyberbullying and digital lynching

Another key factor fueling silence is the fear of online harassment . In today’s digital society, expressing an unpopular opinion carries the risk of becoming the target of mob attacks, sometimes called “cancel culture” or digital lynching . This involves the mass dissemination of aggressive messages, insults, and threats directed at a person for a controversial statement . es.wikipedia.org Digital lynching spreads rapidly on social media when a tweet or comment receives many condemnatory likes or retweets; it can go viral within hours.

This risk of public repression intimidates many users. As Bolivian researcher Paula Chambi summarized, people avoid expressing opposing opinions “for fear of social rejection, peer pressure, cyberbullying, and retaliation” (unifranz.edu.bo ) . Cyberbullying includes insults, personal threats, and even the disclosure of private data. When users see harassment campaigns or mockery campaigns directed at someone for their ideas, many back down. Those who have witnessed or been victims of these lynchings tend to be more cautious about their words. In essence, the potential for collective humiliation fosters preemptive self-censorship : it’s better not to express an opinion, as the cost of making a mistake can be very high.

The severity of this problem is clearly evident in certain groups. For example, international studies indicate that women suffer particularly intense gender-based harassment online (eldiario.es ). An Amnesty International study interviewed women in eight countries and found that nearly one in four had been attacked online. Furthermore, it concluded that gender-based harassment causes women anxiety, stress, self-censorship, or fear for their physical safety (eldiario.es ). In other words, online harassment induces in them the desire to remain silent to avoid further harm. This finding shows that personal attacks online particularly affect marginalized groups (women, sexual minorities, etc.), exacerbating the spiral of silence among these groups.

In society as a whole, any user can become a target if they raise the wrong voice. Thus, the veiled threat of an “enraged audience” discourages honest expression. As Susana Hidalgo warns, phenomena where “the bully feels much more powerful behind a screen” have become commonplace (forbes.es ). Social media, she says, is a place where insecurity reigns: writing is free, and emotionally harming others is seen as a source of satisfaction for some trolls (forbes.es) . In this environment, it’s not surprising that many prefer to stay out of the debate, protecting their emotional well-being from the risk of digital lynching.

Social pressure and group dynamics

On social media, it’s not just “isolated individuals” who act: there are communities, clans, and shared identities that influence the silence of their members. The dynamics of support or pressure within a group reinforce the spiral. For example, on Facebook, it’s common to belong to closed groups (school friends, coworkers, a related club, etc.). Within each group, implicit rules are established about what is right or wrong to express an opinion. A member may be shy about expressing themselves if they believe their position doesn’t fit with that of the majority of the group.

Furthermore, generational and cultural factors come into play. For example, young digital natives have grown up expecting social approval (through likes and comments) online; when faced with negative comments, many of them resort to self-censorship. Conversely, older generations, although less active online, may also suppress modern ideas for fear of criticism from family members or online acquaintances. In general, the effect is observed across the board: regardless of age, users tend to preserve their social ties by avoiding what they perceive as “dissent” in their digital circles.

On the other hand, opinion elites on social media (influencers, opinion leaders, brands) exert additional pressure. If a user sees several influencers defending an idea, they will feel that this idea is the valid one. Conversely, expressing something different from what appears in trending topics or in celebrity discourse can be perceived as bold or even provocative. Many internet users, out of prudence, follow the prevailing trend of their reference leaders so as not to risk their digital reputation. In short, both the pressure from the “mass of friends” and that of opinion leaders create an environment in which minorities prefer to remain silent.

Examples and case studies

Social networks in electoral campaigns

A specific case where the spiral of digital silence has been documented is in political campaigns. In the 2019 municipal elections in Quito, Ecuador, researchers analyzed Twitter activity and found a clear example of an echo chamber and apparent invisible majorities. gigapp.org . In that campaign, Twitter became a space dominated by the followers of a specific candidate. Many users shared opinion polls and messages in favor of that candidate—who ultimately did not win—giving the impression that he was the favorite. However, these posts formed an information bubble that hid the true electoral pulse. The researchers described that “Twitter became an echo chamber where messages supporting a candidate who ultimately did not win circulated and hid other tendencies” gigapp.org . This phenomenon illustrates how social media can amplify biased messages and silence alternating currents: Twitter users who supported other candidates remained largely inaudible within this digital echo chamber.

A similar phenomenon has been observed in other electoral processes and political debates. For example, several surveys indicate that during key events, veteran social media users witness polarized discussions, but many novice or timid users tend to remain silent. As the Spanish Forbes pointed out , social media decides “what we see and what we don’t.” Content is deleted, accounts are eliminated, and information is managed according to dominant interests (forbes.es ). In this context, those who are unsure about fitting into the prevailing majority prefer not to post.

Cases of self-censorship on social networks

Beyond politics, the spiral of silence on social media has been felt in various public spheres. For example, in media or social controversies, broad currents of opinion are often noted, supported by hashtag campaigns and trending topics, while dissenting voices are often reduced to a few sympathetic accounts. Journalists and commentators have occasionally observed that some readers “filter the information sphere with their silence.” Journalist Susana Hidalgo noted that today, “the information we receive is managed according to the advantages of those at the top” (platform owners) forbes.es . This reinforces the idea that dominant voices are highlighted by algorithms and power groups, while minority voices face silence or ostracism.

In debates about sensitive social issues (gender, race, the environment, human rights), the same trend is observed. On networks like Instagram and Twitter, many young people carefully select their audience before expressing their opinions. It’s no surprise that social movements have emerged in part with the support of braver young people, while other, more conservative users prefer to stay away for fear of public criticism. The effect is especially amplified when there are strong official narratives. An individual who disagrees with the dominant version of a controversial issue can be quickly neutralized by the reaction of their social media contacts. In summary, the case studies agree: when they feel their voice will not be echoed, most people simply prefer not to speak. The spiral of silence is evident when silencing shock campaigns are the order of the day on social media, and surveys indicate that a large portion of the population remains silent rather than face public scorn.

Factors that fuel the spiral of digital silence

Analyzing the above, we can group the main causes that reinforce the spiral of silence on the Internet:

• Fear of rejection and need for acceptance: People avoid expressing minority opinions to avoid being isolated, as suggested by the original puromarketing.com theory . In the online context, this need for acceptance is intensified because the perceived audience is enormous. As Dans explained, with more followers, self-censorship increases enriquedans.com .
• Peer pressure and social conformity: Users adapt to the norms of the dominant group (family, friends, coworkers). On social media, this pressure comes from both the friendships we form and from opinion leaders and influencers, reinforcing the idea that we must align ourselves with the majority to be accepted. jovencuba.com forbes.es .
• Fear of cyberbullying and digital lynching: The fear of being targeted (attacks, humiliation, doxxing) for an unpopular opinion is a strong deterrent. Studies show that online harassment induces “self-censorship” among its victims , especially among vulnerable groups such as women.
• Algorithms and echo chambers: Algorithmic filtering systems create information bubbles where we only receive ideas similar to our own. policyexamination.com policyexamination.com . This minimizes exposure to opposing viewpoints, causing users to perceive a majority consensus that induces them to remain silent.
• Ideological polarization: In highly polarized environments, strong “us versus them” divisions arise. Dissidents feel that speaking out could lead to being labeled as enemies. According to recent research, emotional polarization causes “fear of isolation” in those who sympathize with minority positions, leading them to remain silent for safety reasons. jovencuba.com .
• Disinformation and rumors: Fake news, false news, and manipulation campaigns increase confusion about what the “real opinion” is. When rumors spread that the majority supports a certain idea (amplified by bots or organized campaigns), many users choose not to risk contradicting what they believe to be the “apparent truth.”

These factors combine to reinforce silence: platforms (with algorithms and moderation rules) enhance dynamics that already exist in human interaction (fear of rejection, desire to fit in), creating a self-reinforcing spiral. As expert Chambi warns, all of these factors contribute to divergent voices being silenced or marginalized in cyberspace unifranz.edu.bo .

Particularly affected groups

The spiral of digital silence doesn’t affect everyone equally. Studies show that some social and ideological groups are more affected by this phenomenon :

• Women and minorities: As we saw, online harassment campaigns most strongly affect women, LGBTQ+ youth, immigrants, and others. Fear of personal retaliation makes these groups more cautious when speaking out publicly. The Amnesty International researcher observed that many women reported self-censorship after being threatened online (eldiario.es ).
• Political or ideological minorities: Those who defend marginal ideas (whether extremist or simply unpopular) also tend to remain silent. Global political polarization demonstrates that both the radical right and the radical left struggle to join social media conversations dominated by an opposing candidate or movement. At the local level, opponents of authoritarian regimes have reported fear of expressing themselves online due to the possibility of being monitored or reported.
• People with less social influence: Internet users with few followers or no visible role (for example, users without close friends or important connections) tend to self-censor more than influencers. The closed circle also plays a role: an individual with few close contacts feels they can say more without being misinterpreted. enriquedans.com .
• Different generations: While the basic patterns are repeated, there are nuances by age. Some studies indicate that younger generations, digital natives, are very aware of the fear of online judgment and sometimes prefer alternative means (closed apps, private groups) to express themselves. At the same time, older adults, accustomed to offline communication, may be more reluctant to engage in online debates due to a lack of technological confidence or fear of social repercussions.
• Cultural contexts: In societies where freedom of expression is limited or the culture favors respect for the majority, the tendency to silence oneself online may be even stronger. For example, collectivist cultures may reinforce the influence of the majority group.

Overall, the spiral of silence reinforces inequalities of expression: those who already have a voice (political leaders, celebrities, journalists, etc.) maintain it, while those who were already a minority or had little social recognition feel increasingly excluded from the digital public forum.

Proposals and solutions to break the spiral of silence

Countering the spiral of silence in digital environments requires action at several levels. Below are some proposals from different areas, combining personal strategies, technological improvements, and institutional measures:

• Personal and user strategies:
  • Critical information training: Before sharing or endorsing information, consulting reliable sources and verifying facts can give you confidence when expressing your opinion. Knowing how to distinguish between real news and misinformation helps users feel more confident and less swayed by rumors.
  • Diversify your network: Trying to follow people with different points of view on social media can break your personal echo chamber. By voluntarily exposing yourself to different ideas, you realize that online opinions are diverse and no longer perceive a single dominant opinion.
  • Participate in respectful discussions: Choosing moderated discussion environments (forums with clear rules, communities with respectful norms) can reduce the fear of lynching. It can also help to initially discuss privately (via direct message or small groups) before posting anything publicly.
  • Use conscious anonymity: On platforms that allow it, writing under a pseudonym or with anonymous accounts can offer a cushion of protection if you want to express very minority opinions, as long as it’s used responsibly.
  • Practice empathy and dialogue: When someone has a different opinion, reading with an open mind and responding in a civilized manner enriches the debate. Encouraging others to express their ideas without judgment contributes to a climate of greater trust for everyone.
• Platform and technology measures:
  • Algorithm transparency: Social media could offer options for users to better understand or control how their content is filtered (for example, by showing more chronological posts instead of just recommended ones). Encouraging settings that reduce excessive personalization would help to showcase more diverse opinions.
  • Designing against information bubbles: Implement features that recommend content from different perspectives or allow users to follow sources on both sides of a debate. Some platforms are already experimenting with alerts that warn users when they’re only viewing one type of opinion. These measures can mitigate the formation of echo chambers.
  • Hate speech moderation: Strengthening anti-harassment policies (cyberbullying, hate speech) protects those who dare to speak out. Clear boundaries, rapid reporting systems, and effective sanctions against aggressors reduce the fear of digital lynching. If networks demonstrate that they punish attacks, users are more willing to express themselves without fear.
  • Promoting constructive debate: Instituting mechanisms that highlight quality conversations, or labels that signal well-founded positions, can encourage thoughtful discussion. For example, promoting the “respectful replies” feature or highlighting users who argue with data can shift the platform’s culture to a less hostile one.
• Public policies and social initiatives:
  • Media and digital literacy: Educating citizens in schools and communities is key. UNESCO emphasizes that media and information literacy provides people with essential skills to confront disinformation and hate speech unesco.org . Educational campaigns can teach citizens to critically question what they see online, reducing the ignorance that facilitates manipulation confilegal.com unesco.org .
  • Transparency and digital rights legislation: Governments can require tech companies to publish their algorithm criteria (as proposed by the new EU Digital Services Act) to prevent covert censorship. Experts have pointed out the urgent need to update the laws: “A clear example is the lack of enforcement of the Digital Services Act,” warn legal experts at confilegal.com . Strengthening regulations that protect information diversity and guarantee the right of reply also helps counteract dominant pressure on social networks.
  • Protection against online harassment: Stricter laws against cyberbullying and opinion-based harassment can be enacted, ensuring that online offenders face real consequences. This creates a legal environment that discourages public attacks and encourages users to express themselves without fear.
  • Promoting diverse media: Supporting independent media, diverse journalism, and open spaces for debate (radio, television, digital) complements social media and counteracts information concentration. The more serious channels there are where ideas can be aired and discussed, the less reliance there will be on the bubbles created on social media.

In short, breaking the spiral of silence requires education and dialogue, as well as regulation and social responsibility. As experts emphasize, combating disinformation and information blackouts is not enough with strong laws, but also with citizens educated to question what they consume. confilegal.com unesco.org . Only in this way will our digital platforms cease to be a “paradise” for a few and become a safe space for all voices.

Conclusion

The spiral of silence is an ancient psychosocial mechanism that has found new wings in the social media environment. Thanks to algorithms and group dynamics, majority opinions are amplified on the internet, while dissenting voices are suppressed. The result is a sense of unanimity that often doesn’t correspond to the actual diversity of thought. This phenomenon affects individuals of all ages and beliefs, although it is particularly serious for those who are already a minority in society.

Understanding the spiral of digital silence is important for all social media users. Knowing that others also prefer to remain silent when they feel they are in the minority can alleviate the pressure to speak out, and at the same time should encourage us to question the apparent uniformity of certain opinions online. We must remember that behind every screen are people with fears and motivations similar to ours.

Ultimately, countering the downward spiral requires a collective effort: more dialogue, more critical thinking, and more respect . As a society, we have a responsibility to create digital environments where debate is open and constructive, so that speaking out is not a privilege of the few, but a secure right for all. Only then can our voices feel free to speak out.

References

1. Borraz, M. (2017, November 20). How online sexist harassment impacts women . elDiario.es.
2. Cahuasa, PB (2024, April 7). Disinformation and polarization: the consequences of the spiral of silence on social media . Franz Tamayo Private University.
3. Confilegal. (2025, January 28). Algorithms at the center of the ICAM debate on disinformation and manipulation on social media . Confilegal.com.
4. Dans, E. (2014, August 30). Social Media and Self-Censorship [Blog]. EnriqueDans.com.
5. Hidalgo, S. (2017, October 17). Why social media can silence people . Forbes Spain.
6. Mora, P. (February 2, 2024). What is the spiral of silence? MuyInteresante.com.
7. Morlans, A. (2013, February 7). The spiral of silence on the Web 2.0 . PuroMarketing.
8. Observatory on Political Extremism. (2023, November 10). Spiral of Silence and Affective Polarization: Approaches to the Cuban Case . LaJovenCuba.com.
9. Pew Research Center. (2014, August 26). Social media and the ‘spiral of silence’ . Pew Research Center.
10. Redondo, M. (2014, October 17). Silence, the digital spiral underway . Foreign Policy.
11. UNESCO. (n.d.). Media and Information Literacy . UNESCO.
12. Vincent, J. (2014, August 27). The “Spiral of Silence”: How social media encourages self-censorship online . TheIndependent.