What became acutely obvious when I stopped taking their recommendations was how tribal online discussions can be. So many posts in my feeds were people broadcasting their political or professional identities by expressing outrage or praise for a particular news event or article. It seems to me that these kinds of posts aren’t so much about instigating thoughtful discourse as they are about broadcasting your own tastes or positioning yourself on a team. By opting out, I wasn’t missing thoughtful discussions, I was skipping pep rallies for various factions.

I still consumed the news — in old-fashioned print and a few news apps — but I was taking it in without being told how to feel, and I was reading more stories that weren’t the emotion-provoking ones that most often seem to get shared in my feeds. In short, my consumption of the news felt more balanced, and research bears this out. A study of 12,000 Twitter users during the 2011 Spanish general election and 50,000 American tweeters during the 2012 presidential election found that political discussions during these times were dominated by people on the extreme left and right. Without my most vocal acquaintances telling me what to read and how to think, it was easier to form my own opinions.

Social media is opinion-oriented, and people are quick to comment without verifying and judge and share without reading (admit it, you’ve done this; I have!). Social media runs on emotion and knee-jerk reactions, and I’ve observed that it often exploits our cognitive biases and preconceived notions.