I always say that the thing closest to a research institute that anyone with internet access nowadays is their social networks. We are all impacted by content, check out how our friends and acquaintances behave and react to certain subjects and read publications comments to understand what people think about certain topics. And here comes the famous: “Everyone is talking about.”
Well, it’s not. There are two key features on the production of digital content that those who do not have access to powerful analysis tools will never find out: The largest bubbles on the internet are much smaller than you might think and very few people produce the largest portion of everything that is consumed inside the bubbles. In practice, we live in various bubbles, because the user, who are us, consumes various types of content. Some more intensely, others passively. And most importantly, they are always the same ones that produce what, in some way, we will consume. Yes, the premise that the internet is a kind of “virtual agora” that democratizes debate, may seem conceptually true, but the practice is quite different from theory. Let’s go to the data.
There are a lot of very interesting research indicating that bubbles are actually composed of small highly engaged groups. And start with politics, a subject that gives us the impression of being dominant and highly polarized, helps us understand the phenomenon. A 2019 study revealed that only 6% of X (former Twitter) users in the US produce suggesting that the perception of a large political bubble is, in fact, influenced by a vocal minority. If we look at the case of Tiktok, regardless of the bubble, we will find the same characteristic: 25% of users are . Here we can already understand very relevant information: an active and extremely vocal minority significantly shapes the experience of the majority – a critique, even often made to traditional media.
Continues after advertising
The impression that we are all inserted into large homogeneous bubbles can be attributed to the phenomenon of the “Eco Chamber”, where individuals with similar opinions cluster, amplifying their beliefs. However, this amplification can create a false sense of consensus. On the one hand, because our algorithms tend to continually impact us with the same content, generating the false impression that the whole internet is discussing a particular subject or having the same opinion, but especially because it creates the mistaken feeling that there are really a lot of people talking about that topic. If we still get to X, a study from the Harvard University showed that
Are you still convinced of disproportion yet? See the case of Wikipedia: 0.7% of users produce Among Instagram influencers, 11% have over 80,000 followers. In the spread of fake news, 8% of users who share doubtful content are responsible for almost 70% of all.
These data show that while the internet offers a platform for the active expression of all, few individuals really shape the predominant narratives. This disparity raises questions about the representativeness of online opinions and how small bubbles can exert a disproportionate influence on public discourse.
Continues after advertising
Now that we have found that most of the content is produced by a small portion of users, let’s look at the size of the bubbles. I realized, along with the Timelensand the data is impressive. Brazil’s largest bubble in 2024 was football, and it adds “only” 15% of the total digital conversations. If we add the entire gossip bubble, it does not reach 5% of everything discussed. Policy: 4.14%. The whole bubble of religion reaches 3% of the total conversations and almost tied with the reality shows, which total 2.90%. We created 34 analysis categories, and if you want to know more, the data can be found in the table below:
| Categories discussed on the internet | Percentage of conversations in 2024 |
| Soccer | 15,32% |
| Music | 12,12% |
| Humor | 10,99% |
| Lifestyle | 7,31% |
| Gossip | 4,30% |
| Policy | 4,14% |
| Religion | 3,00% |
| Reality Shows | 2,90% |
| Other sports | 2,60% |
| Entrepreneurship and Coaching | 2,30% |
| Games | 2,26% |
| Education | 1,93% |
| Automotive | 1,86% |
| Fitness | 1,79% |
| Novels | 1,74% |
| Sweepstakes, raffles and bets | 1,70% |
| Art | 1,44% |
| Culture | 1,36% |
| Entertainment | 1,21% |
| Parentality | 1,30% |
| Trip | 0,83% |
| Comedy | 0,75% |
| History | 0,65% |
| Fashion and Beauty | 0,61% |
| Streaming | 0,38% |
| Relationship | 0,38% |
| Makeup | 0,39% |
| Cinema | 0,28% |
| Beauty | 0,21% |
| Marks | 0,17% |
| Media and News | 0,10% |
| Series | 0,05% |
| Pop culture | 0,01% |
| Others | 13,69% |
Probably, when you find that subject that you discuss and consume intensely, it seemed very small to the size of the total conversations on the internet, right? And in this case, the belief of the large homogeneous blisters collapses when we look at the data. The truth is that a hyperactive minority shapes digital content, while most only consume passively. What seems to be a broad debate is, in fact, a reflection of what few choose to put on the agenda. The result? Inflated discussions, overestimated trends and a distorted perception of reality. Before saying that “everyone is talking about”, it is worth asking: who is really talking? And, more importantly, how many are listening?
