Why Germans avoid political debates in person but not online

Political intolerance thrives more in real life than online, study finds

How Tolerant Is Germany, Really?

At first glance—especially on social media—you might get the impression that all people do these days is shout at each other, with no one actually listening. But that perception is misleading. A recent Allensbach survey conducted for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) reveals that many people actually encounter more diverse viewpoints on social media than they do in their offline lives. The findings also show that voters of the Greens are the least tolerant of differing opinions, followed by those of the far-right AfD. According to the survey, echo chambers exist primarily in the real world—and interest in engaging with others is fading.

This is not the first time the Allensbach Institute for Demoscopy has examined how tolerant—or intolerant—Germany has become. As early as 2013, researcher Thomas Petersen published a study titled "Actual and Perceived Intolerance," which found that while 56 percent of Germans believed they could freely express their opinions, 30 percent felt they had to be cautious—a sentiment that predated the coronavirus pandemic by years.

"Even then, a significant portion of Germans sensed the social pressure that comes with deviating from the prevailing consensus," Petersen noted at the time. Some 41 percent reported that on controversial issues, they were "quickly corrected or even insulted." Among those who felt they could not speak freely, 35 percent cited one topic in particular: immigration, foreigners, or minorities. Petersen observed that the pressure of "published opinion"—the dominant viewpoint in the media—was especially strong here. In plain terms: public opinion itself was deeply intolerant.

Online Exchange Is Far More Diverse Than Real-Life Interaction

Now, in a new study for the FAZ, the Allensbach Institute has once again examined the state of tolerance in Germany—and reached a surprising conclusion: echo chambers are far more rigid in real life than in social media, which are often dismissed as hotbeds of polarization. "There's a common assumption that the internet fuels the fragmentation of opinion," Petersen writes in his FAZ article. No matter how fringe a view may be, the thinking goes, people can always find their own bubble online—a group of like-minded individuals who reinforce one another's beliefs.

"That's not entirely unfounded," Petersen acknowledges, "but the survey results show that most people do not encounter fewer opposing views online than they do offline—if anything, the opposite is true." In fact, the study found that real-life social circles tend to be more politically homogeneous than digital ones. Only about one in ten people regularly engage with friends in person who hold different political views, whereas online exchanges are far more diverse. People are significantly more likely to encounter opposing political opinions on the internet.

"This challenges the notion that people largely retreat into their own ideological bubbles online," Petersen concludes. Instead, it appears that the real hardening of divisions happens in the echo chambers of everyday life—and ideology plays a major role. "Among supporters of different political parties, those of the Greens (28 percent) and the AfD (24 percent) had the greatest difficulty tolerating dissenting views," he writes.

Greens and Their Supporters Least Tolerant of Opposing Views

"Many who vehemently demand freedom of speech ultimately mean only the freedom to express their own opinions," Petersen observes. A survey like this would be particularly revealing if conducted within the inner circles of political parties and media organizations. Our own website has had firsthand experience with the intolerance of Green Party supporters in Mainz: on multiple occasions, our editor-in-chief has been blocked and excluded by Greens over her reporting. For them, press freedom only applies to media outlets that cover them favorably—not those that dare to be critical.

Incidentally, supporters of the Left (Die Linke) proved to be the most intolerant, with 22 percent showing strong hostility toward opposing views. Voters of the CDU and SPD fared best: only 19 percent of CDU supporters reacted angrily to differing opinions, while the figure for SPD backers stood at 18 percent. This dynamic was also evident in February 2025, ahead of the federal election, when groups—primarily from the Green-Left spectrum—organized "anti-right protests" outside CDU party headquarters. Yet when the Greens, together with the AfD, blocked the Mercosur trade deal in the European Parliament in 2026, similar demonstrations were nowhere to be seen.

Another finding from the Allensbach study aligns with this trend: individuals with higher education levels displayed greater intolerance than those with basic or intermediate schooling—a striking observation. After all, in recent election campaigns, it was the Greens who often positioned themselves as the sole arbiters of truth. To this day, their demands on climate policy and the energy transition have taken on an almost religious dimension—and woe betide anyone who dares dissent. Such voices are mercilessly shouted down and reflexively branded as "right-wing."

Reiche: Smeared as "Gas Kathy" and a Fossil Fuel Lobbyist

Federal Economics Minister Katherina Reiche (CDU) has experienced this firsthand. No matter what proposal she puts forward, she is immediately labeled "Gas Kathy," a shill for fossil fuels, or hopelessly backward. Whether experts back her positions makes no difference. Take the recent debate over solar subsidies: when Reiche proposed cutting feed-in tariffs for private rooftop solar panels, an expert agreed it was the right move, arguing that the government had long subsidized wealthy households who could afford solar installations without incentives—leaving ordinary citizens to foot the bill through higher electricity costs.

Leo Hirth, the expert interviewed on Tagesthemen on February 27, was promptly dismissed by renewable energy advocates as biased and driven by vested interests. This episode illustrates how political debates now unfold: instead of listening and weighing arguments, opponents are instantly pigeonholed as "lobbyists," their motives questioned the moment they challenge the prevailing narrative. The result? A climate where people no longer feel free to speak their minds—where only the "approved" opinions of a particular political bubble carry weight.

In reality, Germany appears far more tolerant than often portrayed: 61 percent of the population said they had no issue with differing views, while 21 percent openly admitted such opinions bothered them. Moreover, 80 percent of respondents in the latest survey said active listening was essential to respectful interaction, with 69 percent even describing themselves as good listeners.

Overall, however, Petersen notes a declining interest in engaging with others' perspectives—a trend he links to a modern phenomenon: the obsession with self-photography. "55 percent of respondents said they occasionally take selfies, a figure that rises to 85 percent among under-30s," he writes. Of those who take selfies, 71 percent share them at least occasionally with friends and acquaintances.

"While caution is warranted," Petersen analyzes, "this behavior can be seen as a symptom of broader communication struggles. There is reason to suspect that a society where large segments are constantly preoccupied with photographing themselves is one where many are primarily interested in themselves."