Today, social media like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube and Snapchat are sources of much of our political information (international and local). This essay, putting aside debates over mental health and relationships, will critique the role of social media in society. I argue that political life would be improved with the limitation or elimination of social media in their current model. If the base of our political awareness stems from social media, we have a skewed frame of reference to understand the world. Technology, a force that moves history, ought to be used to support democracy.

In 1789, debate in France was not the product of hourly musings of radical philosophers and poets. Debate happened in cafés and colleges, through speeches, pamphlets, satirical plays and opera. Growing literacy rates allowed ordinary Parisians to consider calls to protest and to end monarchy. Authors were obligated to say or write exactly what they meant, and why their position was better than alternatives, leaving audiences to reflect. In a hyper-connected age, this is hard to do unless you take a “digital detox.”

In the early 2000s, many Americans got their news from the Daily Show or Colbert Report – comedic satire of the 24-hour news cycle. Rural news outlets and local newspapers had already been disappearing or losing customers. Social media giants, what Jaron Lanier calls “behavior modification empires,” harnessed the worst aspects of the 24/7 TV news cycle (soundbites, “breaking news” and manufactured crisis, the ticker, and greater corporate surveillance) – applied to an addictive scroll.

On January 6^th, 2021, Americans stormed the Capital attempting to “stop the steal” in the 2020 election. This was not prevented by our 21^st century age of mass information and communication. Rioters were motivated by conspiracy, extreme nationalism, cultural anxiety, intuition, and suspicion. Today, two-thirds of Republicans agree that the 2020 election was, at least in part, illegitimate.

Trumpian conspiracy theories spread without social media (chat rooms, the dark web, or Fox News), but the Twitter (X) platform enabled their mass appeal. Inspired by this, many in-person screenings of the popular and discredited documentary 2000 Mules were held by Republican Party chapters.

Increasingly, more than half of Americans, are getting their news on social media, an informational wild west. That “news,” the headlines and clips we see, post, share, and ‘like’ are pre-selected for us based on 24/7 data collection. When our screen is on or off; or even how long we stay on a page or pause in scrolling. Rather than a simple ‘tool,’ scrolling is entertaining, addictive, and stimulating. This shapes our collective consciousness of the world. To borrow an idea from Kant, we live in an information age but not an informed age.

The Hamas-Israel war demonstrates the superficial and misleading nature of ‘news’ on social media. Fabricated images of suffering and crimes are shared, and true images are grossly out of context; other posts have portrayed Gazan cities as the most lavish parts of the Arab world. Pro-Hamas and Al-Qaeda clips began circulating immediately after October 7, then followed by constant updates of unrelenting Israeli bombings.

Platforms can’t convey meaning: the history of Palestinian resentment for both Arab states and Israel. A half-century of territorial gamesmanship during the Cold War; or resource conflicts (water) between states. Social media promotes reductionist Israel/Gaza identity politics that is both dramatically shaping American politics and devoid of context. Intellectual laziness become normalized and is validated by a cycle of ‘likes’ and ‘shares.’

Literacy rates for Americans today have risen, all of us see and read much more in the world. Though comprehension and applying references in context is different. If we look strictly at ‘grade level’ as correlated with comprehension, the ‘diploma divide’ demonstrates some of today’s political resentment and estrangement (2/3rds of Americans don’t have college diplomas, the majority are business majors).

But, especially with today’s innovations, adults in democracy can look beyond a traditional degree. Learning to discriminate between source material and develop informed opinions requires patience, and access to credible information, perspectives, and opinion. Today’s technology enables more access to print, graphics, podcasts, audiobooks, video, and comics – not all are seeking short-term profit based on scrolling (or, at best, they can be reformed much easier).

Libraries, universities, online catalogs, open mics, bars, online forums, or the local paper can be sites of public debate. Technology can broaden and enrich an open society, but social media does not have the necessary qualities – the humility of speech, forgiveness of interpersonal dialogue, and space to reflect (empathy is less profitable than outrage and revenge). 

Social media is here to stay, manufacturing its own utility. We may find personal reasons to keep using it, or business leaders may innovate less exploitative models. Or, maybe doing nothing is an answer.