Social media is a relatively new, yet threatening phenomenon. While it has provided many benefits, such as opportunities for the world to become more connected and make news and information more accessible, it has also been used as a dangerous weapon against modern democracy through its ability to rapidly circulate misinformation and disinformation in the form of fake news, and influence the notion of objective truth. While a simple fake news article circulating through social media may seem harmless at a glance, this phenomenon has rapidly spiraled out of control, having dangerous, real-world consequences. This begs the question, how has the rise of social media contributed to democratic erosion in the United States, and what measures can be taken to prevent further threats to US democracy?

According to Freelon and Wells, disinformation unites three critical criteria: “1) deception, 2) potential for harm, and 3) an intent to harm.” This differs from misinformation, defined as deceptive messages that may cause harm without the disseminators’ knowledge (Freelon and Wells 145). In recent US history, the issue of misinformation and disinformation surrounding politics has reached new heights with the help of Donald Trump who has perpetuated a “crisis of public communication” through an almost entirely digital forum (Freelon and Wells 146). Freelon and Wells highlight two broad categories of disinformation: content and reception: “Content studies analyze disinformation content and in so doing attempt to draw conclusions about its intended purposes, audiences, and effects. Reception studies are generally survey and/or experiment-based and seek to determine how exposure to disinformation affectsopinions, attitudes, and behaviors” (Freelon and Wells 149). From these studies, Freelon and Wells conclude that disinformation will likely continue to be a changing and important topic for future political research as social media continues to become a network that more and more people rely on as their primary source of news and information (Freelon and Wells 151).

Social media has the potential to have significant impacts on democratic erosion in the future. For one, social media amplifies the spread of disinformation and misinformation, contributing to political polarization. Social media outlets, like Twitter for example, allow for the rapid dissemination of political information, leading to networks across multiple outlets that feed specific narratives to specific people based on their interests. This algorithm has been used to make politically salient topics available to certain groups and not others, resulting in “echo chambers” with high levels of polarization, fueling animosity towards the other side (Tucker et al. 13). The danger of social media, however, is that, unlike traditional media, it bypasses all fact-checking and accountability mechanisms, facilitating the spread of disinformation and misinformation. When disinformation and misinformation have been perceived as fact by consumers, this has resulted in the erosion of shared, objective truth, further contributing to high levels of polarization (Hameleers et al. 53). 

The 2020 US Presidential Election is a prime example of the real-world consequences of polarization fueled by disinformation and misinformation on social media. Significant hate speech in the Trump era contributed to a climate of fear and polarization, as Trump spread and indorsed divisive and false narratives regarding election fraud following Biden’s victory (Tucker et al. 22). While in theory, these narratives should have been harmless, their real-world consequences were revealed when their consumers came out from behind their screens and rallied together on January 6th, 2021 for a violent security breach on the United States Capitol. All the while, this entire trope was fabricated, perpetuated, and spread by misinformation and disinformation on online media platforms. 

Given the upcoming presidential election, particularly the repeat of candidates from 2020, it is important to be proactive and learn from our mistakes. An important first step is to recognize the new landscape that we are facing. One new issue that is important to be aware of is foreign meddling in US elections. In 2016, Russia unsuccessfully “opened a new chapter in geopolitical competition…when it used social media to interfere in the U.S. presidential election” (Lindsay). Now, China looks to be following suit, as Beijing has a foreign policy stake in the outcome of the US election and looks to influence the outcome to better support the CCP’s goals. The PRC aims to sow doubts about U.S. leadership, undermine democracy, and extend Beijing’s influence by creating false profiles of American Trump supporters on social media, for example, posing grave threats to US democratic institutions (Lindsay).

Another up-and-coming variable to consider when approaching this election is the rise of Artificial Intelligence, particularly a concern that current American social media regulation mechanisms will be unable to keep up with content produced by AI. In terms of the 2024 election, “In the realm of electoral disinformation, AI-generated deepfakes such as the Biden robocall and the Republican Party’s dystopian film of what a world with a re-elected President Biden might look like have already played a role in the campaigns,” and it does not help that a legislative void led by a deeply polarized and gridlocked congress continues to be unable to pass meaningful federal AI regulation (de Groot 8). 

With these factors in mind, how can the US be proactive in hindering the spread of political disinformation and misinformation before the 2024 election? India, which faced significant threats of disinformation surrounding an important election, can be used as a model for the US in combatting fake news, and even AI-generated content. With the advanced knowledge that misinformation and disinformation, particularly on social media, was a major threat in India, an agency “manually reviewed all posts on X that tagged the state election panel’s account, ran keyword searches every 20 minutes and used tools such as Google image search to run authenticity checks before flagging controversial content” (Vengattil and Sharma). While this took significant time and resources, it is clear that the effort was well worth it, as they were able to successfully weed out most information that would have otherwise affected the outcome of an important election. While in a perfect world, the US would learn from India and take a proactive approach to the 2024 election, the likelihood of a national fact-checking initiative like that of India occurring is low due to legislative gridlock domestically.

While it might be unrealistic to expect the US to take a national initiative as extensive as that of India, there are smaller, more local steps that can be taken to proactively combat misinformation and disinformation prior to the 2024 election. Increasing media literacy throughout the US through programs and initiatives is one way to do this. Also, implementing media literacy and misinformation identification in public education systems is a great way to begin to increase awareness throughout the population, and counteract false information in the media. Finally, technology can be used to counteract technology itself by developing platforms and programs that can detect and delete fabricated or AI-driven information that could be harmful to US democracy. 

In recent years, the threat of disinformation and misinformation on US democracy has become increasingly dire, and it is important now, more than ever, that steps are taken to combat this issue before it is too late. Preserving a democracy that has already begun to erode in the age of social media will be a group effort, and actors throughout the United States must be willing to put together their brains, time, resources, and energy before it is too late.

Works Cited

“Election 2024: China’s Efforts to Interfere in the U.S. Presidential Election.” Council on Foreign Relations, Council on Foreign Relations, www.cfr.org/blog/election-2024-chinas-efforts-interfere-us-presidential-election. Accessed 12 June 2024. 

India Sieves Online Deluge to Stamp out Disinformation in World’s Biggest Election | Reuters, www.reuters.com/world/india/india-sieves-online-deluge-stamp-out-disinformation-worlds-biggest-election-2024-04-25/. Accessed 13 June 2024. 

Freelon, Deen, and Chris Wells. “Disinformation as political communication.” Political communication 37.2 (2020): 145-156.

Tucker, Joshua A., et al. “Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation: A review of the scientific literature.” Political polarization, and political disinformation: a review of the scientific literature (March 19, 2018) (2018).

de Groot, Jochem. “Electoral integrity is at stake in Super Election Year 2024.” Atlantisch Perspectief 48.1 (2024): 4-8.Hameleers, Michael, et al. “3. Communicating Delegitimisation: Political Information and Challenges to Democracy.” Communication Research into the Digital Society Fundam: 53.