It was a week after Donald Trump won the US 2024 Presidential Election. My little sister texted me frantically: “Mom keeps accusing Dad of voting for Trump. She can’t get off TikTok… She’s doom-scrolling every morning before work and every night after dinner for hours.” My mom’s social media algorithm had her in a paranoid panic and my household was fractured politically in a way I had never experienced before. Surely, my family’s dysfunction did not stand alone in this precarious political moment. This personal experience highlights a larger trend in the US: the role of social media in deepening political divisions. In October 2020, NPR reported on individuals who cut off friends and family due to their political beliefs. Ricardo Deforest of Tampa, Florida shared the following with NPR: “I hate to say it because family is everything…I disowned them. In my mind they’re not family anymore” due to differing political beliefs among family members (Source).

Academics McCoy, Rahman, and Somer define polarization as an, “‘Us’ versus ‘Them’” mindset (McCoy et al., 22). It is widely accepted that affective polarization, in which voters are divided by emotions rather than policy (Week 10 Lecture, POLS1801X), is mounting in the US and globally. To this point, scholars Iyengar and Krupenkin argue that “Affective polarization among ordinary citizens has reached the point where party affiliation is now a litmus test for interpersonal relations” (Iyengar et al., 201). These definitions and dynamics begin to contextualize the aforementioned political tensions in the United States and those under my own roof. Inspired by its impact on my family, I argue that social media escalates political polarization and contributes to democratic backsliding. While it is not the sole factor, it is a critical force requiring attention in this debate.

While evidence exists that polarization encourages democratic consolidation in countries not yet democratized, such as Burkina Faso and Ghana, scholar Adrienne LeBas compellingly contends that political and social conditions in nations such as the US result in the opposite. LeBas asserts that when a society has a history of systemically excluding certain groups from opportunity or granting unequal citizenship rights, political polarization is more likely to lead to widespread violence and democratic backsliding (LeBas, 61). Using this logic, democratic erosion and polarization are entwined particularly in democracies such as the US where systemic discrimination and unequal citizenship rights are indisputable qualifiers of our political history. 

Furthermore, journalist and author Mike Fisher writes about the relationship between social media and polarization and even wrote a book called The Chaos Machine. Fisher explains that social media generally operates on an algorithm that prioritizes content with the highest engagement and that posts gain strong traction when they reinforce in-group identity by criticizing out-groups (Source). In an interview with NPR, Fisher further argues that “Spending more time on social media will make you significantly more polarized” (Source). Such a claim is substantiated by political science literature that claims that exposure to “like-minded” or pro-attitudinal media increases polarization (Kubin Et Al, 198). Realistically, this social media-derived polarization manifests itself as divided households such as my own or, more drastically, as cases of political violence. 

In 2018, Brazil’s election was characterized by social media disseminated misinformation and disinformation, which fueled an already “hyperpolarized” voting environment and contributed to intense social unrest (Bandeira et al., 6). For instance, far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro used social media to propel disinformation that furthered his campaign efforts, while his supporters spread the same misinformation via WhatsApp and other social media thus creating echo chambers of irrefutable support (Bandeira et al., 11). The unrest surrounding all of this misinformation and hyperpolarization led to at least one instance of politically charged killing the night before the first round of elections on October 7, 2018 (Bandeira et al., 10). In the case of Brazil, social media was a critical undercurrent in generating social unrest among citizens during the nation’s 2018 elections and ultimately inciting political violence– A glaring form of democratic backsliding. 

Similarly in the U.S., social media’s role in polarization and democratic erosion is increasingly evident, with the January 6, 2021, Capitol riots being a key example. Often overlooked is how social media mobilized Trump supporters against Congress. On far-right social media platforms Gab, Parler, and Truth Social, Trump supporters schemed for months leading up to January 6th to retake the Capitol building. They even used these social media platforms to advise each other on what weapons and tools would be best suited to break security mechanisms during the rioting (Source). Not to mention, Trump posted incendiary tweets to incite a violent reaction from these already radicalized supporters. For instance, he proclaimed, “Get smart Republicans. FIGHT!” in a Twitter post in the hours leading up to the riots along with a slew of unsubstantiated claims about election fraud (Source). Trump’s weaponization of Twitter’s immense power to spread disinformation as well as the role of far-right social media platforms both serve as prime examples of echo chambers in which exponentially mounting polarization and radicalization are faced with few checks and balances. Much like we saw in Brazil’s 2018 election, the events of January 6, 2021, are yet another example of social media’s role in escalating polarization and consequently, inciting political violence– Again, an indisputable form of democratic backsliding. 

Contrary to my primary argument, it is indisputable that social media democratizes knowledge in a revolutionary way and can be an outlet for democracy-oriented political organizing. For instance, social media usage has been linked to heightened political engagement which arguably posits it as an important pro-democracy tool (Source). Yet in a deeply polarized society, this democratization of knowledge leads to the spread of misinformation and disinformation– What does it mean to be politically engaged if social media’s misinformation whirlwind informs that engagement? Like most technologies, social media can be manipulated to achieve positive and negative societal outcomes. With this in mind, it’s generative to consider the counterfactual: What would the global political landscape look like today if social media did not exist? Would polarization be nearly as rampant? Would alarmism define our societal reactions to politics? Would political violence have been as easily justified and organized in the aforementioned examples? 

Perhaps in this alternate universe, we would deduce that social media merely reflects an already intensely polarized society. Or perhaps we would find more political common ground in social media’s absence. Mike Fisher argues that social media isn’t an inherent evil, however, popular algorithm models beg to be adjusted so they no longer encourage polarization to the same extent (Source). Reforming these systems could alleviate political tensions and reduce the alarmism many users, like my mother, experience. Until then, disengagement from platforms like TikTok may be necessary to preserve both our relationships and more broadly, democratic stability.

1. McCoy, Jennifer, Tahmina Rahman and Murat Somer. 2018. “Polarization and the Global Crisis of Democracy: Common Patterns, Dynamics and Pernicious Consequences for Democratic Polities.” American Behavioral Scientist 62(1): 16- 42.
2. Iyengar, Shanto and Masha Krupenkin. 2018. “The Strengthening of Partisan Affect.” Political Psychology 39(S1): 201-218.
3. LeBas, Adrienne. 2018. “Can Polarization Be Positive? Conflict and Institutional Development in Africa.” American Behavioral Scientist 62(1): 59-74.
4. Kubin, E., & von Sikorski, C. (2021). The role of (social) media in political polarization: a systematic review. Annals of the International Communication Association, 45(3), 188–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2021.1976070
5. Bandeira, Luiza, Donara Barojan, Roberta Braga, Jose Luis Peñarredonda and Maria Fernanda Pérez Argüello. 2019. Disinformation in Democracies: Strengthening Digital Resilience in Latin America. Washington, DC: The Atlantic Council.
6. Cover image sourced from https://www.businessinsider.com/social-media-twitter-facebook-political-polarization-mechanism-2022-10.