As social media continues to dominate political conversations and campaigns, are internet users truly engaging, or is it superficial?
In today's increasingly digital age, social media has become a powerful tool for creating political conversations and driving activism. Platforms have evolved into critical spaces for political discourse, establishing instant communication between politicians, activists and voters. X has become a go-to platform for real-time political commentary, while Instagram and TikTok have become increasingly popular for campaign movements, especially targeted towards younger voters. These platforms are helpful to politicians and activists in mobilising support and spreading their messages to a global audience.
In the 2019 UK General Election, for example, social media played a pivotal role in shaping public discourse with viral campaigns and targeted ads reaching millions. From Brexit debates to Youth-driven movements like #RegisterToVote, platforms like X and Facebook have appeared to increase political participation. But does this online engagement translate into meaningful action?
While social media has the potential to amplify voices and mobilise voters, there are concerns about the spread of misinformation, in addition to echo chambers, and superficial activism. So the question needs to be asked: has social media boosted political engagement, or is it merely creating an illusion of participation?
Key events, such as the Arab Spring in 2011, have demonstrated the power of social media - organising protests and challenging authoritarian regimes. Social media was instrumental in the coordination of protests, broadcasting uncensored information and fueling uprisings across the Middle East. Similarly, during the Brexit referendum, both Leave and Remain campaigns used social media to target voters and shape public opinion, marking a pivotal moment in political campaigning. Recent statistics from Ofcom’s 2023 report on news consumption in the UK show the increasing importance of social media in politics. In the UK, 60 percent of adults get their news online and 36 percent rely on social media as a primary source of political news. Among 18-24 year-olds this number rises to 57 percent, showing how critical these platforms can be in influencing the political views of a younger generation.
Social media has been particularly instrumental in mobilising younger generations. One notable example is the Fridays for Future climate strikes, spearheaded by youth activist Greta Thunberg. The movement spread rapidly across social media, engaging millions of young people globally who demanded action on climate change. Similarly, in the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election, social media campaigns targeting young voters contributed to a rise in youth voter turnout, highlighting how real-world political engagement can rise from digital activism.
Beyond youth involvement, these platforms also have the potential to generate powerful grassroots movements. The #MeTOO movement, which gained global visibility on platforms like Facebook and X, began as an online conversation about sexual harassment and assault. Quickly transforming into widespread activism, #METOO has led to changes in public policy and ideas of corporate accountability. Social media has allowed the movement to gain traction, mobilising millions and leading to tangible changes being made in various sectors.
Moreover, social media has made politics more accessible globally, resulting in engagement from people across the world. However, this increased accessibility has also raised concerns about token engagement. Questions have been raised over the efficacy of engagement through simply liking, commenting and sharing on an issue. For example, the ongoing conflict in Palestine has prompted widespread online discussions and mobilisation, with many reposting content to raise awareness. Viral hashtags, such as #SaveSheikhJarrah and #FreePalestine, have sparked millions of shares, making information about the conflict more accessible than ever. However, this heightened attention is temporary, peaking during major events and then fading as public focus shifts to other issues. The intermittent nature of this engagement means that, while people become aware, the sustained support needed to drive policy change or humanitarian aid can wane quickly. While performative activism helps keep Palestine in the spotlight, it can dilute the objectives of advocacy campaigns. When users engage only to maintain a public image of support without understanding the movement's goals, it can create misconceptions and weaken cohesive calls for action. For instance, individuals might share hashtags without context or participate in trends without understanding the historical or political nuances.
Users have prioritised visibility over substantive involvement and long-term change. Although further awareness is undoubtedly necessary, reposting without engaging in more impactful actions such as donating to aid organisations or creating practical discussions and action doesn’t make any tangible impact aside from awareness. This highlights the need for a deeper engagement that goes beyond social media interactions, in order to drive meaningful change on real-world issues.
One of the most pressing issues is the proliferation of misinformation and fake news, particularly during elections or major crises. For instance, during the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election, false narratives spread rapidly across social media platforms, influencing public opinion and contributing to political polarisation. In a similar way, during the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation about the virus and vaccines circulated widely, undermining public trust in health authorities and scientific consensus.
Social media algorithms often reinforce existing beliefs, creating echo chambers that heighten divisions rather than fostering open discussions. Many studies have shown the effect of confirmation bias, where users are more likely to encounter content aligning with their existing views, limiting exposure to diverse perspectives. This can solidify opinions, making constructive dialogue increasingly difficult.
With the rise of superficial engagement, commonly known as ‘clicktivism’, users feel a sense of accomplishment from liking or sharing posts that rarely translate into meaningful political participation. A study by the Pew Research Centre found that while 66 percent of users engage with political content, only a fraction participate in offline activities such as attending meetings, voting, or volunteering for campaigns. This disconnect between online engagement and practical action raises concerns about the effectiveness of social media as a tool for genuine involvement and engagement. However, a 2020 study by the Pew Research Centre indicated that young voters engaging with political content on X or Instagram were more likely to participate in the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election, contributing to a 50 percent increase in youth voter turnout compared to previous elections. Although social media does bring challenges and creates surface-level interaction, it can bring its benefits in making political information much more accessible, allowing for practical action to be taken.
Social media presents a complex landscape for engagement. It has the power to amplify political discourse and provide new opportunities for participation, however, these opportunities are often not employed with the prevalence of performance activism and superficial engagement. The information spread across social media can also be more harmful than useful, with false information spreading and little chance for people to figure out right from wrong.
Looking forward, the relationship between politics and social media raises critical questions: Will platforms take stronger measures to address misinformation? Or will echo chambers become entrenched, furthering polarisation? It’s essential for individuals to reflect on how they use social media in political contexts. When used in a productive and considered manner, the strengths of social media can translate to genuine engagement and practical action.
