Social media is distorting our democracy

Big Tech is not merely reshaping how Americans consume information; it is warping how our democracy functions.

Social media platforms have quietly become the primary source of news for millions of Americans, accelerating the decline of traditional journalism and replacing it with algorithm-driven feeds optimised for outrage, speed and emotional engagement, according to the Tribune News Service.

In this environment, influencers and politically motivated accounts now function as de facto broadcasters, often spreading half-truths, distortions or outright falsehoods with little accountability. Platforms evade responsibility by invoking Section 230 and the language of free speech, while in practice exercising enormous editorial power over what the public sees, believes and reacts to.

The result is a fractured information ecosystem where virality matters more than truth, speed outruns verification and public understanding is shaped less by facts than by whoever captures attention first. These dynamics have not remained confined to the internet. They have migrated directly into governance.

President Donald Trump’s political operation was among the first to fully grasp that dominating the emotional terrain of social media could translate into real political power. Winning the feed often meant winning the narrative and sometimes the election. But the success of that strategy has carried consequences. In governing, it incentivised elevating voices more skilled at viral messaging than careful stewardship, turning communication into performance and outrage into policy.

That failure became painfully visible following the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti in Minnesota. Rather than allowing facts to emerge through due process, senior figures such as Kristi Noem and Stephen Miller moved quickly and recklessly to frame the incident in ideological terms that were not supported by the evidence. Their statements blurred facts, exaggerated claims and spread misinformation that inflamed tensions at an already volatile moment. This was not confusion; it was narrative warfare. The goal was to win the moment online, regardless of the truth or the human cost. That approach escalated fear, hardened divisions and undermined public trust not only in law enforcement but in leadership itself.

To the administration’s credit, there now appears to be a recognition that this path was unsustainable. Trump’s decision to re-empower Tom Homan to manage immigration enforcement signals a shift away from performative escalation and toward operational discipline. Likewise, his outreach to Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey suggests an overdue acknowledgment that cooperation, not provocation, is essential when lives are at stake. This course correction matters. Governance cannot be conducted as an extension of social media combat. When leaders govern by anticipating outrage rather than weighing consequences, policy becomes reactive, brittle and dangerous.

Big Tech bears real responsibility here. Its platforms reward immediacy over accuracy and spectacle over restraint, creating incentives that pressure leaders to act first and verify later if at all. Congress, meanwhile, has largely abdicated its regulatory role, lulled into inaction by Silicon Valley’s campaign dollars and lobbying power. The result is a political system increasingly shaped by algorithms that no one elected and few understand.

This issue persists precisely because it does not go viral. Structural problems rarely do. And that invisibility serves the interests of the platforms that profit from dysfunction. Both parties are being pulled into this gravity well. Leaders now ask not, “Is this true?” or “Is this just?” but “How will this play online?” That inversion is corrosive. A republic built on deliberation cannot survive when its incentives reward speed over wisdom and narrative dominance over moral responsibility. The founders would recognize the danger immediately. They feared faction, demagoguery and the manipulation of public passion. What they could not have imagined is technology so powerful that it industrialises those forces at scale.

Honoring their legacy requires rejecting governance by algorithm and demanding leadership grounded in truth, restraint and accountability. Virality is not virtue. And democracy cannot endure if we continue to confuse the two.