Social media use in politics refers to the use of online social media platforms in political processes and activities, including all activities that pertain to the governance of a country or area like political organization, global politics, political corruption, political parties, and political values. The media's primary duty is to present us with information and alert us when events occur. This information may affect what we think and the actions we take. The media can also place pressure on the government to act by signaling a need for intervention or showing that citizens want change.
The Internet has created communication channels that play a key role in circulating news, and social media has the power to change not just the message, but also the dynamics of political corruption, values, and conflict. Use of social media in elections, global conflict, made diplomacy less secretive and more susceptible to public perception. Social media has gained a large share of all information dissemination channels. Though often riddled with bias, Twitter, its successor X and Facebook have the potential to alter civic engagement. Social media sources also affect elections and campaigns, as influencers and trolls spread political views, voting recommendations and fake news. For example, it was reported that Russia had managed to infiltrate American social media sources during the 2016 presidential election and flooded them with fake news. Further studies have found that in the months leading up to the election, fake articles favouring Trump were shared 30 million times, in comparison to Clinton's only 8 million.
Background
Participatory role Social media are allowing anyone with an Internet connection to become a content creator and empowering their users. The idea of "new media populism" encompasses how citizens can include disenfranchised citizens, and allow the public to play an engaged and active role in political discourse. New media can enhance people's access to political information.
Social media platforms and the internet have facilitated the dissemination of political information that counters mainstream media tactics that are often centralized and top-down, including high entry barriers. Writer Howard Rheingold characterized the community created on social networking sites: "The political significance of computer-mediated communication lies in its capacity to challenge the existing political hierarchy's monopoly on powerful communications media, and perhaps thus revitalize citizen-based democracy." Scholar Derrick de Kerckhove described the new technology in media:"In a networked society, the real powershift is from the producer to the consumer, and there is a redistribution of controls and power. On the Web, Karl Marx's dream has been realized: the tools and the means of production are in the hands of the workers."
The role of social media in democratizing media participation, which proponents herald as ushering in a new era of participatory democracy, with all users able to contribute news and comments, may fall short of the ideals. International survey data suggest online media audience members are largely passive consumers, while content creation is dominated by a small number of social users who post comments and write new content. Others argue that the effect of social media will vary from one country to another, with domestic political structures playing a greater role than social media in determining how citizens express opinions about stories of current affairs involving the state.
Most people see social media platforms as censoring objectionable political views.
In June 2020, TikTok users organized a movement to prank a Trump Rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, by buying tickets and not attending so that the rally appeared empty. In early 2025, the U.S. government banned TikTok on federal devices, citing national security concerns over data access by the Chinese government. This sparked debate over free speech and the role of foreign platforms in domestic political communication, especially as TikTok had become a major political tool for Gen Z activists, and activists overall.
Polarization (Affective Polarization) Recent analysis of digital discourse is shifting focus from informational polarization to effective polarization. This describes a state where citizens do not just disagree with the opposing party but actively dislike and distrust people associated with it. Social media platforms contribute to this by prioritizing media mocking or criticizing the opposing side. This media output receives significantly higher engagement overall than content promoting one's own platform or ideas. Through 2025, empirical data suggests that a shared reality among voters is less disrupted by a lack of information and more by the emotional framing of that information. This emotional feedback loop creates hostility within digital environments. Which inherently discourages moderate discourse and rewards what in some cases is radicalism. Effective polarization on social media has linked to a decline in social trust and an increased belief that the other side poses as a threat to the nation. Now that media is shifting away from policy-based debate, and towards radicalized media algorithms, this is altering the emotional temperament of political actors, making partisan compromise increasingly difficult.
As a news source
Social media platforms are increasingly used for political news and information by adults in the United States, especially regarding election time. A study by Pew Research conducted in November 2019 found that one in five US adults get their political news primarily through social media. 18% of adults use social media to get political and election news, 48% of them are from ages 18–29. In small research conducted by McKeever et al. in 2022, they found that 269 out of the 510 United States participants had noted that they got most of their information about gun violence from social media sources.
In addition, Reddit, Twitter, and Facebook are the social media platforms that most users use to acquire news information. Two-thirds of Facebook users (66%) access news on the platform; 59% of Twitter users access news on the platform, and 70% of Reddit users access news on the platform.
According to the Reuters Institute Digital News Report in 2013, the percentage of online news users who blog about news issues ranges from 1–5%. Greater percentages use social media to comment on news, with participation ranging from 8% in Germany to 38% in Brazil. But online news users are most likely to just talk about online news with friends offline or use social media to share stories without creating content.
The rapid propagation of information on social media, spread by word of mouth, can quickly impact the perception and thus reputation of political figures and campaigns in negative ways. For example, the use Twitter by United States congressman Anthony Weiner to send inappropriate messages played a role in his resignation.
Role of political influencers By 2026, the landscape of digital news has shifted towards influencers self-marketing themselves as political actors/figures. This use was particularly adopted by Generation Z. Although traditional platforms such as Facebook or X remain foundational for many, independent creators are gaining mass following and support worldwide. They exercise high levels of influence on personal decision making based on perceived branding rather than institutional credentials. Unlike in traditional news outlets, influencers commonly blend their political beliefs with their personal branding. Often the information covered has significant variability.https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311983.2025.2520063#abstract
Attention economy Social media, especially news spread through social media sites, plays into the idea of the attention economy. Content that attracts more attention will be seen, shared, and disseminated far more than news content that does not gather as much traction from the public. Tim Wu from Columbia Law School coins the attention economy as "the resale of human attention."
A communication platform such as social media is persuasive and often works to change or influence opinions regarding political views because of the abundance of ideas, thoughts, and opinions circulating through the social media platform. It is found that news use leads to political persuasion, therefore the more that people use social media platforms for news sources, the more their political opinions will be affected. Despite that, people are expressing less trust in their government and others due to media use- therefore, social media directly affects trust in media use. It is proven that while reading newspapers, there is an increase in social trust, on the contrary, watching the news on television weakens trust in others and news sources. Social media, or more specifically news media- plays an important role in democratic societies because they allow for participation among citizens. Therefore, when it comes to healthy democratic networks, that news must remain true so it does not affect citizens' levels of trust. A certain amount of trust is necessary for a healthy functioning democratic system.
Younger generations are becoming more involved in politics due to the increased political news posted on various types of social media. Due to the heavier use of social media among younger generations, they are exposed to politics more frequently, and in a way that is integrated into their online social lives. While informing younger generations of political news is important, there are many biases within the realms of social media. In May 2016, former Facebook Trending News curator Benjamin Fearnow revealed his job was to "massage the algorithm," but dismissed any "intentional, outright bias" by either human or automated efforts within the company. Fearnow was fired by Facebook after being caught leaking several internal company debates about Black Lives Matter and presidential candidate Donald Trump.
As a public utility
Social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, and Instagram enable candidates and influencers to reach millions of people instantaneously and rally support. A key debate centers on whether or not social media is a public good based on the premises of non-rival and non-excludable consumption. Social media can be considered an impure public good as it can be excludable given the rights of platforms such as Facebook and Twitter to remove content, deactivate accounts, and filter information based on algorithms and community standards.
"For new media to be potential equalizers, they must be treated as public utilities, recognizing that spectrum abundance (the excuse for privatization) does not prevent monopoly ownership of hardware and software platforms and hence cannot guarantee equal civic, educational, and cultural access to citizens." Similarly, Zeynep Tufekci argues online services are natural monopolies that underwrite the "corporatization of social commons" and the "privatization of our publics."
One argument that displays the nature of social media as impure public good is that the control over content remains in the hands of a few large media networks, such as Google and Facebook. Google and Facebook have the power to shape the environment under personal and commercial goals that promote profitability, as opposed to promoting citizen voice and public deliberation.