In theory, social media seems like the democratic dream. Think about it. A seemingly infinite (digital) space where people from different countries and continents can come together, share ideas, and forge a better, more inclusive society that benefits everyone. A space that can fit in our pocket. But as many of us with social media have experienced, that dream for a flurry of fruitful and thoughtful discussions on the internet often fails. Thanks to social media algorithms and platform limitations, complex topics—that could benefit from democratic discussions—are watered down into overly simplistic and superficial claims. Their nuance that could create more informed and engaged communities online is lost.
This loss can be attributed to a variety of factors, one of which is platform limitations. With a free X account, you can write a text-based post up to 280 characters. If you’re recording a video within TikTok, you can make a video up to 10 minutes long (Metricool). Though YouTube videos can be quite long, they depend on thumbnails and short video titles to capture their audiences in the first place. Content creators must take advantage of these limitations in order to succeed on these platforms.
Content Creators: Survival of the Most Viral
More than anything, social media content creators’ primary goal is to capture your attention, not reliably provide you accurate and detailed information about a topic, nor its multiple nuanced perspectives. They’re competing with your algorithm, which, as Micah Smith discusses in “Social Media Algorithms: What Pushes All Your Buttons?”, ultimately controls what you see online.
“More than anything, social media content creators’ primary goal is to capture your attention, not reliably provide you accurate and detailed information about a topic, nor its multiple nuanced perspectives.”
In one particular study, researchers looked at rhetorical methods TikTok creators used to attract viewers (Rowe et al.). For this specific example, creators were on #TeacherTok—a subcommunity of TikTokers focused on teaching issues. The creators the researchers studied were proponents for a particular type of reading curriculum. Using short and punchy methods like rhetorical questions and “I used to . . . now I . . . ” statements, creators tried to catch viewers’ attention. The researchers argued that using these methods within TikTok’s inherently shorter clips and videos showed creators’ reliance on “dramatic, direct, and shock value” for attention (Rowe et al. 13). This condensation of issues may benefit viewership, but not the pursuit of truth or the exploration of nuance that is so integral to democratic discussions and political discourse.
Social Media Consumers: Should You Stay or Should You Go?
Social Media is constant. It doesn’t take a day off. Every moment, you can refresh your timeline to find a completely new set of content to scroll through. For the human mind, that’s a lot to process, especially as social media becomes more and more of a source for news and (mis)information. Indeed, people are finding it harder to take the information and news found on social media seriously as articles become more biased, AI-generated content spreads, and people share plain misinformation.
For some, this overload of information along with the concurring prevalence of misinformation fuels skepticism with social media news’ credibility. (Deng and Ahmed). Researchers found a negative relationship between this skepticism and online political participation (Deng and Ahmed). The more people distrust social media news, the more they neglect engaging in political discourse online. Though a healthy amount of skepticism does show critical thinking in terms of news consumption, completely disregarding all information found online shows a decline in democracy. Social media—this thing that provides access to so much information, opinions, and perspectives—has the potential to realize democracy. By allowing misinformation to fuel intense and polarizing discussions and turn away others who are more skeptical, we are allowing these online spaces to be a wasteland for anger and resentment.
“Though a healthy amount of skepticism does show critical thinking in terms of news consumption, completely disregarding all information found online shows a decline in democracy.”
If we want social media to be a place for productive political discourse, maybe a good first step is to offer online sources for identifying misinformation. Regardless of personal political standings, content creators could link educational posts to their bios or pin them to their profiles. Maybe, like most other issues, strengthening community despite infrastructure limitations can be a potential solution?
What Now . . . ?
Between social media’s tendency to oversimplify or inaccurately represent news and information alongside our potentially problematic skepticism, how can we more healthily engage in fruitful political and democratic discussions online? Is there a way to use social media’s inherent characteristics to our advantage? How can we promote media consumption practices that can help others identify misinformation?
Please check in each week to see what we find!
Works Cited
Deng, Ruolan, and Saifuddin Ahmed. “Between trust and skepticism: unpacking the impact of social media skepticism on online political participation.” Behavior & Information Technology, vol. 44, no. 19, 2025, pp. 4765–4779, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2025.2488906.
Rowe, Lindsey W., et al. “The Science of Reading on Social Media: Tiktok Content Creators’ Discourse Patterns and Bodies of Knowledge.” Reading Research Quarterly, vol. 60, no. 4, Aug. 2025, pp. 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.70057.
Home > Democracy in the Comments > You and Social Media: A Relationship Glow Up
You and Social Media: A Relationship Glow Up
You and Social Media: A Relationship Glow Up
By Jadyn Nolen
Published 26 June 2026
In theory, social media seems like the democratic dream. Think about it. A seemingly infinite (digital) space where people from different countries and continents can come together, share ideas, and forge a better, more inclusive society that benefits everyone. A space that can fit in our pocket. But as many of us with social media have experienced, that dream for a flurry of fruitful and thoughtful discussions on the internet often fails. Thanks to social media algorithms and platform limitations, complex topics—that could benefit from democratic discussions—are watered down into overly simplistic and superficial claims. Their nuance that could create more informed and engaged communities online is lost.
This loss can be attributed to a variety of factors, one of which is platform limitations. With a free X account, you can write a text-based post up to 280 characters. If you’re recording a video within TikTok, you can make a video up to 10 minutes long (Metricool). Though YouTube videos can be quite long, they depend on thumbnails and short video titles to capture their audiences in the first place. Content creators must take advantage of these limitations in order to succeed on these platforms.
Content Creators: Survival of the Most Viral
More than anything, social media content creators’ primary goal is to capture your attention, not reliably provide you accurate and detailed information about a topic, nor its multiple nuanced perspectives. They’re competing with your algorithm, which, as Micah Smith discusses in “Social Media Algorithms: What Pushes All Your Buttons?”, ultimately controls what you see online.
In one particular study, researchers looked at rhetorical methods TikTok creators used to attract viewers (Rowe et al.). For this specific example, creators were on #TeacherTok—a subcommunity of TikTokers focused on teaching issues. The creators the researchers studied were proponents for a particular type of reading curriculum. Using short and punchy methods like rhetorical questions and “I used to . . . now I . . . ” statements, creators tried to catch viewers’ attention. The researchers argued that using these methods within TikTok’s inherently shorter clips and videos showed creators’ reliance on “dramatic, direct, and shock value” for attention (Rowe et al. 13). This condensation of issues may benefit viewership, but not the pursuit of truth or the exploration of nuance that is so integral to democratic discussions and political discourse.
Social Media Consumers: Should You Stay or Should You Go?
Social Media is constant. It doesn’t take a day off. Every moment, you can refresh your timeline to find a completely new set of content to scroll through. For the human mind, that’s a lot to process, especially as social media becomes more and more of a source for news and (mis)information. Indeed, people are finding it harder to take the information and news found on social media seriously as articles become more biased, AI-generated content spreads, and people share plain misinformation.
For some, this overload of information along with the concurring prevalence of misinformation fuels skepticism with social media news’ credibility. (Deng and Ahmed). Researchers found a negative relationship between this skepticism and online political participation (Deng and Ahmed). The more people distrust social media news, the more they neglect engaging in political discourse online. Though a healthy amount of skepticism does show critical thinking in terms of news consumption, completely disregarding all information found online shows a decline in democracy. Social media—this thing that provides access to so much information, opinions, and perspectives—has the potential to realize democracy. By allowing misinformation to fuel intense and polarizing discussions and turn away others who are more skeptical, we are allowing these online spaces to be a wasteland for anger and resentment.
If we want social media to be a place for productive political discourse, maybe a good first step is to offer online sources for identifying misinformation. Regardless of personal political standings, content creators could link educational posts to their bios or pin them to their profiles. Maybe, like most other issues, strengthening community despite infrastructure limitations can be a potential solution?
What Now . . . ?
Between social media’s tendency to oversimplify or inaccurately represent news and information alongside our potentially problematic skepticism, how can we more healthily engage in fruitful political and democratic discussions online? Is there a way to use social media’s inherent characteristics to our advantage? How can we promote media consumption practices that can help others identify misinformation?
Please check in each week to see what we find!
Works Cited
Deng, Ruolan, and Saifuddin Ahmed. “Between trust and skepticism: unpacking the impact of social media skepticism on online political participation.” Behavior & Information Technology, vol. 44, no. 19, 2025, pp. 4765–4779, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2025.2488906.
“How Long Can TikTok Videos Be? 2025 Limits and Guidelines.” Metricool, 3 Oct. 2025, metricool.com/tiktok-video-length/.
Rowe, Lindsey W., et al. “The Science of Reading on Social Media: Tiktok Content Creators’ Discourse Patterns and Bodies of Knowledge.” Reading Research Quarterly, vol. 60, no. 4, Aug. 2025, pp. 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.70057.
Jadyn Nolen