Social media is one of society’s primary ways to network. Liking stories, swiping up, sending Instagram DMs and maintaining Snapchat streaks are all such small, quick actions that create a sense of connectivity across the world. But when it comes to politicians, how linked do we really want or need to be with them? We’ve built a culture where politicians feel less like representatives and more like characters in a show we’re emotionally invested in, and that level of connection isn’t just unnecessary, it’s unhealthy for democracy.
Before social media, President John F. Kennedy was the first president to be seen on live television, which people often argue helped him win the presidency. During the presidential debates, Kennedy appeared composed while his opponent, Richard Nixon, appeared nervous and sweaty. This awareness of public perception shapes how politicians approach campaigning and public interactions.
Going back to the origins of social media sites, the creation of earlier social media networks arose in the late 20th century, such as Friendster in 2001 and Myspace in 2003. By 2006, Myspace became the most visited website on the planet after users were granted the ability to add music to their profiles. Sound familiar?
Facebook, which surpassed Myspace in 2008 despite launching in 2004, now has roughly 1.7 billion users. Twitter, now X, infamous for its internet arguments and celebrity drama, was founded in 2006 and by 2020, 22% of US adults were X users. Instagram, founded in 2010, has over 1 billion users across the world. Fifty-three percent of US adults claim that they sometimes get news from social media over the last few years.
The rise of social media allowed marketing professionals unprecedented access to consumer demographics and buying habits. They are no longer limited to magazines, commercials, radio station ads or billboards, but could access people through a device literally in the palm of the consumers’ hand. This shift to digital media transformed how politicians campaign.
Former President Barack Obama was the first US president to utilize social media in his campaign; he was active on platforms such as Facebook, Myspace and Youtube. He went live on Facebook from the Oval Office, the first to answer citizens’ questions on Youtube, and the first to use a Snapchat filter. Obama was the first to have @POTUS on X.
Before this, political campaigns were reliant on television ads, newspaper coverages, door-to-door canvassing and radio station commercials. Now, politicians can reach millions of people before television airs. This kind of access is influential and polarizing. It gives politicians a never-before-seen opportunity to make political participation feel more immediate, with direct access to voters and the ability to respond quickly and mobilize supporters. But it also spreads misinformation, fuels political outrage, creates political echo chambers and reinforces confirmation biases within citizens due to a lack of fact-checking systems online. The algorithm keeps track of what users regularly interact with, pushing right- or left-winged content, making it difficult to see opposing views.
One of the most prominent and social media–active politicians is current President Donald J. Trump. Taking a glimpse at his Instagram or X history, it lacks the professionalism of a person who is in charge of the country’s major decisions. During the first week of Black History Month, he shared an AI video depicting Former President Barack Obama and former first lady, Michelle Obama, as primates in a jungle. Former Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the clip stating that it came from an “internet meme” that included Trump as “king of the jungle” and Democrats shown as “characters from the Lion King.” Trump’s clip did not include the details Leavitt claimed, though it did depict Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and New York Mayor Zoharn Mamdani as animals as well.
Depicting Black people as primates or animals has historically been used to dehumanize Black people and to justify slavery and segregation. When asked to comment by reporters, Trump continued to defend this post, claiming, “I didn’t make a mistake.”
On the positive side of social media usage, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani took the United States by storm via social media platforms like Instagram and Tiktok. During his campaign, Mamdani built a high engagement online.
Straying from the typical Democratic campaign strategies, he engaged directly with his opponents and highlighted leftist policies. Mamdani continued interacting with New York City–based influencers, appearing on Gaydar with Anania, and other popular accounts like Subway Takes and Pop Crave. Zohran Mamdani’s digital presence felt authentic and perceptive; his unapologetic stance on leftist policies resonated with young New York voters and voters all over the US. In an interview with The Washington Post, he stated that in the past, voters relied on mayoral election news via mail or radio, but his team “chose from the very beginning to not only espouse the politics that speaks directly to New Yorkers’ lives, but also to communicate that politics directly to New Yorkers.”
While Mamdani’s social media presence may have been a positive one that assisted in his winning the mayoral election in 2025, the negatives of social media do not go unnoticed — offensive AI videos released by the president and content that only results in further polarization without a willingness to confront confirmation bias. The algorithm of social media pushes content that viewers show alignment or likeness with, enabling them to delve further into political echo chambers of their own opinions.
Social media is one of Gen Z’s favorite ways of connecting with one another, but it is no place for politicians to spread misinformation or depict their opponents in a negative light. An active presence on social media allows politicians to reach their audiences at an unforeseen rate. Social media allows a person to cherry-pick the most presentable parts of themselves to put on display, and with that in mind, I argue that politicians’ use of social media as a campaign strategy is harmful to democracy by increasing bias and fueling political deliberations through social media engagement rather than informed decision-making.
