The Political Pollution of Social Media

A few months before a major election, you will begin to see commercials for politicians all reassuring you that your vote is safe if in their hands. Some use their 30 seconds of screen time to demolish the reputation of competitors. Some show their families and an overly happy community working toward a common goal. Some fill their time with graphs and statistics, promising to make big change as soon as they are elected. Regardless of the content, you could easily see 10 commercials for the same candidate within a few hours. Lucky for us, it doesn’t stop there. Your twitter feed, Instagram story ads, and website pop-ups could all be polluted with ads, promises, videos, and surveys from hopeful politicians for months.

In the midst of this flood of propaganda, a major social class obstacle is brought to light. Candidates with billions in their pockets could easily afford to make sure you see their face constantly to the point where you become less aware that other candidates are even running for the position. Meanwhile, other candidates with less money that are an equally good choice simply can’t compete or get their message far past local communities. As much as social media can be utilized as a tool, it seems to be weaponized as a barrier far more often.

I’d like to clarify that the social class obstacle within the realm of politics is far from new. There will always be people running who can not afford the campaigning, costs of rallies, flyers, tee-shirts, newsletters, etc. However, it is difficult to disregard the effect that social media has in amplifying these abilities. Instead of knocking on doors, candidates now pay for a suggested tweet, one which could be shared to millions in a matter of hours. Instead of a billboard along the highway for local people to see on their daily commute, a candidate could purchase an ad on a site visited by millions a day and exponentially grow awareness about their mission. The price of these ads, commercials, and suggested tweets is quite expensive. The NewYorker reports that over a year before the 2016 election, candidates had already invested over 63 million dollars on marketing on popular sites such as Google and Facebook. Needless to say, the likelihood of an average American becoming a well-known candidate in a modern election is slim to none. The monetary requirements to advertise and market have become so unreachable that only a few names will even touch the ballot.

Now let’s consider if the message being spread to the public is one full of half-truths and even false accusations about competitors. Not only does this have a profound impact on the public perception of said candidate, but it becomes a claim that they cannot combat with the same amount of coverage. The most an individual could do if ads were created with false information against them would be to sue for defamation. We might think that executives who run these platforms would make sure that information with such immense reach and spreading power was fact-checked. However, when asked about fact-checking on political statements, CEO of Facebook, Mark Zucherberg made the vague statement that “If you were to run an ad that had a lie, that would be bad” without clarifying whether Facebook had any procedures to prohibit such advertising- they do not. Although it is difficult to pinpoint who is to blame for this abuse of social media, it can be better thought of as several contributors (candidates, lawmakers, social media executives) glancing over an issue as it manifests.

At what point does this advantage based on classism cross the line of free expression and become a weaponized tactic, not only removing competition but distorting voters’ field of vision? It is necessary to evaluate what we information we are being faced with daily. Granted, it is of equal importance to notice what, or who, is missing due to this political pollution. By overwhelming our feeds, candidates are intentionally pushing users into a certain way of thinking, and later, voting. Users’ subconscious bias formed by seeing repeated messages for months leads them to thinking there are fewer options available that what really exists.

This issue of political pollution is relatively new due to advancing technology and will only grow and become more twisted if not addressed immediately. Looking at the big picture, we are losing out on the opportunity to seek out and discover new candidates with different viewpoints and ideas if the modern prerequisite to running for office is having millions in your pocket. From an individual standpoint, the action we can take now involves researching each candidate before going to vote. This does not completely solve the problem nor does it address the bias in articles about each candidate. However, it is a small step toward increased awareness of who is running and why, regardless of their financial well-being.