In the aftermath of Donald Trump’s shock victory in 2016, a common explanation for why Democrats didn’t see it coming was that they succumbed to the echo chambers of social media. The fact that many digital platforms, such as Twitter (now X), tended to be controlled by liberals lulled Democrats into a false sense of security. This, the explanation went, lulled them into a false sense of security, leading to insensitive behavior that alienated some voters. Hillary Clinton’s insult of Trump supporters as “deplorables” was often cited as a classic example.
The risk of echo chambers is even greater in this election because the internet has become increasingly subject to the whims of timeline algorithms, but now Trump and the broader political right are, in internet parlance, “too online.”
The rise of the right, as seen in recent elections in many countries, especially in Europe, has paralleled (and driven) by a significant rise in right-wing influence online. As documented in many academic studies of social media and politics, it is the right that dominates platforms such as YouTube, X, and the instant messaging platform Telegram. On many of these platforms, the conversation has shifted increasingly towards right-wing themes and positions, and right-wing messages tend to circulate more widely.
This social media hegemony, years in the making and cemented by Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, is currently breeding the same kind of delusional and complacent right-wing sentiment that has proven so harmful to progressives in the past.
Consider how vice presidential candidate JD Vance brazenly doubled down on his comments about “childless cat women” in 2021, or the widely mocked (and dangerous) online prank about Haitian immigrants eating cats and dogs, which apparently made its way from Facebook to the Republican candidate’s lips within days. Or Musk’s creepy denunciation of Taylor Swift after the pop singer endorsed Kamala Harris and offered to “have her babies.” Such extreme messaging caters to MAGA (Make America Great Again) true believers, but at the cost of potentially alienating a large portion of the centrist voting age demographic in the election.
As political scientists have long observed, rank-and-file members of political parties are more ideologically extreme than their voters. When leaders are caught up in their extremist core, they can easily reduce their target voters’ opinions to unrealistic estimates. This is all too likely when immersed in 24/7 social media, with its instant reactions and the pseudo-democracy of echo-chamber referendums.
Our obsession with social media and its popularity polls can also lead to unwise politician choices. J.D. Vance was tapped by Trump as his running mate, backed by the cheers of Silicon Valley and a frenzy of social media followers. But a recent USA Today poll found that only 36% of voters view Vance favorably, compared with 48% for his opponent, Tim Walz. Trump himself has been criticized by his allies for his closeness to internet personality Laura Loomer, a self-described “white voice” who has built a successful career by pandering to the digital cesspit of the far-right.
Donald Trump rambles on and lies repeatedly in interview with Elon Musk – VIDEO
A key factor in this radicalization spiral was Musk’s transformation of liberal Twitter into the reactionary X. The $44 billion acquisition made no economic sense, but it seems to have made a lot of sense politically. Taking control of a platform that is widely recognized as a kind of “social media of record” – the official forum of the Internet – capable of shaping the news agenda and public opinion offered an opportunity to interfere in shaping public opinion. And this is exactly what Musk did in three ways.
First, he has unashamedly given himself vast algorithmic power that reportedly amplifies his messages by a factor of 1,000. He has used this massive amplification power to converse with and amplify far-right extremist accounts, spread fake news, and publish AI-generated imagery (such as a photo of Kamala Harris in communist garb).
Second, by reactivating tens of thousands of accounts, including Nazi and anti-Semitic accounts, that had been suspended or banned for violating community guidelines, Musk incited liberal and left-leaning users to leave the platform in disgust, effectively shifting the balance of the conversation to the right.
Third, there is the impact of his “blue check” plan, which has fundamentally changed the dynamics of participation on the platform: the top replies to any conversation now seem to be from blue checkers, who are overwhelmingly right-wing, in large part because progressive users have boycotted the service out of hostility toward Musk.
Musk’s “Twitter coup” has provided a new home for those who had fled to Maga platforms like Truth Social and Parler, but in doing so it has also contributed to the creation of macro reactionary echo chambers that feed right-wing confirmation bias and complacency.
After all, the reason right-wing politicians and their billionaire allies pour so much energy and resources into social media is because these platforms can influence people’s opinions in a more organic way than traditional forms of political communication. The irony here is that in using their money and power to redirect the discourse, the right may have unintentionally damaged its own prospects.