“Elections have consequences.” That quote was first said by former President Barack Obama shortly after his historic election win in 2008, only to be repeated by supporters of President Donald Trump last November following his even more historic political comeback.
History will tell how consequential Trump’s return to the White House will be, but in the short term at least, it can already be seen via the commentary on social media. The country remains deeply divided and that is all too apparent on the various online platforms, which continue to be echo chambers for the like-minded.
However, the opinions have largely been reversed – even as the finger-pointing continues.
“The problem with social media users is that they tend to engage primarily with accounts that share their views, reinforcing their own perspectives or agendas,” warned Professor Justin Miller, associate professor of practice in the School of Cyber Studies at the University of Tulsa.
Miller pointed to X’s algorithms, which largely prioritize content that is aligned with a user’s past behavior and interactions, creating a feedback loop. That in turn “solidifies existing beliefs and limits exposure to diverse perspectives,” he added.
“While social media occasionally introduces differing viewpoints, deeply held beliefs often remain unchanged, particularly in the polarized and echo-chamber-prone environment of online platforms,” said Miller. “This dynamic reinforces biases and rarely shifts political allegiances, leaving many unaware of their role in a larger ideological game.”
Big Tech Is Getting Inline
Throughout the run-up to the 2024 election, Trump steadily gained the support of “Big Tech,” and that has only increased since the election. That is unlikely to lower the volume in the online bubble, and could likely make it worse.
“With tech executives appearing to cater to Trump, it seems possible that these companies may shift their overall leanings to the right,” explained Jake Telkamp, assistant professor at the Hull College of Business at Augusta University.
Telkamp said there is currently no indication that any of the social media platforms will become less like echo chambers.
“Because of our confirmation and disconfirmation biases – our tendency to seek out information that supports our beliefs, and the extra scrutiny we place on opposing evidence and reasoning – these algorithms are designed to tap into these processes and feed us content that engages us,” suggested Telkamp. “Whether that is in the form of reinforcing our prior beliefs with like-minded ‘ammunition,’ or anger and disgust projected toward those on the other side.”
The platforms largely remain digital enclaves, where individuals primarily connect with those who reinforce their viewpoints. That can result from algorithmic design, user behavior, platform policies, and societal influences.
“Central to this phenomenon are recommendation systems. Algorithms, designed to maximize engagement, prioritize content that aligns with users’ past interactions, thus creating ‘filter bubbles’ that shield them from dissenting perspectives and foster ideological homogeneity,” added Craig Barkacs, professor of business law and ethics in the MBA programs at the Knauss School of Business at the University of San Diego.
“User behavior amplifies this effect,” said Barkacs. “Selective exposure and confirmation bias lead individuals to seek information validating their pre-existing beliefs, ignoring contradictory evidence. This self-perpetuating cycle converts online spaces into echo chambers of affirmation, rather than forums for diverse discourse.”
Barkacs noted that external factors including media literacy and promoting diverse voices are pivotal in disrupting echo chambers. That could amplify underrepresented voices, introducing nuance into public discourse, and countering algorithm-driven insularity.
Yet, it may not be enough to bridge the divide.
“While echo chambers may never be fully eradicated, enhancing algorithmic transparency, diversifying content exposure, and cultivating critical thinking are pathways to a more inclusive digital landscape,” Barkacs continued. “The challenge extends beyond technology to society: fostering online spaces that encourage deliberative democracy over ideological entrenchment.”
Promises Kept?
In just the first 10 days since Trump took office, his supporters were quick to tout the executive orders that were signed, and the efforts to round up undocumented immigrants.
“Promises kept,” has been a recurring theme.
Of course, Trump’s critics have been equally vocal on social media, asking almost daily why the war in Ukraine hasn’t ended, and why egg prices remain high.
Telkamp said this is partly due to “confirmation bias,” where supporters can point to the campaign promises that have been kept while ignoring the other promises that haven’t been fulfilled. The bias runs both ways, as critics won’t acknowledge the promises kept, especially not the ones that they may disagree with.
This is hardly new to the world of politics, but social media now allows the average citizen to express support or frustration in an all-too-public forum in real-time.
“Unfortunately, the standard of selectively blaming the other party when things go wrong and praising our candidate when things go right will probably continue,” said Telkamp. “My hope is that people – and politicians – start to look past the dichotomy of the two-party system and the blame game, and treat complex issues as they are, complex and multifaceted.”
As a result, the deep-seated partisanship continues to define the American political landscape.
“The ideological divide has solidified into entrenched factions, each steadfast in its convictions. It has created an environment where genuine ideological engagement is often replaced by reflexive affirmation of one’s own political stance,” said Barkacs.
Unfortunately, this is not just about people disagreeing publicly and passionately.
“Policy debates are shaped by this dynamic,” added Barkacs. “Supporters of the previous administration frame its policies as prudent and necessary, arguing that any reversal would be detrimental. Conversely, critics highlight perceived missteps, advocating for reform and redirection. This dialectical process, while sometimes adversarial, is fundamental to democratic governance.”
The Guardrails Are Gone
Everything just stated was largely true – albeit perhaps with the roles of the main actors reversed – four years ago. What is different now is that Elon Musk controls X, allowing his free speech absolutism to take hold while maintaining close ties to the current administration. More recently, Facebook removed its third-party fact-checkers.
That could present “opportunities” for those who may wish to spread misinformation and even disinformation.
“X and other social media platforms can also be breeding grounds for false or misleading information, often disguised as legitimate news,” said Miller. “When users struggle to discern credible sources, they become more susceptible to influence and manipulation, fostering the spread and reinforcement of misinformation with an easy digital swipe. The rapid dissemination of content on platforms like X amplifies these false narratives, further exacerbating the problem.”
As politicians continue to leverage their influence within social media, it may further entrench ideological divisions, and allow misleading posts to gain traction.
“Those who strongly identify with one side are often less inclined to seek alternative perspectives or critically evaluate their beliefs,” warned Miller. “As a result, social media becomes a powerful tool for reinforcing political narratives, often prioritizing influence over truth – there’s a reason they’re called ‘social media influencers.'”
