The early Information Revolution was built on a utopian promise: a digital town square that would democratize communication, bridge divides, and amplify marginalized voices. Instead, our digital environment has become one of the greatest accelerants of democratic decline.

Many different scholarly measures have signaled that democracy is in decline in recent years (Williamson, 2023), and this erosion can be traced in part to the structure and incentives of the modern digital environment and specifically social media. 

Engineered Rage and Psychological Burnout

The democratic threat posed by social media begins with a fundamental restructuring of human psychology toward anger, loneliness and irritability. As people spend more time on their phones and on social media they spend less time doing things that foster real genuine human connection. This "Great Rewiring" of social life trades stable, real-world communities for online networks designed to be addictive but ultimately unsatisfying (Haidt, 2024). Central to this change is the "attention economy," which treats human focus as a commodity to be extracted through biological triggers (Heitmayer, 2025). Because platforms are designed to maximize the time you spend on them to satisfy shareholders, their algorithms prioritize content that triggers the strongest physiological responses: rage and outrage (Doctorow, 2023). This is built into the structure of social media platforms. Research shows that the most viral content is that which elicits anger (Berger & Milkman, 2012) and internal data from Facebook revealed that the platform’s algorithm weighted the "anger" emoji five times as much as a "like" (Merrill & Oremus, 2021). Social media platforms systematically incentivize emotionally charged engagement.

This rage-based structure then in turn has a negative impact on the user’s mental state. There are clear links between social media use and depression, anxiety, and psychological distress (Keles et al., 2020). High levels of social media use are also associated with greater irritability (Perlis et al., 2025) and increased feelings of loneliness (Bonsaksen et al., 2023). This structure of social media is also found to interfere with “emotional regulation and attention” generating a brain response similar to that “seen in addictive behavior” (Satani et al., 2025).

Not only does this state of rage and psychological distress caused by social media have negative effects on the individual, it eventually transforms into a broader, systemic anger directed at the foundations of society. When people are constantly online and always involved in digital conflict and digital burnout which has a clear negative impact on their mental health, they are more likely to feel feelings of anger and loneliness which research shows are strongly associated with declining institutional trust (Langenkamp, 2023). As a consequence, their frustration shifts away from the platforms themselves and toward the institutions that oversee their lives. As these feelings grow, trust in major American institutions has plummeted to historic lows. Only 22% of Americans now say they trust the federal government, 7 in 10 Americans have an unfavorable view of congress, 85% of Americans say “they don’t think elected officials care what people like them think”, and 60% of Americans have at least some trust in information from national news organizations (Deane, 2024). This collective anger with institutions creates a dangerous opening for extreme anti-democratic ideologies, as people who feel discarded by the establishment and institutions look for radical alternatives to target their algorithmic frustration. 

The Billionaire Class and the Radicalization Pipeline

However, this resentment and alienation does not radicalize people in a vacuum, it is actively cultivated by the platforms themselves. Social media platforms are now owned and operated by a concentrated class of tech billionaires whose ideological commitments and profit motives have fundamentally reshaped the information environment. The consolidation of platform ownership represents the second, and possibly more impactful, mechanism by which social media threatens democracy.

The clearest demonstration of this is Elon Musk's 2022 acquisition of Twitter, now rebranded as X. Upon taking control, Musk immediately fired approximately 80% of the platform's staff, substantially reducing the platform’s moderation and safety infrastructure in a  very short period of time (Brewster, 2024). When this happened, hate speech on the platform surged, the use of some racial slurs tripled in the weeks after the takeover (Klepper, 2022), and research by the Center for Countering Digital Hate found large amounts antisemitic content on the platform that had previously gone against its policies which were no longer being enforced (A HOME FOR HATE: How Antisemitism Thrives on X, 2025). At the same time, X's algorithm was reengineered. A 2025 New York Times investigation highlighted that the platform systematically suppressed accounts critical of Musk while amplifying his political allies (Thompson, 2025), and another study showed that X's feed algorithm produced significant right-wing political effects across its user base (Gauthier et al., 2026). The platform is now a political tool for Musk to promote his own beliefs.

The algorithmic systems these major technology platform owners have built or preserved are not just politically biased, they are also engines of radicalization. When platforms optimize for engagement above all else, they do not simply reflect the political views of their users; they actively push those users toward more extreme content over time. This is the radicalization pipeline where ordinary grievances, fed through recommendation algorithms, are gradually escalated into exposure to increasingly extreme ideologies.

Internal Facebook documents, later leaked by whistleblower Frances Haugen, revealed that the company's own researchers had conducted experiments as early as 2019 demonstrating that its algorithm drove users toward radicalization (Zadrozny, 2021). Also on Facebook, there is something that is being called the "superuser supremacy problem" where a small number of extremely partisan accounts, amplified disproportionately by the algorithm, came to dominate the platform's political content ecosystem (Hindman et al., 2022). Social media will always select and promote the most extreme voices.

The endpoint of this pipeline can lead to real-world violence. The perpetrators of the 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, the 2019 Christchurch massacre, and the 2019 El Paso attack were all radicalized through online ecosystems that fed them an escalating diet of replacement theory and eliminationist rhetoric (Evans, 2019; Perrigo, 2019). January 6, 2021 is probably the starkest example of this pipeline threatening democracy. The storming of the U.S. Capitol was not spontaneous, it was organized, incited, and escalated across social media platforms over months. Facebook had flagged the growing threat to the FBI before the attack, meaning the platform was aware its content environment was inciting potential violence and failed to act decisively (Hendrix, 2022). QAnon, the conspiracy theory that empowered much of the crowd that day, had grown entirely through algorithmic amplification on Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, platforms that found its content highly engaging and therefore rewarded its spread (Grossman, 2020). The result was a mob, assembled and radicalized online, that attempted to overturn a democratic election.

Moving Beyond Individual Behavior

Treating this crisis as an individual media-literacy issue or asking people to simply log off ignores the root cause. The problem is systemic, and it demands structural policy solutions:

• Antitrust Enforcement: Currently there is a large concentration of the information environment in the hands of a few companies which is itself a democratic vulnerability (Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee Investigation Reveals Digital Economy Highly Concentrated, Impacted By Monopoly Power, 2020). This allows companies to treat users as captive audiences because there are no viable alternatives to flee to. Under this system companies can freely promote outrage-driven engagement without fear of reduced engagement. Enforcing antitrust laws and breaking up digital monopolies shatters that monoculture. Meaningful competition would force platforms to differentiate rather than simply clone the exact same rage driven playbook. This would create room for spaces that are built for community rather than sustained grievance; at least giving users the option for a more healthy alternative.

• Algorithmic Transparency: The European Union's Digital Services Act, which went into effect in 2024, offers a good template. It requires large platforms to conduct and publish independent audits of their recommendation systems and grants researchers access to platform data to study societal harms (The Digital Services Act | Shaping Europe’s Digital Future, 2026). There is no equivalent federal legislation in the United States, leaving American users without the protections already afforded to Europeans. Mandating transparency would give lawmakers and regulators a better grasp on the information needed to provide the necessary oversight and enforce consumer protection and civil rights laws that we already have for other products while allowing them to create better and more effective regulations in the future.

• Reining in Exploitative Platform Design: Serious regulatory attention must be directed at the incentive logic of the attention economy itself. Senator Josh Hawley's SMART Act and similar proposals have sought to ban certain algorithmically manipulative design features like infinite scroll, autoplay, and engagement-optimizing recommendation systems on the grounds that they are deliberately engineered to override user autonomy (“Sen. Hawley Introduces Legislation to Curb Social Media Addiction,” 2019). While an outright ban may not be necessary or fair, federal policy should at least require platforms to have chronologically ordered, non-amplified feeds as a default setting requiring an opt-in system for deploying addictive behavioral design loops. This would help reduce some of the negative psychological effects and the addictive nature of social media. 

Social media as currently constructed produces an electorate that is exhausted, enraged, and estranged from self-governance. Until the architecture of our digital spaces is aligned with democratic health rather than engagement at all costs, the erosion of democracy will continue. If Democrats want to prove they can effectively protect democracy and rebuild institutional trust, they must stop ceding the fight over Big Tech to right-wing populism and champion a bold, structural regulatory agenda that takes on the Attention Oligarchy directly.

References

A HOME FOR HATE: How Antisemitism Thrives on X. (2025). Center for Countering Digital Hate. https://counterhate.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/A-Home-for-Hate-Report_Final.pdf

Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2012). What Makes Online Content Viral? Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2), 192–205. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.10.0353

Bonsaksen, T., Ruffolo, M., Price, D., Leung, J., Thygesen, H., Lamph, G., Kabelenga, I., & Geirdal, A. Ø. (2023). Associations between social media use and loneliness in a cross-national population: Do motives for social media use matter? Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine, 11(1), 2158089. https://doi.org/10.1080/21642850.2022.2158089

Brewster, T. (2024, January 10). X Fired 80% Of Engineers Working On Trust And Safety, Australian Government Says. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2024/01/10/elon-musk-fired-80-per-cent-of-twitter-x-engineers-working-on-trust-and-safety/

Deane, C. (2024, October 17). Americans’ Deepening Mistrust of Institutions. https://pew.org/40eFLof

Doctorow, C. (2023, January 23). The ‘Enshittification’ of TikTok. Wired. https://www.wired.com/story/tiktok-platforms-cory-doctorow/

Evans, R. (2019, August 4). The El Paso Shooting and the Gamification of Terror. Bellingcat. https://www.bellingcat.com/news/americas/2019/08/04/the-el-paso-shooting-and-the-gamification-of-terror/

Gauthier, G., Hodler, R., Widmer, P., & Zhuravskaya, E. (2026). The political effects of X’s feed algorithm. Nature, 652(8109), 416–423. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10098-2

Grossman, N. (2020, September 1). The Week QAnon Became Everyone’s Problem. Defense One. https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2020/08/week-qanon-became-everyones-problem/168124/

Haidt, J. (2024). The anxious generation: How the great rewiring of childhood is causing an epidemic of mental illness. Penguin Press.

Heitmayer, M. (2025). The Second Wave of Attention Economics. Attention as a Universal Symbolic Currency on Social Media and beyond. Interacting with Computers, 37(1), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwae035

Hendrix, J. (2022, May 5). Report Reveals Facebook Provided Warning to FBI Before January 6. https://www.techpolicy.press/report-reveals-facebook-provided-warning-to-fbi-before-january-6/

Hindman, M., Lubin, N., & Davis, T. (2022, February 10). Facebook Has a Superuser-Supremacy Problem. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/02/facebook-hate-speech-misinformation-superusers/621617/

Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee Investigation Reveals Digital Economy Highly Concentrated, Impacted By Monopoly Power. (2020, October 6). http://democrats-judiciary.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/judiciary-antitrust-subcommittee-investigation-reveals-digital-economy-highly-concentrated-impacted-by-monopoly-power

Keles, B., McCrae, N., & Grealish, A. (2020). A systematic review: The influence of social media on depression, anxiety and psychological distress in adolescents. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 25(1), 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2019.1590851

Klepper, D. (2022, November 11). Report: Tweets with racial slurs soar since Musk takeover. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/elon-musk-technology-business-government-and-politics-2907d382db132cfd7446152b9309992c

Langenkamp, A. (2023). The Influence of Loneliness on Perceived Connectedness and Trust Beliefs – Longitudinal Evidence from the Netherlands. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 40(7), 2298–2322. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075221144716

Merrill, J. B., & Oremus, W. (2021, October 26). Five points for anger, one for a ‘like’: How Facebook’s formula fostered rage and misinformation. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/26/facebook-angry-emoji-algorithm/

Perlis, R. H., Uslu, A., Schulman, J., Gunning, F. M., Santillana, M., Baum, M. A., Druckman, J. N., Ognyanova, K., & Lazer, D. (2025). Irritability and Social Media Use in US Adults. JAMA Network Open, 8(1), e2452807. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.52807

Perrigo, B. (2019, March 20). The New Zealand Attack Exposed How White Supremacy Has Long Flourished Online. TIME. https://time.com/5554783/white-supremacy-online-christchurch/

Satani, A., Satani, K. K., Barodia, P., & Joshi, H. (2025). Modern Day High: The Neurocognitive Impact of Social Media Usage. Cureus. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.87496

Sen. Hawley Introduces Legislation to Curb Social Media Addiction. (2019, July 30). Josh Hawley. https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sen-hawley-introduces-legislation-curb-social-media-addiction/

The Digital Services Act | Shaping Europe’s digital future. (2026, March 23). https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/digital-services-act

Thompson, S. A. (2025, April 23). They Criticized Musk on X. Then Their Reach Collapsed. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/04/23/business/elon-musk-x-suppression-laura-loomer.html

Williamson, V. (2023, October 17). Understanding democratic decline in the United States. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/understanding-democratic-decline-in-the-united-states/

Zadrozny, B. (2021, October 26). “Carol’s Journey”: What Facebook knew about how it radicalized users. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/facebook-knew-radicalized-users-rcna3581