Column by J1 Reporter Lilly Prenger

When James Talarico, a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in the Texas midterm elections, took a week off campaigning because he had influenza, a major sect of the social media app X concluded that his absence was instead due to being locked in an Ohio mental hospital. Such is the world where politics and social media meet.

Politicians have a long history of meeting the public where they’re at: from radio to television, from flyers to yard signs, and now to social media. During election seasons, our mailboxes, doorsteps, and screens are flooded with reasons why we should reconsider who we’re voting for and why so-and-so’s opponent is too morally corrupt to hold our support. With new generations of Americans spending more and more time on apps like Instagram, TikTok, and X, political campaigns have changed their methods to better reach young voters directly through their digital algorithms. In addition, social media has altered the nature of statements politicians make and the quality of the information citizens use to inform political decisions.

Talarico’s predicament sourced from posts by right-wing influencers on the social media app X, claiming that his campaign was lying about the reasons for his absence, and hypothesizing Talarico’s true whereabouts. Included in the online frenzy was X’s owner and multi-billionaire Elon Musk, posting that “The Talarico campaign is hiding something big that voters ought to know about” in agreement with another post claiming the politician had been checked into a mental hospital in Ohio. Musk’s platform of millions of followers provided mass attention and a wider audience to the conspiracy theories and left voters questioning whether or not Talarico was being truthful. Of course, the conspiracy theories were later debunked with the help of security camera footage displaying Talarico at his home during the time period in question.

Despite the claims being completely false, the entire incident is a perfect example of the way social media has turned politics into a battle of unfounded facts and ‘rage-bait’, and how this cycle is severely damaging to American political opinion.

Social media apps are designed to reward content based on user engagement. The more prior interaction a post has, the more likely the app is to push that same post into the algorithms of new users. In order for politicians to take advantage of this system, they need to create content that gets high levels of public engagement, ultimately motivating them to make outrageous statements and create inflammatory posts all for the sake of getting a greater reaction from the public. This is how the cycle of political internet ‘rage-bait’ is formed – posts become less about sharing facts and arguing your perspective and more about how angry you can make your opponents.

With new generations joining social media at increasingly younger ages, teenagers and young adults are being exposed to inflammatory political content more and more frequently. Feeding content that may be false or severely skewed to younger citizens who may not be previously informed enough to question it can create beliefs and opinions founded on literally nothing.

In addition, the pressure social media places on teens to develop a ‘personal brand’ or curated online identity can push them to pick a political side primarily based off of aesthetics or how they believe said opinion will be seen by others rather than actual personal beliefs. A 16-year-old girl may not usually post a controversial political statement, but put that same statement on a perfectly formatted Canva template complete with a trending audio and a Pinterest graphic and you’ve got a whole friend groups’ worth of reposts. Forget about the quality of the statement itself – it’s cute, and it matches the both aesthetic and advocacy-loving identity she’s crafted for herself.

Not to mention the rise of influencers – if the woman with millions of followers and perfect teeth on my screen is telling me how some politician or other has to be cancelled because of the controversial outfit they wore at a conference, who am I to disagree? So what if the evidence she cited was an AI-generated image, if there are millions of users rallying with her there must be some validity to the argument.

Smear campaigns, rumors, and ‘rage-bait’ in politics existed long before the invention of TikTok and Instagram. However, the combination of social media and politics can make false information and skewed, inflammatory statements a lot more appealing to the teenager. This election season, be wary of any content that immediately makes you want to attack someone of the opposite political party and stay informed (your FYP doesn’t count). Political participation can be one of our most valuable assets to improve the world around us – but only if we don’t let it be dictated by screens.