By Valiant Cuiellette

This essay will explore social media and its effects on mental health, democracy, and societal interactions. A natural consensus from critics of social media, like University of Pennsylvania professor Jonah Berger, states that social media “isn’t a utility” and isn’t a largely influential item in modern society. The stance that social media is solely a tool for fun and conversing among peers is relatively superficial and tools that provide similar pastimes are bound to be developed with time and technology. Therefore, I say that it is erroneous and borderline insensitive to suggest that it doesn’t have a major effect on people’s wellbeing. Likewise, there are much more impactful, deep, internal and external outcomes caused by the recent surge in social media use. There is no hiding from the fact that social media’s impact on society goes far further than expected, and each user has a unique set of personal experiences as a result of using it. Teenagers across the globe have so many online niches and content available on social media that each play an individual role in their subconscious. These roles range from insecurities, catalysts for depression, the ability to express oneself, and so much more that can be attributed to and enhanced by an online presence. Additionally, social media has been essential in modern democracies to promote candidacies, encourage voting, spreading both misinformation and true information, which have all ultimately determined how society interacts with the democratic process. These developments can’t be undermined and are fairly responsible for the current state of many international nations. Furthermore, the internet and social media has revolutionized interactions between individuals, relationships between peers, and intertwined itself within communities. To be able to measure direct change as a result of social media, we must first identify prior facts and be able to point out differences in points in time. Then, we will examine how the specific factors facilitated change in their respective manners. Finally, we will explore and analyze the vast effects that have taken place in the world and discuss their importance and vital role in the current state of the world. Society in a world before the dawn of social media has to be ripped apart at the seams in order to determine the shifts that have come with time. I argue that social media has a much more expansive effect on individual wellbeing, societal interactions, and democracies than others are willing to admit, and that it’s important to recognize in today’s social climate.

The initial reaction of the public to social media is to explore the capabilities of these apps and websites, how they function, and how they may make life easier. It’s easy to focus on how any recipe can be searched for in seconds, family and friends that live all over the globe can communicate easily, and thoughts can be shared for the whole world to see. Yet, there is much more to these apps than minor conveniences, they induce a wide variety of feelings, and some of those come at the expense of the user’s wellbeing. Aimee Rickman’s Adolescence, Girlhood, and Media Migration uses a study to discuss how young women of different cultural backgrounds manage girlhood through social media and use it as an outlet to express and share their everyday struggles. The results are overwhelmingly obvious in that social media produces an internal imprint on its users that is often not recognized by the public eye. A majority of subjects describe a feeling of security, validation, and informational enrichment when using social media. This is due in part to the lack of safety that is commonly felt among these individuals in the offline world. Each subject has their own variety of reasons that are specific to their life and experiences, yet it leads me to believe that there is comfort in knowing that strangers and others from around the globe can come to a common place, interact, and express themselves, and that can take place wherever one pleases.

It’s undeniable that the aim of social media is to be able to connect to others in this manner, yet it proves to have overachieved and caused internal appeal to the offline world as a whole and everything it entails. These verified experiences should be taken into account by the general public and are essential to realize in order to understand the psychological effects of social media that have been undermined and gone unrecognized. You Are What You Click by Brian Primack provides a medical-based perspective of the mental responses developed as a result of social media usage. Throughout the study, Dr. Primack implies that there is generally a correlation between social media and a poor mental state, yet users’ state of mind isn’t exclusively susceptible to negative responses. Either way, these apps and websites invoking feelings beyond the general ones associated with using social media are backed up by research and scientific testimony. It’s imperative that these conclusions don’t go unnoticed, as when the possible effects of something are overshadowed or pushed aside, it becomes more difficult to diagnose and understand where they come from. Our society is more conscious surrounding mental wellbeing as it ever has been, and to deny that these outcomes exist would come at the detriment of the user. Mental wellbeing in relation to social media has become downplayed, and so has the underlying issue of mistruth that circles every platform. In The Dark Side of Social Media, Bradley Steffens elucidates the misinformation that circles social media, the internet being a platform for hate speech and intense prejudice, cyberbullying among impressionable users, and how social media is centered around keeping the user captivated. Steffens strengthens the claim that the internet is a haven for negativity and that it’s nearly impossible to isolate users from mistruth. This is sound as there aren’t many reliable filters on information, and with social media being a network that is frequented by billions of people on a daily basis, it’s bound to cause conflict and issues among users. This issue isn’t discussed as much as it should be, and preventive measures aren’t helping the issue much, which causes it to fly under the radar in conversations regarding social media, yet there are serious consequences that come with it. Misinformation snowballs on social media since it’s incredibly easy to repost, retweet, and reshare info that users come across, which proves it to be even more dangerous than it should be. The more these falsities are spread, the harsher toll social media takes on society. The deception is especially destructive when it comes to politics as lies that have the chance of snowballing could result in the formation of biases or the misleading of voters, ultimately leading to the democratic process being impacted and/or disrupted accordingly.

Misinformation becomes easily developed within social platforms due to the way they function in spreading content to their audiences, and it has the potential to form destructive biases unbeknownst to many users. Cass R. Sunstein discusses this and analyzes the system that allows for this cycle of misinformation in #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Sunstein reveals the algorithms embedded in social media and how they function in accordance with the user; the algorithms are designed to feed the user with content relevant to their interests, ideals, and opinions. These systems take a multitude of factors into account when generating each user’s feed, yet the algorithms are decisive in whether the user is being shown reliable material. The constant flow of information solely suited to the user’s specific interests causes the development of confirmation bias; a type of bias in which the individual tends to believe and reference information that only lies in accordance with their initial beliefs. Confirmation bias is difficult to eradicate, yet important to address because in order to learn and ensure proper education of others, one must be free and/or aware of cognitive biases. When related to political viewpoints, confirmation bias can be especially worrisome and threatening to society and the democracies of the world. The denial of truth and misinformation when deciding on which politician/law to vote for is dangerous, as these laws, bills, and people in power can drastically affect the lives of others. As a member of society one’s duty is to vote based on one’s beliefs in relation to the betterment of the community. If one’s beliefs are developed by falsities, they are doing themselves and the community a disservice by not ensuring they’re educated on truth. Social media is commonly the root of these biases and the domino effect that follows, and it has the possibility of completely skewing the democratic process for the worse, and it’s essential that the integrity of the voter system isn’t tainted. This serves to show that social media is much more than superficial in relation to our society and that it can have a much more impactful effect on our communities than people recognize.

On the contrary to what some may claim, social media can and does have extensive effects within democracies across the western hemisphere. Christian Vaccari and Augusto Valerani’s Outside the Bubble reviews western democracies and delve into how social media’s information output is applied in relation to voter participation, political involvement, and online engagement. Through their research, the idea that social media increases political equality and boosts political participation among Western democratic nations is supported due to recorded mobilization on the account of strategic spread and advertising. Before the dawn of social media, political information wasn’t as readily accessible in comparison to the way it is now. The boost in available information on candidates, laws and acts being voted on, voting registration, voting dates and locations, and many other facets of political involvement was bound to lead to a substantial growth in civic activity. An essay published by Ivypanda claims that “it is hard to believe that social media can influence and lead to [...] increased voter turnout”. Quotes like these demonstrate the blind eye turned by society towards social media’s vast impact on democracy and what it entails. I disagree with the stance taken by the essay, and it’s comfortably disproven by Vaccari and Valerani’s research as well. The contrast provided between the opinions and the facts embellishes my argument in regards to social media’s lack of recognition in being an instrumental piece in modern society. It becomes crucial not to deny the reality of today’s democratic climate in order to understand the way society interacts with the democratic process. In being able to understand that, one is able to effectively adhere to and interpret the different and newer components of the fabric of the nation.

Expanding on the previous work, social media can be found to appear as a stimulating measure for mobilizing citizens and communities across the entire globe as well. For example, the impact can be recognized through the social and political patterns that have been developed in South Korea as a result of the modern boom of social media, as analyzed in Hojeong Lee and Joong-Hwan Oh’s Digital Media, Online Activism, and Social Movements in Korea. In addition to its direct help to spread and share info, social media has been used in Korea specifically to shape a common understanding of recent events that otherwise become undiscussed. If not for social media, the political nature of South Korea wouldn’t have evolved into what it is today. Current South Korean politics, trends, and the social state have been provoked by internet users and are explicit examples of influence. It has resulted in a multitude of movements, events, and political fluctuation came to be with their purpose originating from online content and incentivization. Time Magazine argues that “#MeToo and its iterations have not effected much systemic or societal change in [...] South Korea” in regards to the lack of impact and change of some social movements in Korea. Yet, the authors overlook the interpersonal impact and simple cognitive recognition that result from a spread of information and fail to realize the exponential weight that comes from sharing online. One may say that there isn’t direct action, however, I say that users and citizens have interacted with the information and movements, then revolutionized it as a stimulant for change, which should be recognized and validated regardless. In a developing democracy such as South Korea’s, it becomes increasingly important to recognize how people use social media to make healthy strides toward a more developed political state. These apps and websites are helping shift entire nations into finding a political identity, which is why undermining the positive and broad potential of social media can prevent this revolutionary medium from becoming promulgated.

Thus far, my argument has aimed to debunk and disagree with the commonly naive sentiment towards social media’s proclaimed lack of influence. Through ignorance, others have decisively undervalued the societal impression that social media has delivered upon its users and more. I contend that this ignorance is problematic as there are imprints seen throughout the world and its people, and the blind eyes turned toward said imprints can be perilous if continuously present. The diverse effects of social media range from mental and cognitive instability, social implications that include the online development of fabrications and biases, and the manner in which current democracies have transformed. A shortage in recognition of these ideas can result in the spread of doubt regarding the reality of interpersonal and social effects, which is important to eradicate for the benefit of those unaware. These acknowledgements are supported by numerous studies, observations, and reliable judgment that all aid in dismantling the consensus of social media’s skeptics. A question that can be drawn from these clashing claims goes as follows; are the given impacts on society due to social media beneficial or detrimental? It’s natural to point to the enrichment that it provides, yet there are also less constructive results that have come with the modern increase in social media usage. In wondering this, all tangible impacts must be evaluated to conclude the context of their expansion. Similar to my claim, there must be comparison within a time frame and all factors affected must be taken into consideration. Determining this dilemma will provide insight to whether it’s fair or not to criticize social media and how it has functioned in society.