The Role of Social Media in Corporate Practices and Public Perception

The “Power of the people” has turned into a voice sold to the highest bidder.  

Social media has become a central space for public discourse, influencing how information spreads and how citizens engage with political and corporate issues. Through corporate platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, etc. users have developed a repeated algorithm that is used to shape their perceptions on politics, opinions, and consumerism. As users repeatedly encounter the same political cues, brand messages, and cultural symbols online, they come to interpret them as “truths,” shaping their views.  

As these platforms relate to political behavior and consumer choices, it becomes important to consider the corporate structures that shape how they operate. The purpose paradigm model, “a model of corporate governance that emphasizes a corporation’s broader mission, not just for profit,” (Claassen 2025).  Social media platforms maximize their profit through advertising and optimizing user engagement, contributing to what a user sees versus what they don’t see. Media companies compute what keeps users online longer, even if the content contributes to misinformation, disinformation, or political polarization.  

Social media apps need to have a public purpose by making content more transparent and providing accredited information, instead of propaganda to “hold these institutions accountable for the exercise of their powers,” (Aytac 12).  As platforms adopt governance structures that shape digital participation, users question not only how content is moderated but who is empowered to make these decisions and why. 

Corporations' power to manage social media, advertising, propaganda, etc. raises users' concerns of censorship and autonomy. Ohio University Fox Associate Professor of Marketing Jacob Hiler said these concerns extend beyond the platforms to how other corporations use social media to their advantage. “Large corporations are deciding what can be said on platforms and what can’t be said,” Hiler said. “People argue there’s social good behind that to avoid mis and dis information, but I always go back to the question of ‘what if you’re wrong?” (14:11-14:28). 

According to Hiler, the growing authority of corporations to regulate speech raises concerns not only about censorship, but about the long-term consequences of privatized decision-making over public discourse. Hiler said that he considers himself a “free speech absolutist” and that silencing voices could do more harm than good. 

“The best disinfectant is sunlight,” Hiler said. “If someone’s going to while out and say crazy stuff, let them and let society decide if this person is crazy,” (40:28-40:39).  

Redefining what limitations corporations have influences how the public is going to perceive them. Ohio University student Emily Stokes, studying Journalism and Political Science, said that students studying journalism, marketing, advertising and business ethics are taught to hypothesize what this perception is.  

“Building out the framework of what people are perceiving is pretty much your job,” Stokes said. “You’re taught to go along with that flow, because that’s how you’re going to be successful,” (1:15-1:30). 

Public perception can be intentionally shaped through different media platforms by paying close attention to user preference algorithms. These systems generate content based on patterns of engagement, ultimately guiding what users pay attention to and what they overlook. Hiler said that these algorithms are designed to keep users engaged.  

“Every algorithm, regardless of platform- YouTube, TikTok, or X has a very high confirmation bias to it,” Hiler said. "It just feeds you more of what you want to see and what it knows you will click on, because their goal is to capture that,” (27:01-27:20).  

As the political climate intensifies, a user’s political affiliation could influence what products, media, or services they consume, correlating to business impact. Professor Oded Netzer of Columbia Business School said that brands can be assessed through political orientations. 

“We’re able to take any brand you want and color it — meaning, show what proportion of the brand followers belong to each side of the political map,” explains Netzer. “What we found is that polarization goes deep. It extends to the products we buy, the airlines we fly, the cars we have, and the drinks we drink.” 

Some corporations have chosen to use social media to voice their political positions such as Ben and Jerry’s, Patagonia, Cabela's, etc. and can influence consumer behavior, depending upon who their target audience is. Netzer said that he found that brand affiliations are strengthened through consumers practicing compensatory consumption theory.  

“One of the mechanisms by which they try to take back control is through consumption,” Netzer said. “If my identity as someone who is environmentally conscious is being threatened, I’m more likely to make purchases that make it clear I support sustainability.”  

Corporations can strategize what social media platform to use by analyzing demographics, psychographics and behavioral data. However, this system means that access to information is uneven: those with greater financial resources can purchase visibility, data or premium content, while consumers with a lower economic means may receive limited access to the same information. American economist and professor at the Columbus Business School Eli Noem said, “Information becomes a private good, produced and sold according to profit criteria. To American Media Critic Herbert Schiller, it was becoming ‘something which, like toothpaste, breakfast cereals and automobiles, is increasingly bought and sold.’” 

But as information becomes increasingly tied to market forces, affordability plays a role in determining who can access credible content. Corporations monetize information through subscriptions, premium content, or targeted data, leaving lower-income users with limited access to timely and accurate news. In addition to money, Stokes said that developing media literacy requires time and resources, as the lower class might be more focused on family needs rather than misinformation. 

“People who are in lower class might not have as much time to sit and scroll on Tik Tok and be chronically online to understand social movements or memes that have formed into regular dialogue,” Stokes said. They have to spend more time working, and if they aren’t working, they have to spend time taking care of family members. It’s become a class-oriented structure,” (6:01-6:11).  

Access to brands, political campaigns and media content can educate individuals on social and economic issues. Stokes said that corporations want to advertise their high-end products to keep making the maximum profit, creating more of an economic gap between targeted consumers versus people who can only afford to click on their advertisements or watch brand influencers promote the name brand product. 

 “I think a large part of it is the privilege in products… some people who are maybe not in a position to be able to afford those kinds of products, they’re totally left out of the equation,” Stokes said.  “It’s a vicious cycle of still profiting people who can’t even buy their products, and I don’t think it’s going to change anytime soon,” (27:50-29:01).