With the contemporary developments in AI, social media algorithms have become more sophisticated and personalized to the individual. These algorithms are based on machine learning and use your engagement – views, likes, comments, and even watchtime – to predict your emotional characteristics and personality traits. Essentially, social media algorithms are trained to understand you, often better than your family does, according to a 2015 study by Cambridge University, and “feed” you content carefully curated to your liking. This is the defining feature of social media that makes it so addictive: each successive video has been calculated to have a high probability of engagement from the user – you.

I’m a teen, relatively active on social media. Like many other teens, I come home and scroll Instagram reels and watch long-form YouTube videos while eating breakfast and dinner, which I suppose makes me somewhat of a “screenager.” Lately, I’ve become more observant of what exactly is on my feed. Sure, most of it is humorous or trendy, but occasionally I’ll get a “political” video, and not just a campaign advertisement for a politician. These videos can be critiquing or supporting specific politicians or policies, but many often have less to do with actual politicians and more with political parties and tension.

Jason Gabriel ‘28 shares this experience: “I’ve gotten a lot of political content recently. People will often duet and have clashing ideas, and they’ll go back and forth.”

These videos can be superficially classified as educational, prompting the average viewer to think, “Oh, I didn’t know/think that,” and maybe even drop a like or comment. What many fail to recognize is the ulterior motives of the content creator and platform.

The content creator greatly benefits from user engagement, as engagement is precisely what pays, and so creators are incentivized to shift from traditional, educational “long-form” videos to more digestible, fast-paced, and loaded “short-form” content like one would find on Instagram Reels. Generally, a captivating video that’s 7-15 seconds long secures a higher rate of engagement from the viewer and, crucially, higher priority on the algorithm.

Jason Gabriel ‘28 notes, “I’ve absolutely caught myself watching content, and somebody will say something, and I’ll think, ‘That’s ridiculous!’ or ‘What are you talking about?’ but they’re just trying to evoke emotions out of people because that gets them the most clicks.”

The algorithm, too, monetizes from your engagement, perhaps in a more objectionable manner. With engagement and time-on-platform being of the essence to serving advertisements and collecting data, the viewer becomes the product whose time and personal information serve to profit massive companies like Meta.

The mutual need for engagement from the creator and platform is why your feed serves you political content, for politics is and always has been a source of tension between people.

Thomas Cendejas, a sophomore theology teacher, expresses how “having been someone who grew up during the Vietnam War and Watergate, it’s not exactly true that we used to be more united. The difference is, then, the biggest way of broadcasting your political beliefs to strangers was bumper stickers on cars. Now, social media is the modern-day version of those stickers, except you can reach many, many more people.”

Social media also provides a “digital barrier” that gives users a perceived sense of privacy and safety, leading Cendejas to remark, “Unlike your car, which might go away some day, your digital footprint doesn’t go away. Still, the temptation to state your point of view or attack other people has gotten much stronger.”

Cendejas notes an increase in users who passionately take to the comment section with radical support or dissent to videos against their political beliefs.

“Sometimes I engage with reading comments, yet for a post that might go along with my political beliefs, the comments won’t. They’re bombarded with people who oppose that issue.”

Social media critically exploits the controversial nature of politics and blows it out of proportion by creating an algorithm that serves the viewer content it knows is or isn’t in line with their political views. Cendejas mentions an increase in conflicting content on his feed. He suspects it’s because the algorithm believes he is more likely to engage with such content.

Jason Gabriel ‘28 similarly notices, “Political content online tends to be very biased, and tries to make people upset or angry because that’s how they get the most viewership.”

This clash between parties and ideologies explains the charged political landscape in modern American society. Parent companies are directly incentivized to create algorithms that maximize engagement and thus foster platforms that further polarize people on the political spectrum.

Sophomore Benjamin Hankins ‘28 believes social media should not be so political, stating, “The reason is that, in America, the two-party system is so over-inflated that people represent their party like it’s a baseball team. People, and feeds especially, should not be political. We should keep politics politics. People should have social media as a way to express who they are as a person, not their political beliefs.”

The fact that social media has become a battleground for political dispute is particularly troubling when considering that, according to the National Center for Biotechnology Information, 95% of teens report using social media, and roughly a third use it nearly constantly.

When questioned whether he thinks teens should be exposed to politics on social media, Benjamin Hankins ‘28 said, “My feed’s not very political, and I like that. I’m 16 – I can’t vote for another two years. Of course, I should care, but it doesn’t concern me; my opinion unfortunately doesn’t matter that much yet. Maybe I can change someone’s beliefs, but I don’t think I should be the driving reason. They should get the information on their own to make their own decisions and have their own opinions. It shouldn’t be an Instagram reel. It should be them.”

Jason Gabriel ‘28 believes that while politics itself must be allowed to remain on social media, “ideally, there should be a focus on individuals learning about what politics really is. One should not be obtaining all their political information from social media.”

Social media functions as the home of American politics and culture. Despite connecting people on important issues, it’s dangerous insofar as its inherent purpose is profit, arguably at the expense of Americans’ ability to maintain constructive political discourse. Political tension continues to escalate as a norm of sorts, calling into question whether politics would be in such a divisive state absent stimulation by social media, so people must be cautious while scrolling.