You Know Who Posts on Social Media? Hardly Anybody

It’s time to talk about the fallacy of social media interaction as an indicator of popular opinion. 

For years now, people have been using social media as a focus group, as an indicative measure of relative popularity and trend-worthiness. But for several reasons, social media discussion likely doesn’t reflect the perspective of the populous.

The first point of note is algorithmic amplification, and how that tilts the scale in terms of what’s deemed newsworthy and what’s not. This comes down to the incentives of news organizations based on engagement, and how that then drives their decision-making in what they cover, and how they cover it.

Social platform algorithms are based on engagement, because the more likes, comments, and shares the platforms can drive, the more that’ll keep people engaged in their apps. The key driver of social media engagement is emotional response, in that you’re more likely to comment on something if it triggers a reaction. And the most powerful emotions in this respect are fear, anger, and joy.

In essence, social platform algorithms are designed to boost these emotions, and as such, in order for publishers to align with the respective shifts in consumption behavior, they are incentivized to publish posts that spark these responses. 

What does that mean for media coverage? Well, more partisan, disproportionate, bombastic takes for one. But it also means that more of their coverage will now lean towards issues that elicit such response.

So media coverage, in itself, is already seeking out more emotion-charged stories, which may not be reflective of social importance, or relevance to readers. But they will drive engagement, in alignment with platform incentives, which means that at a base level, media coverage is already likely not reflective of the most important issues to everyday people, but is instead pushed towards the most gossip-worthy elements.

That skews the balance, but there’s also another key consideration is using social media discussion as an indicator of popular opinion: Most people don’t post in social media apps. Ever.

On X, for example, 20% of users create all of the content. The other 80% never post, like, comment. They just read.

That’s not an anomaly, with most platforms seeing fewer and fewer original posts over time. Instagram chief Adam Mosseri has noted that people now share way more in DMs than they do in public, which is again reflective of the broader trend of social platforms in general.

As such, the commentary that you’re reading isn’t indicative of the majority. If the X example holds, what’s trending on social media, and what opinions gain traction, are only really reflective of around a fifth of the population in any given region.

So you’re not getting a balanced perspective of what most people are thinking, and what most people are interested in, or what’s relevant to their day-to-day lives. Social media trends reflect a sub-segment of active users, which is then amplified by media outlets that are looking to maximize platform engagement.

And when you consider that the majority of people now get at least some of their news input from social media apps, you can see how this skews perception, and makes it seem that what’s relevant to the minority is a bigger issue than it actually is.

So next time you’re wondering why people seem so focused on certain topics, when there are far more pressing matters, this would be why, and next time you see the government announcing policy, or debating topics that won’t really impact the majority of people, this is likely the reason.

And next time you see some divisive media personality gaining political traction with their opinions, this is how that becomes big enough to sway voters.

Using social media as a proxy for the public is a flawed approach, but it’s also the dominant driver of the day.