TEAM MEMBERS
EDITOR IN CHIEF Yamna Asim
CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER
Athena Liao
STAFF WRITERS
ASSISTANT EDITORS
Zahara Groenewald
Chancelle Kabasu
Catherine Perdikis
Sarah Shah
Pauline Usuanlele
Caitlin Elrick
Kennedy Jensen
Katherine Valentine
LETTER FROM THE EDITOR
Saturday, February 15th, 2025
Dear Readers,
Welcome to issue XXI.II of The Observer, titled “Media in Politics: Friend or Foe?”
With the ever-increasing digitization of our world, it is imperative to examine the impact media has had on politics, whether it be negative, positive or inbetween.
From Zahara Groenewald, we have an article examining the neo-colonialist implications embedded in European media narratives surrounding the Democratic Republic of Congo. In her article, Chancelle Kabasu specifically discusses how negative media reporting affects Africa's economic development efforts. Discussing the moderation policies of X (formerly Twitter) under the leadership of Elon Musk, Catherine Perdikis tackles the delicate balance between censorship and freedom of speech in her article. From Pauline Usuanlele, we have an article discussing the impact of social media on American youth. My article examines the lack of electoral regulation regarding paid political endorsements made by social media influencers in America. Lastly, we have an editorial board article examining whether social media platforms like X, Meta (Instagram and Facebook) and TikTok should have stricter guidelines when it comes to regulating misinformation and/or disinformation.
The Print branch has worked tediously this fall to bring this issue to you, and I can’t wait for you to read this amazing collection of articles! Again, a huge shoutout to my team for their continued hard work and dedication in creating this issue, and I look forward to publishing another great issue with you all!
If you have any comments or questions, please contact The Observer at theobserver@qiaa.org. If you would like to join our team in the future, please follow us on X (formerly Twitter) (@observerqiaa), LinkedIn (The Observer), or our Instagram (@the.observerqiaa) for hiring and other updates.
Now, onto to the reading!
Yamna Asim
Print Editor in Chief, The Observer
European Medias’ Monopolization on Africas’ Narrative: A Case Study of the DRC Conflict
Zahara Groenewald, Staff Writer
The Cost of Monolithic Reporting to Africa
Chancelle Kabasu, Staff Writer
X’s Content Moderation Policies under Elon Musk: Reshaping Freedom of Speech and Politics
Catherine Perdikis, Staff Writer
The Impact of Social Media on American Youth
Pauline Usuanlele, Staff Writer
Yamna Asim,
European Medias’ Monopolization on Africas’ Narrative: A Case Study of the DRC Conflict
by: Zahara Groenewald
With the rise of media accessibility, concerns about media intervention have increased. In an age where most people turn to the media to decipher local or international news, we often wonder whether what we consume is part of the whole story. Concerns about regulating disinformation (information that is deliberately intended to deceive) and misinformation (incorrect information but not clear if it is deliberately incorrect) have been at the forefront of discussions in the tech world. Unfortunately, despite the precedence given by the tech world, these concerns are left to the readers to decipher themselves. However, this becomes difficult when these media interventions have been framed systematically as the readers then are not able to decipher a truth that they were never even exposed to. This is especially prevalent when it comes to discussions on colonization or imperialism, as often, these are believed to be concepts and issues of the past. Many do not realize that these two concepts are still present through new means and are often discretely employed through media narratives. A prime example of European media interventionism is the
Before we delve into the article, it is important to first define and clarify some terms. Colonialism is defined as the practice through which foreigners establish complete control over a territory and its Indigenous peoples, thereby using the resources of the colonized people for the benefit of the colonizer. Alternatively, imperialism is defined as a state policy that extends that state’s power onto another through direct territorial acquisition or political and economic control. To clarify, both of these processes required the subjugation of one of the parties. Neo-colonialism and neo-imperialism are essentially just neos or new forms of how these processes are employed.
Across the globe, there has been a widespread movement of states in the Global South retaliating against these new means of control and shedding light on how deeply seeded the colonial mindset is in the Western world's dayto-day interactions. This colonial framing can be
the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)
traced back to when Christopher Columbus landed in the Americas, believing he had reached India. The oppressive framing of Indigenous peoples was rooted and justified through the white saviour complex as it was believed that it was the white man ' s burden to civilize the “ savage ” ways of Indigenous peoples. In reality, it was Europeans who demonstrated “ savagery ” as they committed some of the worst cases of crimes against humanity. This has been exposed and brought further to mainstream attention through Critical Race Theory (CRT), which focuses on understanding how the concept of race is socialized and not natural and that racial bias is inherent across Western society, not only in our institutions but also in white people. CRT demonstrates how the colonial racist mindset is not dead and lives vicariously through our subconscious, thus allowing us to understand how these forms of colonialism and racism have evolved. While the media has been a place to help shed light on these issues, it has also been a place where media intervention runs wild. This is especially true for European media, where we can see these inherent biases prevail. Just as the 15th-century colonizers framed their acts to be justified, once again, this framing ensues through neo-colonial and neo-imperial lenses in media interventionism.
There is this big fallacy pushed by the Western media that the Global South has been independent, and this Western hegemony is ensured through media intervention. However, the reality is that states with colonial history have never been truly independent and autonomous, and this Western hegemonic agenda is ensured through the systematic intervention of Western media. After all, the media is a broad platform that targets political, economic, and cultural life and tends to be widely accessible to all its constituents. By having a specific frame that paints Global South affairs as solely “state affairs,” the Western media ensures the upholding of the Western hegemon. The disinformation allows the West to deny accountability when, in reality, Western states and transnational corporations, especially etheless
European transnational corporations (TNCs), have always been involved in African affairs ever since they “left” this continent.
To elaborate, while each state in Europe differs, the general consensus on Africa is based on racist, harmful stereotypes that portray Africa's problems as ones that are caused by their own faults. This is one of the many tactics employed by the media to limit the reader's attention and thus make them believe the lie that Africa's problems are solely Africa's to bear, which results in a near complete erasure of any discussion relating to European involvement in these problems. Without proper discussions, this leads to a lack of accountability amongst European nations for the schemes they conduct in the Global South. A good example is Germany, which acts shocked at the fact the Global South views it as a part of the Western world that engaged in the colonialization and exploitation of countries like Africa. Germany's shock stems from the fact that it is often considered a "lesser" colonizer, if one at all. However, this categorization is dangerous as by not confronting their colonial history, it allows them to ensure that media interventionism is not realized.
The continent of Africa itself is very resourceful and abundant; there is even this well-known saying that “if Africa could escape poverty and corruption, they would be able to monopolize on the resources they live on. ” This statement is misleading. While it is correct that Africa is very abundant, it is incorrect in that they can simply independently escape poverty and corruption, as these two things are a product of international intervention. The popular misconception of Africa being at fault for all its poverty and corruption is a big narrative pushed by the West and reinforced by their media. A prime example of this is in the case study of the DRC, one of the poorest states in the world that has been conflictridden ever since King Leopold II set foot in the Congo.
allss
Dubbed by some as a resource-cursed country, all of the tragedies that have occurred in the DRC have been linked and fuelled by its resource abundance. The DRC resource curse started with the extraction of ivory and rubber for Belgium’s bicycles, followed by the extraction of uranium to develop the first-ever atomic bomb in the world for the U.S. Over time, the country became ridden with ethnic conflicts and militias dictating resource usage in postCongolese independence. The conflict-ridden state has been home to gold (jewelry), more than half of the world’s cobalt reserves (in cars and batteries), copper (solar panels), and coltan reserves that range from 60- 80% of the world’s (electronics). Despite its resource abundance, the DRC owns a minuscule and even negligible share of these resources; the largest stakeholders are foreigners with the U.S. having 24 trillion U.S. dollars worth of minerals that are beneath the DRC soil This is interesting, as all the conflicts ranging from militias, opposition from Rwanda, and ethnic tensions are premised on the mining of these resources, yet either way, the miners do not profit off of it one bit. A portion of the profit goes to the military leaders, but it is nothing compared to the majority of the profit that the Western states or TNCs get.
Even so, mainstream Western media coverage, such as from BBC or France 24, rarely focuses on militias and their role in the various ethnic conflicts, like between the Tutsis and Hutus, that have spilled over into the DRC and significantly contributed to the DRC's internal conflict. On the off chance that they do mention it, the coverage is sparse and not at all what the DRC deserves The DRC has been in a three-decade conflict, one of the deadliest since WW2 Yet, this does not get highlighted or discussed, nor do questions like why the conflict is occurring, why the people are facing extreme poverty, and how the militias are so powerful get inquired into.
It is true that corruption does play a part. For example, the DRC government has had a history of presidents and government officials being alll
more concerned with filling their coffers than alleviating their people's poverty. Nevertheless, internal corruption isn't the sole factor involved here. Important questions need to be asked about this corruption issue, like why these politicians are corrupt, who is stuffing their coffers and how the majority of mining sites get sold to these foreign companies. This is why it is usually never explored.
The West plays a significant role in why this corruption continues to ensue in the DRC, as they are the ones intervening and maintaining the status quo of corruption. A notable example of this is the first president of the DRC, President Lumumba, who was elected after the Congo became independent in 1960. Widely renowned for the pan-Africanism movement and known as the president of the people, he envisioned a future where the profit earned from the DRC's resources would be used to achieve economic stability and the people's benefit. However, this caused the U.S. and Belgium to become concerned with Congo's resources being inaccessible to them, resulting in the capture and execution of Lumumba through state authorities under Mobutu (the following president chosen by the U.S. who sold off the DRC mineral wealth).
European media intervention enables its readers to only be exposed to one frame, the European frame making it difficult for its readers to scope the larger story at play. If the readers, for example, were aware of Wallerstein’s division of labour, which highlights the neo-imperial transnational division of labour that results in economic inequality where the core (Western) countries extract materials and labour from the periphery (developing) countries, it would make them less susceptible to the framing. They would be aware that the West being considered a core country with its capital intensive and wealth and the DRC being considered a periphery country with its intense cheap slave labour allows for these power dynamics to be recognized. With this in mind, as well as being aware of the DRC’s
resources and their uses, it allows the reader to then link it to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) or Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) and how globally, but especially the Global North governments and corporations are attempting to achieve these goals of domination and exploitation. These goals are often achieved at the expense of the DRC’s conflict, and the West wants to ensure that this stays hidden.
It is very important to understand the larger implications concerning the DRC conflict and the role of the media. Western media is designed to uphold Western hegemony; it does not allow for people in the West to have free thinking and critical thinking skills when they’re constantly being exposed to subconscious propaganda that paints Africa or those in the Global South as people who have never been able to help themselves and enables them to believe that European intervention is what is needed. This is, frankly, the mindset of white saviourism.
While it is important to discuss the framing of European media, it is also crucial to highlight the scope of readers' susceptibility. n her paper “Representations of Africa in the Western News Media: Reinforcing Myths and Stereotypes,” Amy Harth states that it is colonialism's success in creating myths and stereotypes about Africa and its people that allow them to be still misrepresented in the media. She argues that the myths and stereotypes are imbued into our language, thought patterns and subsequently, in the structure of the media, thus making it difficult to present news from Africa that counters these mythical and stereotypical ideas. This is the key to understanding the relationship between the media and its readers, as while the media is responsible for the framing, it is the readers who carry out these frames.
The reality is that white supremacy and colonial mentality are not just embedded in our media but also in our day-to-day lives and how we are brought up, from our families to governments and political parties. Unfortunately, the only way we can change how the media is framed is to lahhhh
create a society where we are educated about the colonial mindset and how pervasive it is, as this will help us counter the media narrative that is being pushed onto us. Additionally, it will also help us with reconciliation as being properly aware of these topics will enable proper engagement with these topics, resulting in more sound political decisions, at least in part of the public, as it is quite fair to say that we don’t want to be putting money towards exploitative practices. It is now the time to gain consciousness of what our states have been doing and the role we play in upholding their agenda.
The Cost of Monolithic Reporting to Africa
by: Chancelle Kabasu
In 2022, Kenyans went to the polls to vote for the country’s fifth president and the third since the country adopted its new constitution in 2010, which was meant to address corruption and the concentration of executive powers. William Ruto was successful against Raila Odinga in the hotly contested election, which saw news cycle after news cycle reporting on Odinga’s claims of election fraud. Similar stories were run after Kenya’s 2017 presidential election when President Uhuru Kenyatta was twice declared the winner of the controversial re-run called by the same opposition leader, Raila Odinga Malaysia, which bears a similar political risk profile to Kenya, also held elections for its next Prime Minister in 2022. Recent research from Africa No Filter, an advocacy organization that aims to shift stereotypical narratives about Africa, reports that the Western media reported much less on the election fraud claims in Malaysia. During this time, Malaysia was also in the midst of a corruption scandal surrounding then Prime Minister Najib Razak–Razak was eventually sentenced to 12 years in jail for his involvement in embezzling state-owned funds.
Identical trends existed in the study when comparing other African countries to countries in Asia that shared similar political risk scores. When comparing Egypt and Thailand, Egypt exceeded Thailand in media headlines related to violence. The study analyzed headlines from Al Jazeera, the BBC, Bloomberg, CNN, Financial Times, Reuters, and The Economist and found that global media coverage on Africa is overly negative during election cycles, and corruption is consistently reported on in comparison to nonAfrican countries with similar risk factors. In fact, issues surrounding corruption are not mentioned in relation to non-African countries unless specific scandals exist–such as the one involving former Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak It begs the question, is there a cost of all this negative political media coverage to African countries? And why does the West limit its reporting on doom and destruction to Africa?
Africa No Filter determined that there actually is a cost to such media coverage; the lack of in-depth reporting in the continent has created the perception of elevated risk, which has led to blaaa
steep borrowing costs. African countries lose up to $4.2 billion USD each year on debt servicing due to this ‘prejudice premium ’ This means that rather than being able to direct funds to public infrastructure and critical expenditure, African countries spend billions each year paying back disproportionately high loans. The study explains that media sentiment plays a major role in influencing investors’ perception of risk, which means that we must start reporting on Africa in a more nuanced manner.
Peaceful government transitions do happen in Africa. Innovation, technology, and arts do thrive in Africa. These things should be reported on. However, Kenyan journalist Patrick Gathara writes that the solution is not so simple as offsetting negative articles with positive ones, but to instead tell a story in its entirety. Media reporting of Africa has improved drastically in recent years, but a large bias still exists It is easy to report on corruption, violence, and humanitarian disasters in Africa because many countries in the continent are plagued by these realities. However, prejudices are born when incomplete stories are told as unfortunate events that “just happen” in certain corners of the world rather than providing objective context to readers. The truth is that many of these unfortunate events have a catalyst, like colonialism, and the conflicts which have occurred since are the residual impacts of this.
In order to view headlines on Africa with a broader lens, journalists local to the areas which are being covered must be relied on to provide in-depth, all-encompassing, and relevant stories during and in between election cycles. In 2022, just before the election, Kenyan writer and political analyst Nanjala Nyabola stated that every five years, the foreign media remembers that Kenya exists because the country provides their editorial boards with a headline that details ongoing tragedies in Africa that we know so well. If given the platform, those who understand the circumstances of their country can write complete stories about the events that motivate the
us to click on a news article. These stories have the potential to shift the power dynamic in how the media covers Africa and set a new narrative of it being a dynamic and investable region.
X’s Content Moderation Policies under Elon Musk: Reshaping Freedom of Speech and Politics
by: Catherine Perdikis
intensified with Elon Musk’s approach to managing X (formerly Twitter). Musk's rollback of content moderation is presented as a defence of free speech aimed at allowing a broader diversity of opinions, including controversial ones, to flourish on the platform. However, some users argue that these relaxed policies have exacerbated the spread of misinformation, hate speech, and extremist content, particularly during the 2024 U.S. presidential election, when previously banned accounts were reinstated and subsequently used to disseminate false claims and inflammatory rhetoric. Critics from the left assert that X has amplified far-right content by deprioritizing harmful material and using an algorithm that appears to favour sensational, often divisive, posts. This has led to questions about algorithmic transparency and fairness in how content is promoted, with concerns that progressive voices are being overshadowed.
By balancing supranational and ntergovernmental rules, the European Union's (EU) approach represents a top-down government
data protection requirements among its member states. The U.S., on the other hand, prefers a bottom-up strategy that prioritizes states' rights and produces a patchwork of data protection rules that differ by industry and territory. In response to the rise in unchecked harmful content on social media platforms, some U.S. lawmakers have proposed revisions to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which currently shields social media platforms from legal responsibility for user-generated content. Amending Section 230 to hold platforms accountable for the spread of harmful content could directly challenge X’s current hands-off moderation approach. Musk and other tech advocates argue that altering Section 230 could infringe on free speech by granting the government excessive control over online discourse and potentially leading to an overregulation of speech. In contrast, the EU has adopted a more stringent approach through the Digital Services Act (DSA), which mandates that platforms take robust measures to combat disinformation. Under the DSA, platforms like Xlaaa
X are required to remove harmful content or face significant fines, which underscores Europe’s more cautious approach to balancing free speech with public safety and information integrity.
The tension between U.S. free speech ideals and Europe’s regulatory stance highlights different cultural and political attitudes toward content moderation. The divergence in approaches to data protection between the EU and the U.S. can be traced to distinct historical and cultural contexts. The EU's stringent data protection regulations, which emphasize individual privacy as a fundamental right, are rooted in experiences under totalitarian regimes where privacy violations were pervasive These historical experiences have profoundly shaped the EU's commitment to safeguarding personal data. In contrast, the U.S. prioritizes free expression and economic interests, resulting in comparatively less rigorous data protection laws. This disparity underscores the influence of cultural values and historical legacies on policy development, presenting challenges for harmonizing transatlantic data protection standards.
Implementing the EU’s social media policies in the U.S could serve as a counterbalance to Elon Musk’s control of X by fostering transparency, accountability, and user protections. The EU’s DSA mandates algorithmic transparency, requiring platforms to disclose how content is ranked or prioritized, which could mitigate concerns about Musk’s opaque decision-making and unilateral policy changes. Clear content moderation rules, enforced under the DSA, would prevent arbitrary reinstatement or suspension of accounts, while an appeals process would empower users to challenge unfair decisions. Regular independent audits, as required by EU law, would ensure external oversight of X’s practices, reducing the influence of Musk’s personal or corporate interests. Additionally, the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation-like privacy protections could limit data misuse, addressing concerns about targeted bla
advertising under Musk’s leadership. The EU’s emphasis on combating harmful content and misinformation would counterbalance Musk’s free-speech absolutism, which critics argue has allowed the proliferation of hate speech and false information. Protections for minors and vulnerable groups would further ensure a safer online environment By creating a stable governance framework, EU-inspired regulations would provide consistency in X’s operations, reassuring users, advertisers, and investors while ensuring the platform remains transparent, ethical, and accountable.
When considering which approach is more suitable, a middle ground could provide a practical solution The U S could maintain the core principles of free speech that Section 230 upholds but introduce more transparency requirements for platform algorithms, ensuring that content prioritization processes are fair and do not systematically amplify harmful or extremist content. Meanwhile, the EU’s enforcement of content moderation through fines demonstrates a commitment to user protection, an approach that could inform U.S. policy by promoting accountability without heavy-handed control. To avoid overly restrictive moderation or complete deregulation, platforms could implement a tiered content moderation system that differentiates between high-risk and low-risk content. For example, verified accounts with larger followings could face stricter content moderation standards to limit the spread of potentially harmful content. Regular users would remain subject to moderation but with less stringent scrutiny. This approach would protect against mass misinformation by influential accounts while preserving the general user ’ s freedom to engage openly.
The DSA and other social media laws from the EU seek to strike a balance between accountability and freedom of speech but have complicated effects on political outcomes and expression. By creating safer online nonethelesssss
environments, lowering harassment, and mandating openness in algorithmic decisionmaking to avoid covert biases in content visibility, these regulations, on the one hand, safeguard free speech. However, critics argue that the risk of over-moderation, where platforms remove lawful but controversial content to avoid penalties, could suppress dissenting voices and limit robust debate. Politically, the regulations combat misinformation, particularly during elections or public health crises, fostering a more informed electorate and reducing polarization by curbing extremist content. Transparency requirements for political advertising help voters understand who funds campaigns and why they see certain ads, promoting fairness and reducing manipulation. Nonetheless, these policies may inadvertently disadvantage smaller political movements with fewer resources and raise concerns about perceived bias in how misinformation or harmful content is defined While the regulations enhance accountability and safety, their enforcement must carefully balance these goals with the preservation of open and democratic discourse.
Ultimately, a balanced approach that integrates transparency, accountability, and protection from harm—without undermining the principle of free speech might align best with the evolving landscape of online platforms Such a middle ground could include clear guidelines for harmful ontent, greater transparency in algorithmic decision-making, and flexible moderation standards tailored to the unique legal and cultural contexts of both the U S and the EU.blaah
The Impact of Social Media on American Youth
by: Pauline Usuanlele
The rapid digitization of the world in recent years has profoundly impacted society, particularly youth in Western countries. Over the past two decades, the widespread availability of screens and digital media has raised alarm among experts due to its potential effects on young developing minds. Open access to the vast and often unregulated internet exposes children to peer pressure, harmful influences, and cyberbullying all of which can negatively impact their mental health and personal growth. Social media platforms play a central role in shaping the worldview of young users, often amplifying insecurities and societal pressures. These issues are exacerbated by influencers and corporations promoting products and lifestyles to maximize profits, often at the expense of vulnerable users. Due to social media’s unregulated nature, it is easy for individuals with malicious intentions to spread hate and harm online. The children on these platforms are exposed to hate speech like racism, sexism, and other extremist anguage. This can have dangerous consequences, as young developing minds can be easy prey for these harmful sentiments
sentiments and, as a consequence, could either become perpetrators of hate speech or victims of it.
Social media gives bullies unprecedented access to their victims’ emotions, offering no escape or reprieve At such a vulnerable age, children can often lack the tools or maturity to rationally cope with cyberbullying or peer pressure, making the psychological toll even greater. In January of 2024, New York City Mayor Eric Adams declared social media a public health hazard, citing that the feelings of hopelessness in high schoolers grew 42 percent in a decade. In Florida, the House of Representatives has passed a bill to ban children under the age of sixteen from using social media It requires social media platforms to find a way to verify the age of users and terminate the accounts of those under the minimum age. As it stands, any app where 10% of daily users under sixteen use it for more than two hours a day will be banned This includes any apps with post notifications, algorithms, or autoplay.
However, the bill faces an uncertain future due to Governor DeSantis's reservations and the level of access will likely become something parents are given to decide on their own. The proposed regulations reflect the state’s recognition of the role they must play in creating safer digital spaces for those most vulnerable. Although critics argue that such measures may infringe on personal freedoms or be difficult to enforce, the statistical evidence of the growing mental health crisis in the youth suggests that this problem must be addressed Unregulated online environments easily turn toxic and dangerous, thus making them an issue for governments because anything that poses a threat to the population's well-being must be dealt with accordingly. Without intervention, the negative effects of unregulated social media use will likely continue to escalate, further endangering the well-being of future generations.
Companies and influencers exacerbate these issues by promoting unrealistic ideals and consumer products, prioritizing profit over the well-being of their young audience. Social media influencers and companies work hand in hand to promote and sell a certain lifestyle to young children. This can create insecurities and fuel societal pressure to look or be a certain way to meet impossible beauty standards The industry uses social media as a way to parade trends, products, and goods in front of young people, who they essentially only see as consumers.
Celebrities like Paris Hilton and the Kardashians were some of the first to birth the era of the social media influencer. Utilizing their money and looks, they promoted unrealistic ideals via the internet by recommending beauty products and treatments that convinced young women that they too could be glamorous and beautiful if they subscribed to their brands and whichever companies’ goods they were hired to advertise. Now, the internet has become a cycle of new facades, treatments, and goods for achieving beauty, and the youth are the ones primarily subjected to the insecurities this social pressure creates. beauty
creates. This endless promotion of unattainable beauty standards has caused an alarming rise in body dysmorphia and self-esteem issues among young people, particularly teenage girls. Research shows that constant exposure to these ideals is linked to increased anxiety and depression, as many young people feel they will never be “enough” in the eyes of society.
Despite calls for stricter safeguards, many platforms fail to implement effective protections, leaving young users vulnerable to exploitation and negative psychological effects. Experts report that social media companies like TikTok, YouTube, and Facebook are fueling a mental health crisis. The sites design their platforms with addictive and dangerous features and are not stopped or regulated by a governing body. It is in the tech companies’ best interest to keep their platforms unregulated because it creates demand for their apps and, consequently, keeps people attracted to them. The more views and downloads an app has, the more money the app earns. The app ' s unregulated nature also helps them in partnerships with advertisers, as the more time spent on the app, the more personalized the ads get. The personalization is due to the app ' s algorithm, which tracks consumers ' interests and personalizes their feeds according to their specific interests. This personalization increases user engagement and deepens the psychological impact of social media by giving users a visual representation of their self-doubts, which then reinforces insecurities and promotes endless consumption.
The well-being of young people hinges on how seriously the government addresses this issue. Since tech companies prioritize profit over protection, it falls on policymakers to enforce regulations that hold these platforms accountable.
Influencer Elections? A Call to Reform American Electoral Regulations
by: Yamna Asim
Election period is a stressful time for politicians. With the mission of consolidating as much public support as possible, politicians and their campaign workers employ all sorts of strategies, with a popular one being political endorsements. In today's ever-growing digital space, social media influencers, particularly TikTok influencers, have become an attractive choice for these endorsements.
The use of social media influencers for political endorsements was very evident in the 2024 American presidential election. Being dubbed by some as the ‘Influencer Election,’ both the Democratic and the Republican parties used social media influencers to promote their respective party candidates, Kamala Harriss and previously Joe Biden for the former and Donald J Trump for the latter These political endorsements took the form of influencers posting content supporting a party on their social media platforms, attending and speaking at national conventions and rallies, and even collaborating with the presidential candidates themselves. For example, the Democratic National
National Convention provided media credentials to 200 influencers and even created a ‘creators lounge’ so that they could create and post content, whereas the Trump appeared on various so-called ‘Bro’ podcasts and online shows, infamous of their right-wing, young male audience, including Joe Rogans, Theo Vons and Logan Pauls. This political strategy proved to be successful, but why?
Social media influencers have gained prominence in the last two decades to the point where they have become a billion-dollar industry. Goldman Sachs, a financial services company, estimated that the influencer industry is currently worth around $250 billion and has the potential to grow to $500 billion by 2027. This is an impressive number and one that emphasizes the amount of power these influencers wield.
Hinted by their title, influencers are basically human advertisements as they post social media content that aims to influence their followers in some way, whether it be lifestyle, cooking, fitness.
fitness, or politics Though their job is to influence people, influencers are widely seen as being authentic. This is due to the personalized bond that influencers curate with their followers which generates a sense of trustworthiness and almost familial feeling. Many social media influencers, particularly on TikTok and YouTube, refer to their followers in a familial and affectionate manner like James Charles referring to his followers as ‘sisters’ and the Paul brothers referring to their followers as the ‘Logang’ and ‘Jake Paulers.’
Yet, the fact remains that influencers are a brand. They make their livelihoods by being a brand. Their job is to gain followers, develop an audience, and advertise products and services. Recognizing the harm that can stem from influencer advertising, there are strict commercial regulations in place that stipulate that influencers have to disclose if they are being compensated to promote a brand or company. This disclosure is usually in the form of a clearly stated #ad or #sponsored in the monologue of the video or written in the caption of the picture and/or video posted.
Considering these strict commercial regulations placed on influencer advertising, it is surprising that these same regulations don’t extend to political endorsements made by influencers. Currently, America has no legal requirement for disclosure regarding influencers making paid political endorsements. The Federal Election Commission (FEC), which is responsible for overseeing election ads, stated that “ a campaign can post a video on its own platforms and then pay an influencer to promote it, or pay an individual to create his or her own promotional material for a candidate, without the campaign or influencer having to disclose anything.”
This statement is quite strange, considering the FEC has very strict transparency guidelines regarding paid political endorsements made over the phone, TV or physical mail. The justification given for their stance on influencer blaaaaaa
political endorsements is that influencers creating political communications don’t count as producing public communications requiring disclosure. The very opposite of how it should be as paid influencer political endorsements are no different than paid phone, TV or physical mail endorsements–a different medium but the same message.
The lack of regulation regarding paid influencer political endorsements is especially concerning given that due to the growing dominance of social media apps in our everyday lives, most of us get our information from these very apps and, subsequently, their reigning influencers. In November of 2024, the Pew Research Center reported that about one in five Americans regularly get their news information from social media influencers. Along with sharing facts and breaking news, influencers also regularly provide their own opinions on news topics, including elections. But, if there is no disclosure requirement regarding political endorsements, how is the public supposed to know whether an influencer is freely and genuinely endorsing a political candidate or is being paid to do so? This lack of transparency is not only unethical but also risks exposing the public to political manipulation.
Transparency is important, especially when it comes to elections. No matter the medium, the public has a right to know when a political party is paying for endorsements. When all other avenues for making paid political endorsements are regulated, the FEC shouldn’t make social media influencers an exception. This sets a dangerous precedent and one that political parties seem too happy to exploit. t
Viral Lies, Real Consequences: The Digital War on Truth
by: The Observer’s Editorial Board
While the most recent U.S. election’s voter turnout was historically high and its organization remarkable, a growing shadow still loomed over its result–the prevalence of misinformation and social media platforms’ failure to regulate and counter fake news, be it exaggerated or entirely fabricated. Misinformation has gone seemingly viral across American social media platforms, and simultaneously, the nation’s democracy has been ghosted.
Social media platforms, which were originally regarded as tools for democratic engagement, returning the power to the people and increasing accessibility, have become sites of division, confusion, and polarization. In the months before President Trump’s election this past November, viral mistruths circulated and eventually flourished on Facebook, X (formally Twitter), TikTok and various other platforms, including WhatsApp. Such misinformation included claims of election fraud, conspiracy theories featuring targeted attacks on congressional and presidential candidates, untruthful information about polling locations none
and voting processes, and a heavy bias favouring one candidate while raising fabricated concerns about the other. Fake news, according to research conducted by the Pew Research Center, was encountered by 70% of Americans during the election cycle and had ‘measurable’ effects on voter behaviour. Failure by social media platforms to monitor, regulate, and correct this misinformation, which had spread so rapidly on their apps, raises an important question for the upcoming presidential term: how can democracy survive whilst voters are unable to trust the information they have received about policy, candidates, and how to vote?
A potent example illustrating the weight of this inquiry is the “ballot harvesting” narrative, which spread in a manner akin to wildfire on X, Facebook, and TikTok, falsely claiming that mail-in-voting ballots were fraudulent, that Donald Trump had won the previous election against Joe Biden, and that the election had been rigged, corrupted, and stolen. Despite its debunking by numerous election officials and trusted news sources, the notion of ballot
harvesting was shared on the platforms millions of times, coming to an initial head in the form of a violent insurrection by far-right members in 2020 and, afterwards, contributing to a growing skepticism by Americans in the security of the electoral process. Though both federal and state courts ruled that the integrity of the election was upheld, and additional efforts were put towards maintaining the integrity of the most recent results, the damage to the trust of Americans in elections and the political polarization surrounding voting methods and processes is ongoing absent regulation efforts by media platforms whose content continues to contain these narratives.
The refusal by social media companies to enforce stricter content regulations in response to the prevalence of damaging misinformation on their platforms is a stark abdication of their responsibility to their users and to the integrity of American democracy. While some action was taken by platforms during the 2020 presidential election season, marking posts are misleading and prioritizing the dispersion of authoritative sources on current events, many companies dialled back these efforts in the most recent election, citing interest in the prioritization of free speech and the logistical challenges which accompanied regulation Elon Musk’s leadership as the owner of X oversaw the rollback of critical safeguards against fake news, including moderation efforts for political advertisements and the platform's verification of credible accounts, which then received priority attention from users. Musk’s laissez-faire strike down of these important regulation policies has emboldened both foreign disinformation campaigns and domestic groups intent on undermining the integrity of the nation’s democracy in the hopes of favouring their own interests.
The troubling fact of the matter is that solutions do exist, but social media platforms are refusing to implement them. Rigorous fact-checking partnerships, algorithmic adjustments to lessen naaaaaa
the spread of false content, and transparent labelling of unverified claims are all feasible measures that platforms have underutilized or, in Musk’s case, abandoned. If companies such as YouTube have shown that proactive moderation can mitigate the damage caused to the nation by misinformation, the question must be raised–why have others failed to take similar action on their own platforms?
Stakes are high. Democracy rests upon an informed electorate, and an information landscape riddled with landmines of exaggerated and fabricated misinformation is not only confusing for voters, it renders informed and meaningful participation in elections inaccessible. The prioritization by social media companies of engagement metrics and the financial well-being of their most wealthy members puts the very foundation of American democracy at great risk. Policymakers must demand accountability. Legislation calling for the enforcement of transparency in platform algorithms, the penalization of the deliberate spread of disinformation, and the protection of whistleblowers within technology corporations who expose harmful practices by the platform must become a priority.
In the interim, American citizens must critically evaluate the information they consume via social media and leverage their utilization of the platform as a means to advocate for the enactment of policy which more meaningfully flags and removes nonharmful misinformation content. Without decisive action by legislators, social media companies, and the American people to address the harmful impact of misinformation, the integrity of future elections will remain jeopardized In the fight for democracy’s health, truth must prevail over lies, and accountability must outweigh apathy.