Political parties backpedal on X

 By Maeve Doran

Skyhawk View Staff Reporter

Democrats and Republicans on X, formerly known as Twitter, have flipped their opinions about polarization on the platform since Elon Musk bought X a year and a half ago, recent research found. 

After billionaire and entrepreneur Musk acquired X for $44 million in April of 2022, he made major changes, such as renaming the company, bringing back banned users, and laying off thousands of employees, including the former CEO. 

A recently released study by the Pew Research Center surveyed users about their views on social media and political polarization. 

Researchers found that after the changes Musk made, Democrats and Republicans switched their views regarding the platform’s role in free speech, politics, and American democracy. 

In 2021, 60% of Republicans said they saw X negatively, but by 2023, that number plummeted to 21% the study found. Democrats went the opposite way, with 47% saying X had a positive influence in 2021, but only 24% felt that way in 2023.

In 2023, 36% of Republican users and 40% of Democrats in the study said that X had no impact on American democracy, though there is increasing buzz over cases of fake news and harassment spreading across the site.

From 2021 to 2023, Democrats using Twitter have increasingly viewed misinformation and harassment as major issues while Republicans don’t, researchers found. 

Republicans participating in the survey said they are more worried about free speech on the platform than Democrats, but less concerned over banned users getting their accounts back. 

Kara McManus, a senior at Stonehill College located in Easton, Massachusetts, is president of the Stonehill Democrats, president of Political Science Club, and administrative chair of Mock Trial.

McManus has become increasingly concerned over the reintegration of accounts who were banned for harassment issues and spreading fake news, which makes it hard for her to find credible news on social media. 

As a user of X, she said she has seen growing animosity on both sides. She felt its effects in her life as a Democrat living in Middleboro, Massachusetts, a conservative small town.

“Neither side is trying to hear one another out, they are just arguing for the sake of arguing,” said McManus. 

Her use of X has significantly dropped because she said the political environment online is too intense. When she does use the platform, she doesn’t seek out political confrontation. McManus sticks to reposting information about world events or political happenings of her clubs rather than conversing with other users.  

Kara McManus speaks about post from politician on X

She said in the past she has been led to believe false information on X, which makes her averse to using the platform. McManus believes social media importantly offers exposure to different beliefs, but without clear knowledge of what is true and what isn’t, it becomes harder for her to engage with political social media at all.

“I try to keep in mind both sides are competing,” she said, “I am on my toes for what is being put out for me to see.” 

Though McManus and others worry about X’s effects on democracy, polarization in America isn’t new, said Paul Barrett, a professor at New York University who has a background in law and journalism. 

He said America has had times of deep polarization, like the Civil War in the 1860s, and later during the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s.  

The modern divides became sensationalized with the evolution of political commentators on TV and radio like Rush Limbaugh, he said.  

When social media developed in the late 1990s, Barrett said, an even more pronounced shift in the kind of polarization seen in America emerged. 

Platforms rely on advertising models used to generate user engagement through direct posts, comments, reposts, and specified content consumption, he said. The biggest generators of engagement are negativity and political strife, which advertisers use to push their products, said Barrett.   

He said X’s policy of allowing more content to circulate freely than other sites can lead to a free-for-all of negative posts and political animosity. 

Before 2016, the company took some measures to diminish false information, Barrett said, but when Musk took over, these measures decreased. 

Barrett said polarization itself isn’t the enemy. In order to have a democracy there has to be bipartisan beliefs. 

“Democracy reflects the fact that there is a disagreement,” said Barrett.

In Barrett’s recent research article published along with Justin Hendrix and J. Grant Sims and entitled “Fueling the Fire: How Social Media Intensifies U.S. Political Polarization,” the authors describe “affective polarization,” a form of hostility where opposing sides not only disagree with each other but also view the opposing person as a serious threat to the country for holding different views. 

Their research discovered that citizens reported declining trust not only in one another, but also in political institutions themselves, like the country’s election system. Researchers also found political candidates fuel the distrust as they become more extreme in their ideologies to appease their parties. 

“There are no moderates in political roles anymore,” said Barrett. 

Barrett said social media isn’t the cause of American polarization, but it exacerbates the larger political sphere. 

“Social media is the gasoline on the fire,” he said.

Barrett said this gasoline is dangerous because studies show most people in Generation-Z, the newest to the voting scene, get the majority of their political information from social media. If the younger generation only relies on social media to form their political opinions, and social media provides mostly partisan or inaccurate information, this could drastically change American democracy. 

He said that while there may be systematic remedies for some of the problems, as well as citizen-run organizations like Braver Angels whose mission is to bridge the gap between Republicans and Democrats, individuals need to take steps to question the information they are intaking. 

“You are your own gatekeepers to the media you consume,” said Barrett.