Social Media Not Just a Tool for Division, Campaigners Show

As election season approaches, familiar narratives about social media’s dangers flood public discourse—Russian bots, extremist content on X (formerly Twitter), and widespread disinformation campaigns dominate headlines. These concerns stem from legitimate issues: a few billionaires controlling major platforms, malicious actors spreading conspiracy theories, and algorithms that seem designed to amplify conflict.

The underlying fear is straightforward: social media may be destroying the foundation of democratic debate by undermining both respect and reality. However, a more balanced assessment reveals that these platforms continue to serve their original purpose—democratizing information access and challenging top-down control of news.

In Israel’s war on Gaza, for instance, online sources have consistently outperformed traditional media in exposing government falsehoods, whether from Israeli officials regarding hospital bombings or Irish authorities about weapons transport to Israel. Social media still offers a counterbalance to shrinking public spaces and decision-making processes that evade scrutiny.

Research into Ireland’s 2018 campaign to repeal the Eighth Amendment shows how effectively social media can open public space for democratic debate when users consciously shape their online experience. According to research by David Landy and Aileen O’Carroll, Facebook proved vital in building support in sparsely populated areas and connecting otherwise isolated supporters of the Repeal movement.

The Abortion Rights Campaign (ARC) leveraged online technologies to distribute decision-making beyond Dublin, investing in tools that allowed remote participation specifically to ensure rural delegates could participate equally. This approach directly addressed long-standing criticisms about the capital-centric nature of Irish campaigns.

Perhaps most importantly, campaigners demonstrated awareness of social media’s pitfalls and developed strategies to mitigate them. On Twitter, they created “Repeal Shield,” a tool enabling users to automatically block accounts labeled as “pro-life trolls” spreading abuse. This innovation reduced personal attacks, limited misinformation, and created space for substantive public conversations without constant disruption.

Similar efforts emerged on Facebook, where campaigners maintained positive discourse by refusing to engage with opponents in unproductive ways, avoiding personal arguments, and minimizing negative imagery. These deliberate choices show that users can resist the platforms’ tendency to push them toward conflict by selectively restricting certain communication functions.

Campaigners also tackled information overload through practical solutions. Some regional groups established clear rules for platform use—designating WhatsApp for casual conversation while reserving other platforms for organization, creating dedicated canvassing-only channels, and even setting curfews for posting to prevent constant notifications.

Not all strategies succeeded perfectly—efforts to eliminate internal conflict had mixed results. However, the broader pattern reveals how collective, conscious decision-making can reshape social media use toward democratic ends. The successful grassroots campaign demonstrated that users aren’t merely passive consumers of whatever algorithms serve them.

Harold Garfinkel, a notable sociologist, coined the term “sociological dopes” to criticize colleagues who viewed people as unreflective participants trapped in social structures they neither understand nor can change. The Irish campaigners’ experience refutes this notion. Social media users can recognize problematic dynamics, work together to mitigate negative effects, repurpose platforms for their needs, use them selectively, or abandon them entirely—as evidenced by the ongoing exodus from X.

As we approach another election cycle with justifiable concerns about social media’s impact on democracy, this case study offers important lessons. While there are legitimate grounds for fear, there are also reasons for optimism—particularly in our collective capacity to adapt these powerful tools to serve democratic purposes rather than undermine them.