(Photo by Jonathan Rashad via Wikimedia Commons/CC BY 2.0)
Truth is a complex concept. When people talk about truth, they often refer to their personal views, realities, and beliefs. This form of truth can be fragile, influenced by mixed memories, biases, or limited perspectives. While a single truth may seem brittle and insignificant, collective truths can become an immensely powerful and dynamic force, akin to a socially accepted body of thought—a zeitgeist.
Throughout history, collective truth has been shaped and controlled by different powers: monarchies, the clergy, ordinary people, the media, and science. It was only in the 19th century that the press made its powerful entrance, after the arrival of science during the Enlightenment period in the 18th century.
Over the years, scientific methods and proofs have become much more rigorous, replacing many older approaches to truth, which were tied to authority and tradition, particularly in philosophy and religion. This shift led to an era of empirical-rational truth: a centralized knowledge grounded in verifiable facts, derived from systematic observation and experimentation. This form of truth has gained more trust in research, universities, and journalism.
In recent years, with the extensive use of social media and its algorithmic developments, there have been multiple attacks on empirical truth. The rapid and sophisticated spread of misinformation, disinformation, and fake news has contributed to a shift toward the era of post-truth. In this new landscape, emotions, personal beliefs, and viral narratives often outweigh objective facts in shaping what individuals accept as reality.
This raises important questions: How did the transition occur from trusting science and provable facts to questioning everything based on emotions? How is this era of post-truth different from previous instances of misinformation in human history? And can empirical truth still hold its ground in an age where feelings often speak louder than evidence?
The Rise of Post-Truth
In 2016, a remarkable shift in public discourse occurred with the passing of Brexit and the American Presidential election of Donald Trump. That same year, Oxford Dictionaries declared ‘post-truth’ as word of the year, a fitting recognition of its growing significance. While the previous year’s winner was the face with tears of joy emoji, the concept of post-truth has ironically become increasingly relevant and dominant to this day. With the inevitable and almost self-evident presence of fact-checkers in digital environments, post-truth has found its way into mainstream media and everyday politics.
The Democratization of Social Media
This massive metamorphosis has only been possible through the individualization and democratization of social media. A development that promises more and more people to engage in the art of truth-forming. Marginalized groups can now share their perspectives more easily than before, without relying on traditional gatekeepers. News events can spread rapidly in the global landscape, enabling grassroots movements such as the Arab Spring and Black Lives Matter. And on top of that, social media is capable of exposing wrongdoing (police violence, corruption) that mainstream media might miss or ignore.
But every rose has its thorn, and in the age of post-truth, the thorn has grown so large it threatens to eclipse the beauty of the rose itself. Besides the powerful act of democratizing and greater accessibility to public opinion, social media has a lot of negative effects on conserving the factual truth. And that is, ironically, due to the same catchiness, shareability, and connectivity that make social media such a promising tool for democratizing truth-forming.
Algorithms and Populism Hand-in-Hand To Feed Our Emotions
As people spend more and more time on smartphones and thus consume increasing amounts of news online, truth-forming now takes place largely in the digital world. Algorithms are continuously evolving at an individual level beneath the surface of this landscape. They serve as immensely addictive and powerful tools that personalize digital consumption by constantly learning through trial and error based on user input and engagement with various platforms.
The central problem with algorithms is the way they create personalized content because algorithms prioritize one thing: effectiveness. To keep people engaged in online content, algorithms often prioritize content that provokes strong emotions, such as anger, outrage, and joy, which tends to promote sensational claims over nuanced, factual reporting.
Algorithms are not entirely devoid of value. Algorithms can also connect people with high-quality, relevant information and help amplify important causes. The real issue lies in platforms’ priorities—when profit and attention outweigh accuracy, sensationalism wins over substance.
Emotional appeal fuels populist influence around the world. When talking about populism, it is worth mentioning what it exactly is. According to Cas Mudde, author of Populism: A Very Short Introduction, populist leaders claim to represent the will of the people. Populism thrives on the illusory distinction between the so-called pure and the corrupt elite. Even though people often conflate the word populism with right-wing politics, Mudde reminds readers that populism can emerge anywhere across the political spectrum. Left-wing populism often targets economic elites and systemic inequalities. In contrast, right-wing populism frequently focuses on cultural or ethnic out-groups, such as immigrants, framing them as a threat to the nation.
The Need For A Simple Narrative
The rise of the right-wing populists stems from their emotional appeal and the structure of their common narrative: blaming immigrants. This narrative focuses on binary notions of villains and heroes, making it easy to package into short, shareable posts and memes. By framing politics as an urgent us-versus-them struggle, it creates emotionally charged identity bonds that spread rapidly online.
Left-wing populism, in contrast, tends to focus on structural issues and inclusive messaging that evoke lower-arousal emotions like empathy, which are less likely to go viral. Research by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology indicates that increased social media use among 1,250 young Americans tends to lead to a decrease in empathy. Participants who used social media more often showed higher likelihoods of narcissistic traits (excessive self-focus and a need for admiration) and alexithymia (difficulty recognizing and expressing emotions). Both conditions correlate with lower empathy.
Digital Tribalism and Radicalization
Another alarming effect of the same algorithm, outweighing profit and attention, is the phenomenon of the so-called echo chambers. In these online spaces shaped by attention-driven algorithms, people mostly see content that reflects what they already believe. This repetition builds a kind of tunnel vision: perspectives become narrower, opposing views are dismissed, and misinformation can feel more convincing simply because it goes unchallenged. As a result, online communities begin to cluster around shared narratives, reinforcing group identity while shutting out alternative perspectives.
But this concept of tribalizing, the act of forming or strengthening social groups based on shared characteristics, often leading to a sense of identity and belonging, has always been deeply embedded in human nature. But it’s the online space for ultra–radicalizing opinions that has become increasingly connected and encouraged throughout echo chambers. Whereas people’s lives offline often provide nuance to radical beliefs, echo chambers tend to boost radicalization and polarization due to their effectiveness in terms of profit and attention.
The Unity of Radicalization
The attack on the US Capitol in 2021 illustrates the dangers of online echo chambers. Supporters of then-President Trump stormed the Capitol, attempting to overturn the 2020 election results. While the assault stemmed from factors, platforms like Parler and Gab played a key role in organizing the riot. These apps provide spaces for radicalization, establishing unity among those planning a violent and anti-democratic attack.
Experts argue that such echo chambers fueled extremist mobilization by amplifying divisive rhetoric and conspiracy theories. After the siege, both platforms were banned due to criticism for failure to curb hate speech and violent incitement.
While Gab is currently only available throughout their website, Palror is working on their relaunch. Pierotti, a former Parler executive, said in an interview with NBC News that it’s likely that Parler will be available again in the Apple and Google app stores. She points out that Musk’s X is allowed by the two tech giants, even though X’s loose speech rules allow pro-Nazi content. Parallel to this, a similar discourse emerges when examining Meta, which loosened up its free-speech policies this year, resulting in far fewer content takedowns, and thus, leaving more space for radicalization.
The Politics of Misinformation
President Trump’s media strategy exploits the weaknesses of the current digital environment, catering to the information overload and undermining traditional gatekeepers. Steve Bannon, a political strategist and former chief strategist for the Trump administration, stated that the media–not the Democrats–represent the real opposition. Bannon suggested that overwhelming the media with a high volume of information is the most effective way to counter their influence. This tactic mirrors methods employed by authoritarian regimes, which suppress dissent by overwhelming it and manipulating psychological responses.
Social media platforms have become engines of confusion that prompt a demand for simple and memorable narratives that cut through the noise. Trump’s messaging, along with most of the right-wing populist policies around the world, is an example of this tactic. The use of emotionally charged slogans such as: witch-hunting, fake news, rigging elections, and alternative facts, creates an alternative reality to bypass factual scrutiny, where emotional resonance outweighs objective truth.
Despite the growing prevalence of fact-checking on social media, falsehoods continue to outpace fact-checks. Additionally, emotional reactions often replace critical thinking, allowing political figures to dominate public discourse through sheer volume and repetition rather than well-founded arguments.
Empathy, Education, and Reform For A Path Forward
To navigate the challenges of the post-truth era and ensure a democratic and verifiable social media landscape, a comprehensive approach is necessary. First, algorithmic reform must prioritize accuracy and context over mere engagement, reducing the spread of false information while amplifying important information. Second, early media literacy education equips people with critical thinking skills, enabling them to discern fact from fiction and resist emotional manipulation online. Third, cultivating empathy and altruism acknowledges that a democratic, accessible online space depends not only on freedom of speech, but on respect, fact-based dialogue, and effective restrictions on hate speech.
Governments, tech companies, and individuals must share the responsibility of creating environments where they can safely encounter and debate differing perspectives to dismantle echo chambers. Technological innovation, education, and ethical strategies can build digital landscapes where verified and accurate information thrives, radicalization declines, and human connections—not division—shape the online public sphere. Ultimately, it is collective empathy and altruism that empower democracy to flourish in the age of post-truth.
Edited by Gabrielle Andrychuk
