As of 2025, it’s hard to picture a world without digital communication. Most people all around the world rely on technology and platforms to talk to family and friends, meet new people and, ever since the pandemic, even to work with clients internationally. Despite the benefits digital communication has provided us for the past two decades, it’s important to remember that everything comes with a price.
As of the end of 2024, Meta’s Instagram and Facebook daily users amounted to 3.35 billion, and X (formally Twitter) counts more than 600 million a month. These platforms are frequented by almost half the world’s population on a daily basis, and the men helming them are raking in unfathomable amounts of money, not by providing a way of communicating but by keeping users engaged. This, in my opinion, is what most people overlook. On the surface digital communication seems like the path to a bright future but, if we don’t pay attention, we might mistake that bright future for the shiny tip of an anglerfish.
How the shortcomings of digital communication have become profitable
Although digital communication can be incredible for keeping in touch with people you might not get to see very often or find a community of like minded individuals from every corner of the planet; there are clear fallbacks to not communicating face-to-face. As a person who was born into this and has never known a world without the internet, I am aware that a lot is lost when communicating online. Emojis don’t always have their intended meaning, it’s difficult to communicate tone, but, most importantly, it’s easy to dehumanise other users.
Out there, in the real world, meeting people with different opinions is a given and rarely ever results in an aggressive argument. Perhaps, it’s because we see the other person as a person first. On the other hand, when coming across someone online with widely different opinions from your own, it’s easier to feel more angry and upset; this is because the other person appears less as a person and more like a stand-in for those ideas. We don’t get to see their expressions or have a civilised conversation, because we’re behind a screen and therefore it feels less personal.
What makes matters worse is that social media platforms profit off of user engagement and time spent, which leads to big creators “rage baiting” people with the pure intention of driving traffic. This might sound harmless, but the natural escalation of this behaviour is hate speech and misinformation that is so radical it either convinces people or keeps them arguing. In other words, it’s more profitable for social media companies to polarise people rather than promoting a healthy environment for communication.
I don’t believe those responsible for creating apps like Instagram, Facebook or X ever intended them to become a cesspool of hate and misinformation. However, it’s clear that companies don’t seem to care about the moral or social repercussions of this kind of communication as long as it keeps people on the app.
How to destabilise a country from the inside
Communication has always been humanity’s greatest ally; by working together and sharing ideas we’ve created wonderful things and helped billions of people. Countries thrive when people are free to express themselves and their thoughts, which is why misinformation and hate are the ideal way of dividing people.
In September 2024, United States prosecutors filed an indictment against six right-wing social media personalities, having discovered they were unknowingly funded by Russian state media employees to churn out English-language videos that were “often consistent” with the Kremlin’s “interest in amplifying U.S. domestic divisions in order to weaken U.S. opposition” to Russian interests, like its war in Ukraine.
These people were not small influencers, they had millions of followers and ties with many members of the Republican party. There’s no ignoring the fact that digital communication comes with some pretty severe caveats.
The road ahead
Despite the glaring dangers of digital communication, it’s here to stay. As previously mentioned, there are far too many benefits to this kind of innovation that it wouldn’t be realistic nor fair to ask people to boycott companies like Meta or X. What people can do, however, is be aware of the issue and vote accordingly.
Lately, Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, two of the richest people alive, have been getting close to president Donald Trump. Musk was even given an official government position overseeing “DOGE” (Department of Government Efficiency), a newly created branch meant to “cut wasteful or corrupt spending”. Zuckerberg and Musk own Meta and X (formerly Twitter) respectively, and have begun to enact changes to their platforms to appease Trump and the alt-right agenda.
When Musk became the owner of X he quickly unbanned president Trump, and unleashed a wave of hate on the platform. According to a BBC insider report: “Twitter insiders have told the BBC that the company is no longer able to protect users from trolling, state-co-ordinated disinformation and child sexual exploitation, following lay-offs and changes under owner Elon Musk.” Furthermore, at the beginning of 2025, Zuckerberg announced the end of fact-checking on his social media platforms, a decision that stands to hurt the general public whilst protecting those who wish to disseminate hate and misinformation.
As Elon Musk begins to push for more right-wing politics in the EU, it’s important to keep in mind that the state of digital communication, now more than ever, is at a crossroads: it can either be a democratic, free space in which to share ideas or it can become a weapon for hate and to divide the masses. The future is still unknown, however awareness and knowledge is a great first step towards a better digital landscape.
