---
type: claim
domain: grand-strategy
description: "Unlike fossil fuels or pharma which lobby policy while leaving democratic capacity intact, social media degrades the electorate's ability to form coherent preferences — creating a governance paradox where the institution that should regulate is itself impaired by what it needs to regulate"
confidence: likely
source: "Schmachtenberger & Harris on Lex Fridman #191 (2021), Schmachtenberger & Harris on JRE #1736 (2021), Schmachtenberger 'War on Sensemaking' Parts 1-4"
created: 2026-04-03
related:
- epistemic commons degradation is the gateway failure that enables all other civilizational risks because you cannot coordinate on problems you cannot collectively perceive
- what propagates is what wins rivalrous competition not what is true and this applies across genes memes products scientific findings and sensemaking frameworks
- internet-social-governance-failed-because-harms-are-abstract-and-non-attributable-commercial-stakes-were-peak-at-governance-attempt-and-sovereignty-conflicts-prevent-consensus
reweave_edges:
- internet-social-governance-failed-because-harms-are-abstract-and-non-attributable-commercial-stakes-were-peak-at-governance-attempt-and-sovereignty-conflicts-prevent-consensus|related|2026-04-18
---

# Social media uniquely degrades democracy because it fractures the electorate itself rather than merely influencing policy making the regulatory body incapable of regulating its own degradation

Most industries that externalize harm do so through policy influence: fossil fuel companies lobby against carbon regulation, pharmaceutical companies capture FDA processes, defense contractors shape procurement policy. In all these cases, the democratic process is the target of lobbying but remains structurally intact — citizens can still form coherent preferences, evaluate candidates, and organize around shared interests. The machinery of democracy still works; it's just being pressured.

Social media's externality is structurally different. It doesn't lobby government — it fractures the electorate. Engagement optimization algorithms select for content that produces strong emotional reactions, which systematically amplifies outrage, fear, tribal identification, and moral certainty. The result is not a biased electorate but a fragmented one: citizens who inhabit increasingly disjoint information realities, who cannot agree on basic facts, and who experience political opponents as existential threats rather than fellow citizens with different priorities.

This creates a governance paradox: the institution responsible for regulating social media (democratic government) is itself degraded by the thing it needs to regulate. A fragmented electorate cannot form coherent regulatory consensus. Politicians who depend on social media for campaign visibility cannot regulate their own distribution channel. Citizens whose information environment is shaped by the platforms cannot evaluate proposals to reform the platforms.

Schmachtenberger and Harris make this case empirically with three evidence chains:

1. **Epistemic fragmentation.** The same event produces diametrically opposed narratives in different information ecosystems. Citizens are not misinformed (correctable with facts) but differently-informed (living in parallel realities with no shared epistemic ground). This is qualitatively different from pre-social-media media bias.

2. **Attention economy as arms race.** Content creators compete for attention, and engagement algorithms reward what spreads fastest. This produces an arms race toward increasingly extreme, emotionally provocative content — not because anyone wants polarization but because the selection mechanism rewards it. The dynamic is Molochian: no individual actor benefits from the outcome, but the competitive structure produces it inevitably.

3. **Democratic capacity metrics.** Trust in institutions, willingness to accept election results, ability to identify common ground across party lines, and tolerance for political opponents have all declined significantly in the social media era. Correlation is not causation, but the mechanism (engagement optimization → emotional amplification → epistemic fragmentation → democratic incapacity) is well-specified and directionally supported.

The implication for AI governance: if social media has already impaired democratic capacity to regulate technology, then AI — which is more powerful, faster-moving, and harder to understand — faces a regulatory environment that is pre-degraded. The window for effective AI governance may be narrower than the technical timeline suggests, because the governing institution is itself weakened.

## Challenges

- Correlation between social media adoption and democratic decline may reflect broader trends (economic inequality, institutional sclerosis, post-Cold War identity vacuum) that social media amplifies but doesn't cause. Attributing democratic decline primarily to social media may overweight one factor in a multi-causal system.
- Pre-social-media democracies were also fragmented — partisan media, yellow journalism, propaganda have existed for centuries. The claim that social media's effect is "structurally different" rather than "more of the same at greater scale" needs stronger evidence.
- Some evidence suggests social media enables democratic participation (Arab Spring, #MeToo, grassroots organizing) alongside its fragmenting effects. The net effect on democratic capacity is contested, not settled.
- The governance paradox may not be as airtight as described. The EU's Digital Services Act, Australia's media bargaining code, and various platform transparency requirements show that fragmented democracies CAN still regulate platforms — imperfectly, but not impossibly.

---

Relevant Notes:
- [[epistemic commons degradation is the gateway failure that enables all other civilizational risks because you cannot coordinate on problems you cannot collectively perceive]] — social media's fracturing of the electorate IS epistemic commons degradation applied to democratic governance specifically
- [[what propagates is what wins rivalrous competition not what is true and this applies across genes memes products scientific findings and sensemaking frameworks]] — engagement optimization is the specific mechanism by which "what propagates" overrides "what's true" in the democratic information environment

Topics:
- [[_map]]