According to an article published by Syracuse University, Americans view the United States as more politically polarized than in the past, and social media has amplified this perception.

To understand the current political landscape, one must first understand how political polarization is defined. According to a journal article in the “Annals of the International Communication Association” there are two types of political polarization, ideological and affective. Ideological polarization is defined as the divergence of political opinions, beliefs, attitudes and stances of political adversaries. Affective polarization, by contrast, measures how much individuals feel warmth toward their political allies and hostility towards their opponents. 

Social media, as we know it today, is a newer technology, but in recent years it has had great effect on affective polarization. Before social media and internet access were the standard for gathering information, people relied on the radio, print newspapers and television news. The internet existed as a one-way form of communication. Now, anyone can interact on social media through a comment section, creating digital content or engaging with posts. 

“Whether things are accurate or inaccurate, attacking or defending, truthful or untruthful; anybody can put that out there and any of us can access it.” – Carl Cavalli, University of North Georgia Political Science Professor

When news stations were the main way the public learned about current events, the stations felt the pressure of competing with one another to reach the largest audience possible. As a result, this created very centric-oriented news or news that focuses on a diverse range of political ideologies. With a seemingly infinite number of sources and voices trying to be heard on the internet today, there is much less pressure to reach as large of an audience. 

Cavalli stated, “We don’t get those broad viewpoints anymore. We now are bombarded with far left or far right. And we are allowed to surround ourselves with those things.” Media diversity is a good thing, but it only remains positive when people consume various different perspectives. When people refuse to interact with someone who believes differently, they build opinions of their political adversaries based on the media alone. Social media is increasingly becoming a part of the lens through which people view politics. 

The Comedy Central program “The Daily Show” released a segment titled “The Economy of Anger,” in which a reporter cited survey data on political polarization in the United States. “80% of Americans now have few or no friends across the aisle. 62% of college democrats say they would not dorm with a republican.”

A review in the “Annals of International Communication Association” found that “like-minded media makes people more ideologically and affectively polarized.”

Platforms such as TikTok, Instagram and YouTube use algorithms designed to keep users engaged. Companies track user behavior to deliver content similar to what users have previously viewed. This leaves little to no room for exploration of anything else. When a person is exposed to content that only reinforces preexisting political views, their ideas have the potential to be misinformed. 

Some members of Gen Z report getting their news from social media platforms. Maripaz Sandoval, a Sophomore at New York University stated, she likes to “go to the comments to see what people think,”  in order to gauge public reaction.

On social media, users can post with minimal accountability. People feel comfortable doing so because they do not see the immediate impact of real people viewing what they say. The perceived distance created by screens can make individuals more comfortable expressing views they might not share in person. “It’s hard to yell at a friend. It’s hard to make nasty comments about someone you see every day,” said Cavalli.

Social media is not the sole cause of political polarization, but it can amplify tension that already exists. The political climate in the United States was highlighted when activist Charlie Kirk was shot while speaking at Utah Valley University. Reactions to the incident on social media illustrated deep partisan divides, with some celebrating the event and others enraged. According to a CT Insider report published in September 2025, State Sen. Matt Lesser, D-Middletown said, “the vehement responses to Kirk’s death demonstrated that the race to create content is contributing to our current political state of extremes.”

“When you can sit down with someone who has very different beliefs than you, and you can talk with them and learn about ‘this is why I think the way I do,’ or ‘this is the life experience I have had,’ that allows for consideration of an opinion that you might not consider otherwise,” said Chief Assistant District Attorney for Douglas County, Kevin McMurry. 

“[Social media] has its pros and cons. One of the pros is the democratization of information. Anybody who can access technology and social media can access this information. But on the other side are the unfiltered comments. Comments can be misleading, whether that is fake news or conspiracies. People believe what they believe…” -Maripaz Sandoval, NYU student

Social media is just one of many reasons the United States is so politically divided, but it does present challenges that previous generations did not face. “I think you have to examine everything that is presented to you, politics or not, critically,” McMurry said. “What is the source? Is there a message that is being delivered beyond just the reporting of an event? I think looking for longer forms of reporting is probably helpful.”