How Social Media Shapes Political Opinions in the Digital Age

How Social Media Shapes Political Opinions in the Digital Age

By Farizal Kamal

Once upon a time, political opinions were shaped by long newspaper columns, family dinner debates, and late-night coffee shop arguments. Today, they are shaped by a glowing rectangle in our hands and a thumb that scrolls faster than the brain processes. In the digital age, we are no longer citizens simply forming views — we are users being formed by algorithms.

Social media did not invent political persuasion; it simply turbocharged it. Platforms like Facebook, TikTok, Twitter/X, and Instagram have become the world’s largest political arenas — where misinformation moves faster than facts, hashtags can sway national moods, and a viral video can influence public sentiment more than months of parliamentary debate.

Politics once relied on speeches and manifestos. Now, it relies on memes, influencers, and 30-second clips. Attention is currency, outrage is fuel, and nuance is the first casualty. Why read a policy document when you can watch a dramatic TikTok explaining it in 15 seconds — accuracy optional?

In Malaysia, the effect is especially pronounced. Here, social media is not just a communication tool; it is a battleground of narratives. Urban voters, rural communities, youth groups, even aunties in family WhatsApp chats — everyone is receiving a custom-curated political buffet. Not based on truth, but on the algorithm’s guess about what keeps us hooked. That usually means emotion over evidence: anger, fear, pride, or tribal identity.

Political opinion has subtly shifted from what we think to what we are shown repeatedly until it feels true. Echo chambers replace independent thought. Confirmation bias whispers, If I already believe this, it must be right. The more we see opinions that match ours, the more convinced we become that only “our side” has logic, integrity, or patriotism. The other side becomes caricatured villains in a digital morality play.

And the real danger? We stop talking to each other — and start talking at each other. Social platforms reward division because division keeps us scrolling. Anger, after all, is addictive. Outrage travels miles while reason barely gets out of bed.

Yet, it would be unfair to dismiss social media entirely. It has democratized voices, exposed corruption, amplified youth participation, and allowed marginalized communities to speak directly without gatekeepers. It has brought accountability to leaders and transparency to systems once shielded from scrutiny.

Still, influence without awareness is manipulation. In this landscape, digital citizenship is not optional; it is survival. We must question before we share, verify before we believe, and think before we react. We must learn to read beyond headlines, reject sensationalism, and remind ourselves that truth does not always travel in viral format.

The ballot box remains physical, but the battle for minds is fought online. And if we do not master the art of thinking independently in a connected world, we risk trading our opinions for algorithms, and our judgment for emotion.

Democracy is not threatened by technology — it is threatened when we forget who should be in control of our thoughts. Not the feed. Not the crowd. Not the trending hashtag.

Us.