A sweeping new Pew Research Center study across 37 nations has found that public confidence in social media’s role in democracy is deteriorating at a striking pace, with every country surveyed recording a decline in positive sentiment since the last time the research was conducted in 2022. The report, highlighted by Social Media Today, reveals that a rising number of people now believe platforms such as Facebook, X, TikTok, and YouTube are actively harming democratic processes rather than strengthening them. This represents a significant shift from the earlier optimism that accompanied the rise of social media, when many believed these platforms would empower citizens, spread information, and hold powerful institutions accountable. Instead, the new global data suggests that the public has grown increasingly wary of the digital public square, citing concerns about misinformation, political polarization, foreign interference, and the amplification of extreme voices. The survey’s cross-national scope makes the findings particularly powerful, as the negative trend is not confined to one region or political system but appears to be a global phenomenon. While the degree of pessimism varies from country to country, the direction is uniform, and the overall trajectory is unmistakable. The findings arrive at a time when governments around the world are struggling to craft coherent regulatory responses to social media, and they add fresh urgency to debates about online safety, algorithmic transparency, and the legal responsibilities of tech companies. In the United States, the erosion of confidence is especially pronounced, with nearly two-thirds of adults now saying that social media is bad for democracy, a figure that reflects deep public frustration with the state of online discourse.
The United States stands out as one of the most negative countries in the survey, but it is far from alone in its pessimism. According to Pew’s data, 64% of American adults say social media is bad for democracy, a striking number that underscores how deeply the platform era has soured in the public imagination. The report also found that people in wealthier nations are more likely to believe that social media has a negative influence on democratic systems. This pattern may reflect the fact that citizens in high-income countries have greater access to a wide range of media sources, more experience with the negative side effects of online engagement, and perhaps higher expectations for how democratic institutions should function. In contrast, respondents in some developing nations may still view social media as a valuable tool for organizing, self-expression, and circumventing traditional media gatekeepers. Yet even in those countries, the data shows that sentiment has declined since 2022, suggesting that the negative consequences of social media are becoming more visible and more widely felt across the global landscape. The consistent decline across all 37 nations is a powerful indicator that the problems associated with social media are not merely the result of cultural or political differences, but are rooted in the fundamental design and business models of the platforms themselves. Engagement-driven algorithms, which prioritize content that generates strong emotional reactions, have been widely criticized for rewarding outrage and division. The new Pew research provides empirical support for those criticisms, showing that ordinary users across the world are noticing the same troubling dynamics. As public opinion becomes more negative, pressure is likely to mount on policymakers to take decisive action, whether through content moderation rules, antitrust enforcement, or new transparency requirements for algorithmic systems.
Despite the overall negative trend, the Pew study also contains an important counterpoint: 55% of respondents across the 37 nations still believe that social media has a positive impact on democracy overall. This finding complicates the narrative of universal despair and highlights a significant generational divide in how social media is perceived. Young adults, in particular, are more likely than older generations to view social platforms as beneficial to democratic life. For younger users, social media is not just a source of news and entertainment; it is a space for political expression, grassroots organizing, and direct engagement with elected officials. They have grown up with these platforms and often see them as essential tools for civic participation, even while acknowledging their flaws. Older adults, by contrast, tend to focus on the dangers of misinformation, the loss of privacy, and the coarsening of public debate. This generational gap has important implications for the future of social media regulation. If younger people continue to see value in these platforms, blanket restrictions may face resistance from the very demographic that uses them most heavily. At the same time, the fact that only a little more than half of respondents still hold a positive view represents a significant decline from previous years and suggests that even young people are becoming more critical. The nuanced picture that emerges from the data is one of a global public that is deeply conflicted: recognizing the harms of social media while also acknowledging its potential for good. This conflict is likely to shape the next phase of platform governance, as regulators, tech companies, and civil society groups struggle to find a balance between protecting democratic institutions and preserving the benefits of open communication.
The Pew findings are particularly relevant to the growing global movement to restrict young people’s access to social media. In another Pew Research survey, 82% of Australian adults said they supported restricting access to social media for kids, a striking figure that demonstrates the depth of public concern about the effects of platforms on children and teenagers. The same report showed that older adults are significantly more likely than younger adults to view social media bans for teens as a positive development, reflecting a broader consensus that the risks of social media outweigh its benefits when it comes to young people. This support for age-based restrictions is not limited to Australia. Similar studies conducted in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Norway, and Sweden all show that a majority of adults support limiting teenagers’ access to social media. The convergence of public opinion across such a diverse set of countries suggests that concerns about teen social media use have become a global issue, transcending political and cultural boundaries. Parents, educators, and policymakers are increasingly worried about the impact of social media on adolescents’ mental health, self-esteem, attention spans, and social development. The Pew data showing widespread support for teen bans could provide political cover for governments that are considering legislative action. Indeed, several countries and states have already moved forward with proposed laws to restrict social media access for minors, and the new research is likely to accelerate those efforts. The fact that the voting public appears to support such measures, even in nations with strong traditions of free expression, is a powerful signal that the political calculus around social media regulation is changing.
One of the key arguments for why social media is now viewed as harmful to democracy centers on the role of engagement-driven algorithms. These algorithms are designed to maximize the amount of time users spend on platforms by showing them content that is likely to provoke strong emotional responses. Unfortunately, research has consistently shown that outrage, anger, and fear are among the most powerful drivers of engagement. As a result, social media feeds tend to amplify argumentative and emotion-inducing posts, many of which are misleading or outright false. This dynamic has helped stoke societal division, as users are increasingly exposed to extreme viewpoints and partisan content that reinforces their existing beliefs while demonizing those who disagree. The Pew survey’s findings align with this critique, suggesting that the public is aware of the ways in which social media can distort political discourse. Some respondents may have personally experienced the toxic nature of online debates, while others may have observed the spread of misinformation during major elections, public health crises, and geopolitical conflicts. The cumulative effect is a growing sense that social media is not merely a neutral platform for communication, but an active participant in the erosion of democratic norms. In some cases, social media has compelled people to change or deepen their political ideologies, pushing them toward more extreme positions than they might otherwise have adopted. This is a deeply troubling development for any society that values reasoned debate and compromise. The fact that these concerns are now shared by a majority of adults across dozens of countries suggests that the problem is systemic and cannot be solved by individual users alone. It points to the need for structural changes in the way social media platforms are designed, funded, and governed.
The Pew data could also explain why more teen social media bans are likely inevitable in the coming years. Since the majority of voting-age adults in many countries now support restrictions on young people’s access to social media, elected officials have a clear political incentive to act. The overwhelming consensus that social media is having negative impacts, at least for younger users, makes it easier for governments to justify intervention despite concerns about censorship and free speech. In the United States, for example, several states have passed or proposed laws requiring parental consent for minors to create social media accounts, and similar efforts are underway in Europe and Asia. The Australian government has been particularly vocal about its intention to impose strict age limits on social media platforms, citing concerns about children’s mental health and safety. The Pew research provides empirical support for these policy initiatives by demonstrating that the public is firmly on the side of regulation. Whether these bans will actually improve the situation for young people remains an open question. Critics argue that age verification systems can be easily bypassed, that social media also provides valuable connections for marginalized youth, and that the real problem lies in the business models of the platforms rather than in the act of using them. Nonetheless, the political momentum appears to be building in favor of restrictions. If the current trend continues, it is likely that more countries will introduce teen social media bans over the next several years, and the Pew data suggests that such measures will be welcomed by a broad cross-section of the public. Maybe that is a good thing, based on the broader consensus that social media is having negative impacts. The challenge for policymakers will be to craft regulations that protect young people without undermining the democratic values that social media can also support. The new Pew study makes clear that the world is watching, and that the public’s patience with the status quo is rapidly running out.