Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Americans Are Doomscrolling Their Way to the Ballot Box and Only Getting Empty Promises

Opinion

Man lying in his bed, on his phone at night.

As the 2026 election approaches, doomscrolling and social media are shaping voter behavior through fear and anxiety. Learn how digital news consumption influences political decisions—and how to break the cycle for more informed voting.

Getty Images, gorodenkoff

As the spring primary cycle ramps up, voters are deciding which candidates to elect in the November general election, but too much doomscrolling on social media is leading to uninformed — and often anxiety-based — voting. Even though online platforms and politicians may be preying on our exhaustion to further their agendas, we don’t have to fall for it this election cycle.

Doomscrolling is, unfortunately, part of daily life for many of us. It involves consuming a virtually endless amount of negative social media posts and news content, causing us to feel scared and depressed. Our brains have a hardwired negativity bias that causes us to notice potential threats and focus on them. This is exacerbated by the fact that people who closely follow or participate in politics are more likely to doomscroll.


A 2024 report found that 31% of adults in the U.S. who use social media indicated they doomscroll “a lot” or “some,” and a 2026 study found that more than one-third of Americans doomscroll before bed. Meanwhile, 21% of Americans get their political and election news from social media, and 53% of people get at least some of their general news from social media, which will undoubtedly impact their 2026 election choices.

Our social media timelines are filled with stories about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the war in Gaza, military strikes on Iran, inflation, the high cost of housing, and every other problem in the world. When we see these potential threats, we keep scrolling to learn more about them; it is part of our natural fight nor flight response to threats, evolutionarily ingrained in us as a form of self-protection and survival.

Social media companies know this, and they inevitably benefit from it. When we endlessly doomscroll, we see advertisements that make enormous profits for these companies even at the expense of users. Recently, a California jury determined that social media companies often put profits over people.

For politicians, our doomscrolling provides a different but related opportunity. Politicians take advantage of our fears and anxieties by offering themselves as the remedies to all the threats in the world. They tell voters that they alone can prevent the danger, and that we neither need to fight or flee; instead, we only have to vote for them.

Social media has led to our fears growing deeper than any specific news topics and right to the very issue of our survival as a country. According to an American Psychological Association survey, “The future of the nation” was the most common source of significant stress for 77% of Americans in 2024, followed closely by the economy and the presidential election.

With this in mind, politicians campaign on solving all of our problems and offer themselves as the release for the pent-up anxiety caused by our doomscrolling. They don’t assert their candidacy as a form of statesmanship and governance, but rather as the way to protect us from the world’s instability.

Still, just as it always has been, the world is a dangerous place. Our ancestors knew that, only they didn’t spend hours each day scrolling on social media, constantly looking for those dangers like so many of us do now. That is where doomscrolling has gotten us.

Social media companies make billions of dollars, and politicians who offer true governance often get ignored. We instead elect politicians who promise to do the impossible of alleviating all the threats we see online, despite the fact that they know — and we should also know — that they cannot.

So how do we stop this? The standard advice to “put down the phone” is no longer enough. We need a strategic refusal to quit treating the ballot box like an anxiety-release valve. To break the cycle, we need to apply a “scroll-check” to every candidate. We need to ask ourselves: “If the digital threat this candidate is shouting about disappeared tomorrow, what would be left of their vision?” If the answer is an empty room, they aren't a leader; they are a symptom of the news feed.

While the dangers of the world cannot be eliminated, we can at least lessen some of the anxiety by remembering that politicians can’t fix everything, despite their empty promises. As Carl Jung said, “The man who promises everything is sure to fulfil nothing.”


Andrew Selepak, Ph.D., is a media professor at the University of Florida who teaches courses on social media and media and politics, including “Social Media and Society” and “Media and Politics.”

Read More

Humanoid Educators Will Widen Inequality—And Only Tech Overlords Will Benefit
a sign with a question mark and a question mark drawn on it

Humanoid Educators Will Widen Inequality—And Only Tech Overlords Will Benefit

In March, First Lady Melania Trump hosted an AI-powered humanoid robot at the White House during the Fostering the Future Together Global Coalition Summit, and introduced Plato, a humanoid educator marketed as a replacement for teachers that could homeschool children. A humanoid educator that speaks multiple languages, is always available, and draws on a vast store of information could expand access in meaningful ways. But the evidence suggests that the risks outweigh the benefits, that adoption will be uneven, and that the families most likely to adopt Plato will bear those risks disproportionately.

Research on excessive technology use in childhood has found consistent results. Young children and teenagers who spend too much time with screens are more likely to experience reduced physical activity, lower attention spans, depression, and social anxiety. On the same day that Melania Trump introduced Plato, a California jury ruled that Meta and YouTube contributed to anxiety and depression in a woman who began using social media at age 6, a reminder that the consequences of under-tested technology on children can be severe and long-lasting.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of a block with the words, "AI," on it, surrounded by slightly smaller caution signs.

The future of AI should be measured by its impact on ordinary Americans—not just tech executives and investors. Exploring AI inequality, labor concerns, and responsible innovation.

Getty Images, J Studios

The Kayla Test: Exploring How AI Impacts Everyday Americans

We’re failing the Kayla Test and running out of time to pass it. Whether AI goes “well” for the country is not a question anyone in SF or DC can answer. To assess whether AI is truly advancing the interests of Americans, AI stakeholders must engage with more than power users, tokenmaxxers, and Fortune 500 CEOs. A better evaluation is to talk to folks like Kayla, my Lyft driver in Morgantown, WV, and find out what they think about AI. It's a test I stumbled upon while traveling from an AI event at the West Virginia University College of Law to one at Stanford Law.

Kayla asked me what I do for a living. I told her that I’m a law professor focused on AI policy. Those were the last words I said for the remainder of the ride to the airport.

Keep ReadingShow less
Close up of a person on their phone at night.

From “Patriot Games” to The Hunger Games, how spectacle, social media, and political culture risk normalizing violence and eroding empathy.

Getty Images, Westend61

The Capitol Is Counting on Us to Laugh

When the Trump administration announced the Patriot Games, many people laughed. Selecting two children per state for a nationally televised sports competition looked too much like Suzanne Collins’ Hunger Games to take seriously. But that instinct, to laugh rather than look closer, is one the Capitol is counting on. It has always been easier to normalize violence when it arrives dressed as entertainment or patriotism.

Here’s what I mean: The Hunger Games starts with the reaping, the moment when a Capitol official selects two children, one boy and one girl, to fight to the death against tributes from every other district. The games were created as an annual reminder of a failed rebellion, to remind the districts that dissent has consequences. At first, many Capitol residents saw the games as a just punishment. But sentiments shifted as the spectacle grew—when citizens could bet on winners, when a death march transformed into a beauty pageant, when murder became a pathway to celebrity.

Keep ReadingShow less
Technology and Presidential Election

Anthropic’s Mythos AI raises alarms about surveillance, deepfakes, and democracy. Why urgent AI regulation is needed as U.S. policy struggles to keep pace.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

How the Latest in AI Threatens Democracy

On April 24, America got a wake-up call from Anthropic, one of the nation’s leading artificial intelligence companies. It announced a new AI tool, called Mythos, that can identify flaws in computer networks and software systems that, as Politico puts it, “Even the brightest human minds have been unable to identify.”

A machine smarter than the “brightest human minds” sounds like a line from a dystopian science fiction movie. And if that weren’t scary enough, we now have a government populated by people who seem oblivious to the risks AI poses to democracy and humanity itself.

Keep ReadingShow less