Freemium Politics: More Authentic, More Tribal
The dominant business model for social media platforms highlights how “truth” depends on the digital bubble we live in.
I’m taking a moment to describe what I’m calling “Freemium Politics,” which draws out a provocative parallel between the freemium business model used by digital platforms and the dynamics of political polarization in American politics. Even when we read the same platforms, we elicit different realities.
Since the election, I have been explaining in various talks an ironic situation: The internet apparently provides all of us access to the same information, yet our online connectivity results in deeply polarized views. While social media platforms may not be the root cause of political polarization, their structure and algorithms certainly play a role in intensifying these divisions. The "free" nature of these platforms, combined with their data-driven personalization and engagement-focused algorithms, creates a social environment that amplifies partisan animosity and contributes to the increasing polarization of American politics.
Key Insight: Freemium platforms reduce barriers to political participation, while also contracting our political perspectives and accentuating political tribalism.
Social Media Platforms, Algorithms, and Owner Influence
Over the past decade, social media algorithms have increasingly shaped public opinion by controlling what users see and when they see it. This algorithmic control over information flow raises new concerns about bias and manipulation, particularly given the significant influence of platform owners like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg. As Joan Donovan, a researcher of media manipulation, observes, “Over the past decade, we have watched social media platforms warp public opinion by deciding what is seen and when users see it, as algorithms double as newsfeed and timeline editors.”
Concerns escalate when the political beliefs of these tech CEOs are actively encoded into the platforms' designs, enacting a form of "technofascism" where technology is used for political suppression and repression. A spotlight is being shown on specific instances where the political leanings of platform owners appear to have influenced content moderation and algorithmic decisions. For example, Meta, under Zuckerberg's leadership, has been accused of limiting the reach of political discussions and downranking posts containing the word "vote" on Instagram. Donovan argues, “Content moderation at these platforms now reflects the principles of the CEO and what that person believes is in the public’s interest,” meaning their personal ideologies are directly shaping the online experience for millions of users.
Donovan's analysis of Musk's actions on X points out that “Musk bemoaned the link suppression by Twitter in 2020 over Hunter Biden’s laptop while then hypocritically working with the Trump campaign in 2024 to ban accounts and links to leaked documents emanating from the Trump campaign that painted JD Vance in a negative light.” This behavior, she argues, demonstrates how the “design of platforms is now inextricable from the politics of the owner.”
A recent computational analysis of X (formerly Twitter) during the 2024 US election provides further evidence of algorithmic bias. The study, conducted by Graham and Andrejevic, reveals a significant increase in engagement metrics for Elon Musk's account following his endorsement of Donald Trump, indicating a possible algorithmic adjustment that favored his posts. Moreover, the analysis shows that Republican-leaning accounts experienced a greater boost in view counts compared to Democrat-leaning accounts after a platform-wide shift in mid-July 2024, suggesting a recommendation bias towards Republican content. Findings like these raise concerns about the neutrality of social media platforms and the potential for algorithmic manipulation to influence both public discourse and election outcomes.
How Freemium Services and the "Me Verse" Are Changing American Politics
Freemium services, with their business model of offering basic services for free while charging for premium features, have become common for all digital platforms. These platforms, including social media giants like Facebook and Twitter, rely on data collection to monetize their free-tier users. This vast trove of user data, encompassing personal preferences, online behavior, and social connections, is a goldmine for political campaigns. Microtargeting, the practice of tailoring political messages to specific demographics based on their data profiles, is increasingly sophisticated, tailored to the specific fears, hopes, and biases of individual voters, and enabling campaigns to exploit individual vulnerabilities and potentially amplify political polarization.
The rise of the "me verse" further complicates the picture. This term, a melding of "me" and "universe," describes the growing trend of personalized and individualized experiences, particularly in digital and consumer spaces. Driven by algorithms that curate content based on individual preferences, the "me verse" fosters a sense of individualism that reinforces existing beliefs. Digital platforms are designed to keep us engaged, showing us more of what we like and less of what challenges us. While this personalized experience is appealing, these platforms collect vast amounts of data about our preferences, behaviors, and beliefs, which isn't just used to improve user experience; it's a goldmine for political campaigns seeking to microtarget voters with laser-precision. In our personalized universe, our biases are reinforced, our views validated, and our exposure to diverse perspectives limited. It creates echo chambers and filter bubbles, where users are predominantly exposed to information that aligns with their pre-existing views, thus exacerbating political polarization.
Of course, our online-digital age has brought unprecedented access to information and connectivity. However, the intersection of freemium business models and “me verse” connectivity represents a convergence of trends with significant consequences. Specifically: The business model of freemium services interplay with the "me verse" phenomenon to accentuate and leverage the profitability of polarized views. This fragmentation is not just a matter of differing opinions—it's determining the very nature of political discourse in America, all while catering to the human desire for individuality and authenticity.:
Fragmentation of the Media Landscape: The proliferation of freemium news and information services has led to a fragmented media landscape. Users, empowered to curate their news sources, gravitate towards those that confirm familiar “truths” and avoid epistemic disruption, leading to a decline in shared experiences and a common understanding of facts. This makes it increasingly difficult to foster constructive dialogue across political divides.
The Rise of Misinformation: The pressure to monetize free users incentivizes freemium platforms to prioritize engaging content over factual accuracy—fertile ground for the spread of misinformation. The algorithms, designed to maximize engagement, often amplify sensationalized content or "clickbait" headlines, reducing patience for “boring” traditional media. Basically, the ingredients of polarization are financially lucrative.
Challenges to Democratic Discourse: The highly personalized nature of the "me verse," coupled with data-driven freemium services, poses challenges to healthy democratic discourse by reducing exposure to diverse views and reinforcing in-group/out-group dynamics, which can lead to distorted perceptions of political opponents, hindering the ability to find common ground and reducing motivation to engage in constructive dialogue.
Again, the personalized yet highly fragmented media landscape results in a decline in shared facts and common understanding. As larger outlets continue to grow, they pull sizable streaming communities into separate camps of “reality.” What constitutes "truth" becomes increasingly subjective, yet “truth” is constructed within particular—and increasingly larger—tribes and utterly dependent on which digital bubble a person inhabits.
Complex data-driven algorithms that power our digital experiences are designed to maximize engagement, often at the expense of accuracy. Sensationalized headlines and emotionally charged content spread like wildfire, while nuanced discussions and fact-based reporting struggle to gain traction. The implications of these trends beyond online platforms and into our politics include:
Declining Trust in Institutions: As misinformation spreads and polarization deepens, trust in democratic institutions erodes. This leads to cynicism and apathy, undermining civic engagement and, perhaps most importantly, the capacity for compassion and empathy.
Legislative Dysfunction: A polarized electorate, fueled by misinformation and mistrust, makes it increasingly difficult for elected officials to find compromise and govern effectively. Although messages can be asserted and spread to constituents, it is also true that constituents put pressure on their political representatives to hold fast to legislative paths conforming to their idealized “truths.” This leads to legislative gridlock and an inability to address pressing societal challenges.
Erosion of Democratic Norms: The "me verse" mentality, with its focus on individual preferences and validation, can contribute to a disregard for democratic norms and values. This can manifest in a willingness to tolerate or even justify undemocratic behavior that sustain in-group “truths” and suppress any perceived out-group threats however false or outrageous the claims may be.
The result is a political climate where outrage trumps reason, and where the loudest voices, rather than the most informed, dominate the conversation. Legislative gridlock, once an occasional feature of American politics, has become the norm in this polarized environment. As politicians cater to their digitally-curated bases, the art of compromise—essential for effective governance—is being lost. A fractured electorate, alternately supporting or opposing a government increasingly unable to address the complex challenges facing the nation, from climate change to economic inequality. Even more: When individuals are constantly validated in their beliefs and shielded from opposing viewpoints, they become more likely to justify undemocratic behavior that aligns with their interests.
Personalization Leads to Polarization
One more time: The rise of freemium services and the "me verse" phenomenon is not just changing how we consume information—it's fundamentally altering the landscape of American politics. Essentially, an algorithmically-driven tribalism occurs under the guise of promoting authenticity. But it is an illusion of authenticity.
As our digital spaces become increasingly tailored to our preferences and beliefs, the personalization of social media feeds creates a seductive illusion of authenticity and individuality. We feel seen, understood, and validated. However, and paradoxically, this personalization makes us feel both more individual and simultaneously more tribally aligned. Personalized customization fosters a false sense of consensus, leading us to perceive our views as more widely held than they actually are. We believe we are expressing our unique selves while unknowingly being pulled into polarized political tribes.
The dynamics of freemium politics is a symptom of what Ernst Bloch termed a "swindle of fulfillment" by an illusion that simultaneously achieves both a community of belonging and a more existentially secure foothold on fundamental truth. Users are constantly affirmed by information that aligns with familiar and frequently legitimated beliefs and desires. However, Bloch argues that the affect from such validation may only offer degraded pleasures—temporary satisfaction without addressing deeper human needs for meaning and connection beyond the self. The "me verse" becomes a gilded cage, where the promise of individual fulfillment masks a deep lack of authentic connection and meaningful social engagement.
The algorithms that curate our feeds may go some way toward satisfying our desire for authenticity, but in reality, they further entrench political divisions by reinforcing our existing beliefs and limiting exposure to diverse perspectives. This process creates a deceptive space to entrust a personal identity that masquerades as a reflection of our true selves, when in fact it is narrowing our worldview and exacerbating societal polarization.
Overview: Key Premises of “Freemium Politics”
To further the discussion, below is a draft list of key premises behind this concept.
Digital Personalization of Media Feeds and Echo Chambers. Freemium service—a dominant business model for digital platforms—offers a basic version of a product for free while charging for premium features, for example, social media platforms providing free access to personalized content feeds. This personalization, while seemingly catering to individual preferences, actually creates political echo chambers. Users are exposed to content that aligns with their existing views, creating an illusion of authenticity while simultaneously accentuating an exaggerated consensus of views, making their opinions seem more widely held than they actually are.
Data-Driven Polarization. Just as freemium models collect user data to refine their offerings, social media platforms gather vast amounts of information on user behavior and preferences. Data are then used to further tailor content, exacerbating political divisions by reinforcing existing biases and limiting exposure to diverse perspectives.
Amplification of Extreme Views. Data-driven algorithms that drive engagement on these platforms tend to amplify extreme views and controversial content, much like how freemium models entice users with premium features. More than just “clickbait,” this amplification intensifies political sectarianism and contributes to the erosion of democratic values by accentuating binary viewpoints that disincentivize accommodation of diversity, variation, and deeper examination. More engaging and polarizing content often becomes the "premium" content that gets the most visibility and interaction, drawing people into “insider” paid content, creating customer loyalty as well as higher commitments to viewpoints now made even more accessible.
Tribal Alignment and Division. While users may feel they are expressing their individuality through interactions on these platforms, they are unknowingly pulled into polarized political tribes that validate their identities, display them, and practice discourse and rhetoric as simply “normal.” In doing so, freemium social media platforms benefit from network effects, which translates to the rapid spread of partisan ideas and misinformation that quickly reaches large audiences and further entrenches political divisions. This segmentation manifests as increasingly distinct and oppositional political groups, which can be symbolically branded and then further instrumentalized by owners/shareholders and politicians for money and for votes.
Conversion from Paying Customers to Politicized Citizens. In the freemium model, the goal is to convert free users to paying customers. In "freemium politics," the equivalent might be seen as the gradual shift of users towards more extreme political positions. The constant exposure to partisan content can lead to a hardening of political stances over time and tougher group boundaries.
Neither Easy Nor Popular Solutions. Addressing the challenges posed by the conjoining of freemium services and the "me verse" requires a multifaceted approach—but none are easy, and potential solutions are often not popular because of the controversy (and loss of revenue) that can ensue. Digital literacy education is crucial to equip citizens with the critical thinking skills necessary to navigate the complex digital landscape. Schools must teach students not just how to use technology, but how to question it—to look beyond their personalized feeds and seek out diverse perspectives. Note that engaging digital literacy can be perceived as a threat to “orthodoxies” widely accepted or believed. Platform design changes, prioritizing accuracy over engagement and promoting diverse viewpoints, are essential to mitigate the harmful constraints of algorithms. However, this may not be popular with organizations as it may threaten their models of engagement. Yet prioritizing engagement at all costs is no longer tenable in a world where digital misinformation can have real-world consequences. Regulatory measures, aimed at ensuring transparency and accountability in political advertising, may also be necessary to foster a digital environment that promotes informed discourse, respects democratic values, and safeguards the future of American democracy. The challenge lies in crafting regulations that protect democratic integrity without stifling innovation or infringing on free speech.
As we scroll through our curated feeds, we're unwittingly participating in a grand experiment that is determining the future of our democracy. Although the digital revolution has brought unprecedented access to information and connectivity, it also presents us with a choice: Will we use these tools to strengthen our democracy, or will we allow them to divide us further?
Join me on social media at Bluesky.