How have social media and misinformation campaigns influenced public belief about the 2024 election outcome?
Executive summary
Social media and organized misinformation campaigns shaped public belief about the 2024 election by rapidly amplifying false or misleading narratives, lowering trust in institutions, and creating viral motifs (memes, AI images, impersonators) that reached broad audiences [1] [2]. Election officials, watchdogs, and researchers documented widespread claims about fraud, targeted micro‑messaging, weakened platform enforcement, and foreign influence that together helped delegitimize results for many voters [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. Social platforms turned political claims into cultural moments
Viral content — from memes and humorous TikTok skits to AI‑manipulated images — made complex election claims shareable and emotionally resonant, increasing reach beyond traditional news channels; University of Michigan researchers and Moody College reporting note the 2024 campaign was full of viral moments that mixed humor and misinformation, blurring lines between satire and assertion [2] [7].
2. Organized disinformation altered the campaign narrative
Brookings documents that organized efforts “to sway voters, twist perceptions, and make people believe negative material about various candidates” were widespread; such campaigns used mainstream pickup, influencer amplification, and candidate reiteration to turn falsehoods into dominant storylines during the race [1].
3. Microtargeting and impersonation sharpened persuasion
Analysts found that microtargeting delivered tailored messages to receptive subgroups, while impersonators on platforms like TikTok mimicked trusted voices — tactics that increased persuasion efficiency and obscured provenance of claims, according to the SAIS Review analysis of social media and AI in the 2024 cycle [5].
4. Election‑process falsehoods harmed officials and civic trust
The Brennan Center highlights that lies about the voting process and election workers have tangible consequences: they make officials’ jobs more dangerous and undermine voter confidence, a trend that continued from 2020 into 2024 as false “stolen election” narratives spread rapidly on social platforms [3].
5. Platforms weakened or inconsistently enforced rules, critics say
The ADL and investigations found that major platforms relaxed certain protections and applied policies unevenly ahead of the election; ADL investigators concluded platforms “have weakened their rules against disseminating election misinformation,” and Global Witness reported platforms failed to block numerous harmful ads and content [6] [8].
6. Fact‑checking and monitoring tried to blunt harms — with limited reach
Specialized trackers and watchdogs (NewsGuard, News Literacy Project, WebPurify) catalogued and debunked hundreds of viral falsehoods, from fabricated endorsements to misleading imagery, but noted the “damage is done” problem: debunks often arrive after viral spread and do not fully reverse the beliefs seeded earlier [4] [9] [10].
7. Foreign actors and state‑linked campaigns contributed to the mix
Reporting flagged sanctions and state‑linked operatives as actors in 2024 disinformation ecosystems; SAIS noted U.S. sanctions against Iran‑ and Russia‑linked centers for election interference, underscoring that some narratives were amplified by external actors with geopolitical motives [5].
8. Technology (AI) both multiplied content and complicated detection
Platforms attempted responses — e.g., Meta labeling AI images — but new generative tools enabled rapid production of convincing fakes that outpaced detection; PBS and other outlets documented both platform policy moves and rollbacks, and WebPurify documented AI‑generated images used to imply false celebrity endorsements [11] [10].
9. Engagement dynamics favored toxic and partisan content
Later analyses indicate that toxic, partisan, or identity‑targeted posts attract outsized engagement even when inaccurate; Harvard‑affiliated research of TikTok political videos found that toxic content consistently drew more interaction, a dynamic that amplifies misinformation’s visibility [12].
10. What this meant for public belief and the outcome
Taken together, social media’s amplification, targeted persuasion, platform policy weakness, and the sheer volume of viral falsehoods helped delegitimize parts of the electorate’s view of the result and shaped perceptions of candidates — even as conventional factors (economy, issues) explained vote shifts in many groups, per Pew’s post‑election voting analysis [1] [13].
Limitations and competing perspectives
Sources converge that social media materially changed the information environment [1] [2] [5], but they differ on magnitude: some frame platforms as central drivers of belief change and destabilization [3] [6], while others emphasize that traditional political issues and turnout remained decisive in voting patterns [13]. Available sources do not quantify precisely how many voters changed their votes because of specific misinformation items; observers instead document mechanisms, notable viral incidents, institutional impacts, and patterns of amplification [4] [9].
What watchdogs recommend next
Analysts and civic groups call for stronger platform transparency and enforcement, broader public literacy campaigns, pre‑election risk assessments, and continued monitoring of foreign influence — remedies aimed at reducing misinformation’s reach and restoring public confidence [3] [8] [9].