This year, I had to admit something uncomfortable: The work I once called “advocacy” on social media no longer felt effective. For more than five years—beginning in the early days of COVID-19—I slowly built what some might call a sizable online presence. As my accounts grew, so did my comfort speaking publicly about difficult but important socio-political issues: feminism, racism, political unrest, and the role politics plays in our lives. I was busy.

It felt like I was making a difference. The views were up, the engagement was high, and the conversations kept flowing. As a psychologist, I knew those numbers were proxies, not outcomes, but I still believed they meant something.

This year, after stepping back from online advocacy and taking a part-time faculty position at my local university, I was forced to confront a difficult realization: The work I had been doing online felt far less impactful than the work I was now doing in a classroom. The difference had nothing to do with passion or effort. It had everything to do with structure.

I began to ask myself why social media advocacy could feel so effortful and still fall short. I had poured time and energy into maintaining an online presence meant to make a difference, yet it felt increasingly unrewarding. Where was the evidence of impact? Where was community? Where was change?

Over time, I came to see that my dismay stemmed mostly from the mismatch between my goals and the design of these platforms themselves. Social media is not built for deliberation or learning; it is built for engagement. Psychological research has long shown that when beliefs are tied to identity—especially political identity—people become more resistant to information that challenges their worldview. Add algorithms that prioritize........

© Psychology Today