Youth Social Media Engagement and Democratic Erosion

By Robert Cadenasso

05/09/2025

Today, social media is one of the dominant forms of communication, connecting people across the world. Consequently, it has also become a dominant source for news and politics. According to Globalstats, Facebook (80.59%) and Instagram (7.12%) are the two most-used social media platforms in Europe in 2024 and 2025 (Globalstats 2025). Instagram is mostly pictures, reels, and short videos. Facebook is mostly text and picture posts. The way users engage with the media is reflective of this discrepancy. Today, youth utilize social media as a means of political engagement across all sites, yet in spite of this engagement, we are still seeing democratic backsliding and continued erosion of democratic institutions, which begs the question: Why?

Youth engage with politics on social media in a variety of ways, from political advocacy and campaigns, to communicating with politicians themselves (Omotayo, F., & Folorunso 2020). However, the platform (social media) by which youth engage with politics manifests itself differently than platforms used by previous generations. Notably, none of the aforementioned actions include direct engagement with traditional democratic metrics, save for maybe communicating with a politician or engaging with campaigns. However, this introduces the issue of conformity bias, as many social media platforms serve as a form of bubble – people with like-minded opinions are connected and inundated with content that reinforce their previously held beliefs. Therefore, any engagement with campaigns or politicians are most likely to only extend to those in a user’s bubble who already agree. Social media is not an effective platform for actual political dissemination due to this bubble and is not conducive for true political discussions across ideological lines.

As has been discussed in previous articles, party membership, voting, and trust in democratic institutions are all declining, specifically when controlling for age. Cumulatively, this means that youth are politically engaged, but not civically engaged. The reason this distinction exists (and why it is important) is because youth can be as politically engaged as ever, yet if that engagement only extends to posts or comments on social media and does not translate into actual civic action (voting, campaigning, etc.) then democratic institutions will continue to erode, in spite of what someone posts on their Instagram story. Britain is a great example, as “…young people in Britain exhibit comparatively low levels of turnout for elections, but high levels of engagement in social media” (Xenos et al., 2014). To be clear, social media is effective when used properly. Specifically, it is effective when it is a supplemental tool for further direct action. For example, social media was used “...prominent[ly]...in protest activities such as the Arab Spring, the Occupy movement and the ‘Indignados’ in Spain and Greece” (Keating and Melis 2017). Yet, each of these movements were mainly direct action and protests, with social media taking a critical supplemental role. The issue is when social media is the only or main mode of political engagement and apart from substantive action.

The obligation is not simply on youth, it also resides with governments. In study of over a dozen European countries, researchers found that “In all bar one of the 17 countries, Facebook ranks as the most popular of the three platforms amongst the general public,” while “...MPs are publishing 67% of their posts on Twitter, with 28% on Facebook and 5% on Instagram” (Grayling 2023). There is a clear disconnect between the engagement of government officials on social media and their constituents to the point where they are not even engaging on the same platforms. However, this statistic requires a deeper analysis. It may be possible that Twitter (which was third for the general public), is utilized less because people use it for politics. In other words, people may only open it to stay up to date on political news and only use it for that purpose, rendering it relevant for politics while also rendering its overall usage rate lower than other platforms that may serve as distractions from politics. In any event, this clear divide proves that governments across Europe must do more. Governments have an obligation to uphold and sustain democratic institutions in a manner that is conducive for its citizenry to engage with. If a government knows that its citizens mostly engage with politics through social media, then it must reform its institutions to account for that engagement. Social media must force democratic governments to adapt and few are.

In their place, the EU’s institutions are stepping up. The European Parliament issued a report on youth engagement with democratic processes in Europe, where it examined how it could foster greater youth involvement. In analyzing the reasons why youth are not politically active, the report concluded that:

The lack of youth political participation exists in institutional politics mainly due to young people's changing citizenship norms, their changing political imaginary, and the fact that rigid liberal democratic notions of membership and their repertoires of political action are outdated with the constant development of new agents, repertoires and targets of political action. (European Parliament 2023)

In addition to the Parliament, the Commission is also seeking to bridge this gap through a variety of endeavors, including intergenerational dialogues, youth citizens panels, and online platforms by which youth can engage directly with the Commission. These efforts, albeit limited in scope, may prove important insights into how governments and youth can meet in the middle and work towards a better future. In any event, this trend cannot continue. So far, efforts by states to get direct political engagement have been insufficient or largely nonexistent. Yet, youth must also vary their political efforts due to this erosion. They cannot continue to mainly engage on social media whilst this erosion happens right in front of their face. There must be a mass mobilization to safeguard democracy before it fully slips away, but it will require adapting to the ever-changing political climate.

European Parliament (2023). Young people's participation in European democratic processes, Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs. PE 745.820. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2023/745820/IPOL_STU(2023)745820_EN.pdf. 

Globalstats. Social Media Stats Europe. https://gs.statcounter.com/social-media-stats/all/europe/2024/. 

Grayling. (2023). First pan-European study published on the way politicians are using social media, https://grayling.com/news-and-views/first-pan-european-study-published-on-the-way-politicians-are-using-social-media/. 

Keating, A., & Melis, G. (2017). Social media and youth political engagement: Preaching to the converted or providing a new voice for youth? The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 19(4), 877-894. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148117718461  (Original work published 2017). 

Omotayo, F., & Folorunso, M. B. . (2020). Use of Social Media for Political Participation by Youths . JeDEM - EJournal of EDemocracy and Open Government, 12(1), 132–157. https://doi.org/10.29379/jedem.v12i1.585. 

Xenos, M., Vromen, A., & Loader, B. D. (2014). The great equalizer? Patterns of social media use and youth political engagement in three advanced democracies. Information, Communication & Society, 17(2), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.871318.