At first glance, social media appears to be democracy’s ally. It connects people across continents, empowers users to speak out, and gives activists a global platform. But behind the likes, shares, and trending hashtags lies a far more complicated and dangerous reality—one that threatens the very foundations of state sovereignty and democratic governance. This article explores how the unchecked power of social media platforms is reshaping democracy in harmful ways, especially for countries in the Global South.
Before we praise social platforms as democratic tools, we must recognise they were created by private companies responding to economic incentives. Algorithms are designed not to foster balanced discussion, but to optimize engagement and profit. As a result, the people who build these algorithms effectively decide which content is seen or hidden, creating isolated information ecosystems that reduce meaningful dialogue and fuel polarization. Because we tend to trust these platforms as neutral conduits, we freely share a lot of personal data—often without fully understanding how it’s harvested, sold, or weaponized. As Westerlund et al. (2021) argue, this trust has enabled the normalization of digital surveillance, where platforms collect and monetize user behavior with little scrutiny. In times of elections or political change, that same data becomes a powerful tool for manipulating citizens’ choices through micro-targeting, disinformation, and algorithmic bias— all under the guise of personalized content.
This abstract threat becomes much more concrete when we look at how these dynamics already play out in real-world elections. The Philippines’ 2025 midterm elections offer a striking example of how algorithm-driven platforms and unchecked data exploitation can be mobilized to distort democratic processes on a massive scale.
A recent Reuters investigation into the Philippines’ April 2025 midterm elections found that approximately 33 % of social media accounts discussing former President Duterte’s ICC arrest — which generated over 1,300 posts and 7,000 engagements, potentially reaching 11.8 million users — were inauthentic. Ultimately, up to 45 % of election-related discourse was driven by fake or coordinated accounts.
The goal was not only to sway undecided voters and intimidate critics, but also to delegitimize the International Criminal Court (ICC) by framing its investigation into Duterte’s alleged human rights abuses as a Western political attack rather than a legal process.
Nonetheless, this sovereignty issue is not restricted to this case, and as data is increasingly acknowledged as a vital resource for development, it represents a pressing challenge for international development. Despite being highly concerned by this, countries in the Global South remain largely excluded from decision-making on how such data is collected, governed, and used. This exclusion is largely due to the fact that major tech platforms and social media companies—who control vast amounts of data—are headquartered in developed countries, where most policy decisions and regulatory frameworks are established. Inequalities are perpetuated and decisions are made about them, but not by them.
All of this points to a deeper issue. There is a profound lack of transparency in how platforms operate; we see this in the U.S., Canada, and developing nations alike—whether during elections or around sensitive political issues. Platforms guard their data and algorithms as trade secrets, while users are kept in the dark.
Social media should not be a corporate playground—but a shared civic space. To preserve democratic dialogue and state sovereignty, especially for the Global South, we must reclaim control over data and algorithms. Better regulation isn’t about restricting access, it’s about ensuring that global connectivity empowers rather than disenfranchises.
This is an article written by a Staff Writer. Catalyst is a student-led platform that fosters engagement with global issues from a learning perspective. The opinions expressed above do not necessarily reflect the views of the publication.
Edited by Lara Cevasco
Incoming Student for the Master program in International Affairs and Governance at the University of St.Gallen.