In November, X began showing the country of origin for each user account, which sparked quite a reaction. Users raced to prove that their rivals were foreign adversaries. Some accounts were said to be from one nation, while others were pointed to as coming from different ones.
It was quite intriguing. Yet, alongside that, some serious issues emerged.
Politically engaged Americans need to realize that a vast number of followers does not necessarily indicate genuine support from their fellow citizens.
As more people in developing nations get connected to the Internet, American political and cultural discussions appear increasingly susceptible to foreign influences.
The International Telecommunication Union states that by 2023, about 67% of the global population, roughly 5.4 billion people, will have Internet access. This reflects a rise of 4.7% compared to 2022. A significant portion of this growth is coming from lower-income countries, where internet access surged by 44.1% from 2020 to 2023. Just from 2022 to 2023, the increase in internet users in low-income regions was 14.3%.
In simple terms, the Internet is becoming more global every day.
What does this mean for Americans? After all, users abroad can’t vote here. Why should we care what opinions arise from the slums across the globe regarding our politics?
That objection overlooks the core issue.
In the social media landscape, clicks are everything. Importance online is often equated with having numerous followers. It’s hard not to think this way sometimes; we see a high number on someone’s profile and assume they must be significant.
Viewership numbers have always mattered in the media. TV executives obsess over ratings. However, in the times when American television held sway over culture, a large American audience generally meant that actual Americans were tuning in. Access from abroad was limited.
That’s changed. The Internet has opened the floodgates for information exchange. While English stands as the predominant online language, pathways to political and cultural recognition have multiplied. If your goal is engagement, it matters little whether those clicks come from Nigeria or Wisconsin.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with engaging an international audience. The trouble arises when influencers turn support from abroad into domestic political capital. Observers might see a large follower count and mistakenly believe they represent a silent majority in America.
More likely, that “silent majority” is in Jakarta.
Foreign bot networks complicate the issue further by artificially boosting stories and topics that serve non-American interests. Yet, even genuine international engagement can threaten the integrity of American political discourse if misread as expressing domestic public sentiment.
Take the emergence of the so-called “anti-Zionist right” as an example. Since October 7th, a range of dubious internet personas have been trying to shift right-wing discussions in the U.S. away from local issues and toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It’s valid to criticize Israel, just as any country should be open to scrutiny. However, the intense focus on Gaza from these groups extends well beyond ordinary foreign policy debates.
Domestic backing for Israel, particularly among Democrats and younger Americans, has been notably diminishing. Yet, anyone relying on social media as a gauge might mistakenly conclude that this decline is far more substantial than it really is. Why? Because anti-Israel narratives resonate with many foreign viewers, especially in developing regions. Bot networks amplify this content.
This sheds light on why Florida’s Republican gubernatorial candidate, James Fishbach, placed anti-Zionism at the forefront of his campaign. An ad he shared on X claimed that Israel is involved in genocide and referred to Benjamin Netanyahu as a war criminal, hinting he might pursue imprisonment for such views. Florida has laws against anti-Semitism, so it’s unrealistic to think residents would face jail time for expressing these opinions.
The advertisement gained around 3 million views and 30,000 likes. That’s more engagement than most campaign ads typically see online. One might think, based solely on those metrics, that Fishbach is performing well.
However, there’s a catch; his approval rating sits at just 7%.
Engaging with the anti-Israel online conversation doesn’t appear to offer a straightforward route to electoral success for Republicans. A poll conducted during a recent Turning Point USA America Fest found that only 13.3% of attendees didn’t view Israel as an ally of the United States.
Fishbach’s campaign illustrates what occurs when politicians misinterpret online engagement as a reflection of reality. While reach is significant, the nature of that audience matters just as much. It’s not merely about the number of viewers; it’s essential to consider who those viewers are.
Other prominent influencers are making similar errors. Candace Owens often boasts of her vast international following. Once, she noted that a documentary about Brigitte Macron went viral in China. I can believe that. But just because millions of viewers in China are watching U.S. political content doesn’t mean that she should be regarded as a credible voice for domestic public sentiment.
So, what steps can be taken?
To start, all social media platforms should adopt a policy of showing users’ countries of origin. While this isn’t a perfect solution, it’s certainly better than inaction. For larger accounts, platforms should also provide a breakdown of their audience’s country of origin.
Additionally, platforms could think about allowing users to region-lock their accounts. This feature would enable users to prevent individuals outside of selected countries from viewing or engaging with their posts. While such tools might decrease overall engagement, many users might prefer meaningful dialogue on domestic issues with their fellow citizens over broader yet less relevant engagement.
These measures could help ease the challenges posed by an increasingly non-Western Internet. Still, platform policies can’t entirely resolve the dilemma.
What conservatives particularly need is awareness. Politically engaged Americans must recognize that an extensive online following may not accurately mirror genuine support within the country. They should approach influencers, especially those heavily reliant on foreign audiences, with a critical eye.
It’s too late to turn back now. The international influence grows by the day. Nothing can prevent social media figures from targeting foreign users.
But we can stop acting as if those audiences represent the views of America.
