It’s a Brave New World out here thanks to social media. The short-click pleasure feeding machine has long encouraged momentary thrills over care and promoting an end for the human suffering that it platforms for their audiences to see. We’ve had thirty second clips of human atrocities chucked in between influencer advertisements and entertainment.
This scroll-past relationship that social media has made between its users and events of horror has made the bystander effect flow from tap. The proximity to any crisis our phones have given us has created a paradox: we know more than ever, but despite that we seem to be less emotionally responsive. At the heart of the issue is the speed and volume of content we have got.
Although it is true that this means we can be informed and get to see experiences most impacted by global issues, we are still influenced by the algorithm of platforms which are designed to profit on engagement, meaning the emotionally charged and visually striking images of war, starvation and explosions are pushed to the forefront. Distress has become an online currency but it’s not causing the impact that we’d hope for. There is no flood for help and any outroar for change falls quiet by time it gets to the Palace of Westminster and silent at UN General Assembly meetings.
New unrestricted journalism means we know the truth of many situations and injustices are being performed for our entertainment across phone screens but we are realising we do not have any power to change anything. This is causing many issues with disillusionment and apathy. 58% of the country’s young voters think ‘politics is a waste of time because nothing changes’, which is beyond concerning when the worst horrors of politics can be seen right in front of our own eyes. Although seeing wrongful and institutional supported death and illness and torture creates an emotional reaction for most, it falls short to cause sustained awareness or action.
This raises an important question about responsibility. How can you maintain that important events are shown to the general population through social media, to make sure that honest and unrestricted journalism can happen whilst also making sure not to suck all emotions out of it? There are several ways platforms could take a more active role in addressing this issue.
They could prioritise content that provides context and credible information rather than content that simply provokes strong emotional reactions. They could also introduce features that encourage users to pause and reflect, rather than endlessly scroll. Partnerships with reputable news organisations, think tanks and humanitarian groups could help ensure that coverage of crises is accurate, nuanced, and informative.
If platforms continue to prioritise speed and engagement above all else, they risk creating audiences that are informed but indifferent
At the same time, any intervention must be carefully balanced. Over moderation risks limiting access to important information, while under moderation allows harmful patterns to persist. The goal should not be to hide users from reality, but to present that reality in a way that ensures understanding rather than detachment.
Ultimately, the normalisation of human crises on social media is not inevitable. It is a product of design choices, economic incentives, and cultural habits that can be reconsidered. If platforms continue to prioritise speed and engagement above all else, they risk creating audiences that are informed but indifferent.
If they take responsibility for how stories are told and encountered, they have the potential to cultivate a more thoughtful and responsive public. Don’t lose the content, don’t lose the truth, just try and maintain emotions and incentivise change.