From Television to Digital Platforms: How Every Voter Can See a Different Election
According to research conducted by Quaest, for the first time since they began tracking these habits, 39% of Brazilians prefer digital platforms as their source of political information, over a smaller 34% that would rather access it through television. For a long time, televised news, debates, and political propaganda were the primary sources of information about elections and their candidates, limiting the audience to only gather data, details, and recent updates at specific times determined by television channels. This shift in sources directly highlights a desire for accessible political information, resulting in the electoral period increasingly occurring on Instagram, TikTok, Youtube, and X (formerly Twitter), sometimes through videos that last less than a minute. This increased accessibility however, also raises concern about polarization, political isolation, misinformation, and manipulated votes.
The foundational difference between these two means of communication is how they deliver information to the public. While the same data is presented to millions of people through television, digital platforms allow each user to receive personalized information based on their own algorithm. Each user and voter receives a different feed based on their likes, comments, screen and watched time. Although this may sound positive at first, when analyzed deeper, it causes serious consequences during elections. On social media, politics is often presented through quick videos, memes, influencers and entertainment; therefore, people can be easily influenced without even realizing it. Combining the personalized feeds with influential political content, polarization and political isolation are largely generated. When content of a single political view is repeatedly recommended, the tendency is for it to shape the user’s political opinion, often creating polarized views, which are reinforced and eased by the short-form content where strategic editing is used, not always to reflect the politicians’ real proposals or personalities, but instead just making them seem more relatable. The voters, after some time, according to Confederação Nacional de Trabalhadores em Estabelecimentos de Ensino, become tired of fights over politics, and therefore, isolate themselves from content and users expressing differing opinions, holding up to their personalized and individualized political feed.
In addition to that, increased accessibility of political information through social media also results in large-scale misinformation. As there is less regulation on political content in digital platforms versus television, a lot of what is published is fake news and not fact-checked or data-based. This results in voters’ and users’ inadequate interpretation and opinion formation of a politician. According to the Ministério Público Federal (MPF), several public measures were recommended with the goal of avoiding misinformation and fighting political violence. Some of these measures include the creation of accessible reporting channels, AI-generated content labels, the prohibition of paid promotion for illegal content, and the exclusion of profiles associated with political violence, hate speech, and anti-democracy acts. Although authorities are attempting to minimize misinformation risks, the issue is not yet totally resolved, being considered one of the main consequences of digital platforms surpassing television as a preferred source.
Lastly, another contrast between televised information and information encountered in digital platforms is how much easier it is to manipulate content to purposefully influence votes on social media. Although television channels and reporters may also present information influenced by their political views, social media allows this influence to happen in more personalized and less noticeable ways. According to Revista Oeste, four main mechanisms contribute to this process: algorithms that prioritize content confirming previous beliefs; misinformation, which have 70% greater chances of being retransmitted and spread six times faster than verified information to the public; microtargeting, which allows personalized messages for each voter; and political influencers substituting traditional sources of information. Together, these mechanisms make political influence more personal, and consequently, harder to recognize. A voter may believe they are independently forming an opinion while their feed is constantly selecting which candidates, arguments, and political issues they encounter. This does not mean that every political post is intentionally manipulative, but it shows how social media can shape a voter’s perception before they have the opportunity to compare actual proposals or look for other perspectives.
Ultimately, social media has made political information easier and faster to access, but accessibility does not always mean accuracy. As Brazil approaches the 2026 elections, platforms and governments will have an important role in controlling misinformation and making political content more transparent. Voters, however, may also be responsible for questioning what appears on their feeds, checking sources, and searching for opinions outside their personalized content bubble. Social media will continue to be part of modern elections, so the main challenge is learning how to use it without algorithms, influencers, or misleading information making political decisions for us.
Sources:
Comments