By Santiago Bracho
Populism, Polarisation and online algorithms
Ever since the financial crisis of 2008, the rise of populist right-wing and far-right movements and governments have become a prominent part of politics in Europe and the Americas. Since 2020, they have increased their presence through online social media platforms which they have used to grow their audience and support base.
Incidents such as 2021 January 6th Capitol Hill Riots in the USA, the 2023 Brasilia riots and the 2024 summer riots in the UK, have been linked to the rise of far-right online echo-chambers which have radicalised citizens against the basic democratic procedures in their home countries. As online spaces keep growing, citizens, civil society organisations and academics are trying to understand how these online algorithms function, and how these echo-chambers are created.
‘Secondary Gatekeepers’
The rise of right-wing populism has been tied to both discontent amongst young men and the rise of online algorithms. Understanding how these two factors work in tandem is essential to explain why authoritarian right-wing movements and governments seem to have such control over digital spaces. According to September 2025 research led by Marcos Paulo De Silva, right-wing authoritarian parties and influencers act as “secondary gatekeepers in social media”.
The term “secondary gatekeepers”, defined by media academic Julian Wallace, refers to the role of audiences. By “sharing on digital platforms, news audiences became essential players…in making some news items more visible to others”. Therefore, the act of sharing has become an essential part of understanding which news stories become more consumed and seen.
The authors surveyed 1,225 Brazilians one week after the 2023 Brasília riots and found that Bolsonaro sympathisers’ news consumption was shaped by right-wing authoritarians sharing news content on their social media pages, thereby acting as ‘secondary gatekeepers’ and curating their supporters’ online news habits. Crucially, according to De Silva and his team, these “secondary gatekeepers” shared content based on “newsworthiness” as opposed to “credibility”, contributing to the increase of online misinformation.
This study seems to suggest that populist and authoritarian right-wing parties have a clear strategy on how to use digital algorithms, which could explain why they have a growing base of younger voters who are digital natives. For example, in the last US election, white men under the age of 30 voted 67% in support for Donald Trump.
In the UK, a Sky News 2024 report found that young men (18 to 24 years old) were twice as likely to vote for the Reform Party than young women. Notably, for people under the age of 18, the males interviewed were three times more likely to support the Reform Party in comparison to their female counterparts. Notably, the Reform Party’s leader, Nigel Farage, has been using TikTok as a key part of his campaign since the 2024 UK parliamentary elections.
If the results of De Silva and Co’s study hold true for other countries, then parties sharing of “newsworthy” often factually marred content, is attracting younger people, who use social media more and have less media training to discern disinformation.
Furthermore, a 2023 study led by Juan Manuel Gonzalez-Aguilar, which sampled right-wing populist parties’ social media content, concluded that the content was divided into two sections: either “populist discourse focusing on enemies of the state” or “political communication towards poli-tainment”. This correlates with De Silva’s assessment that engagement prioritises attention grabbing or “newsworthiness” more than credibility. Therefore, young people who are using these social media platforms are consuming these messages with less critical pushback.
Algorithms and the Pandora’s box of TikTok
The focus on algorithms is particularly important regarding the short video, social media platform TikTok. As the researcher Andreas Schellewald explains, in this platform “people’s primary interaction partner is the TikTok algorithm” meaning the app centres contact between user and content, as opposed to between users. A key example of this is the “For You” page which is an “algorithmically personalized content feed” which the app creates for users.
In a social media platform where it seems machine-based algorithms take even more precedence over interpersonal connections, the possibility of bot accounts and astroturfing of content is a major issue.
One of the most notable controversies involving TikTok and electoral politics was the November 2024 Romanian election. The Romanian Supreme Court nullified the first round of results as it believed the candidate with the most votes, the far-right populist Călin Georgescu, broke broadcasting regulations using TikTok. A study by Global Witness found that “pro-Georgescu posts [were recommended] between 4.6 and 14 times more often” than posts from his main opponent. The short videos were shared through the “For You” feature on TikTok. This raises important questions over fair broadcasting regulations, but also fact-checking of political broadcasting on social media. Once again, as De Silva and Co’s study suggests, the algorithm and authoritarian far-right figures favour “newsworthiness” over how factually accurate the post is.
TikTok does not publish its algorithm, making it difficult to understand how it works. The potential for misinformation and the creation of echo-chambers is massive. Currently, TikTok is in the process of being sold, and in October 2025, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent claimed the USA and China have reached a deal for the sale of the social media platform. “The agreement also hands control of TikTok’s algorithm and six of seven board seats to the new American owners.” Yet there are no plans for the American government to publish the application’s algorithm.
Digital natives using these applications remain at risk of becoming influenced by fake accounts and content produced by political figures who support xenophobic and divisive policies. As social media platforms prioritise algorithmic curations, the need for human-led moderators and regulations is a necessity which unfortunately is not being heeded.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Media Diversity Institute. Any question or comment should be addressed to [email protected] of the Media Diversity Institute (MDI).
