The political impact of social media

A virtual presence at all costs?

“Have no value judgments in your social media strategy. A social network is a technical device with strategic audiences. If a social network has your strategic audiences, go for it. An organization should not judge the political angle of a platform.” (source)

It was this provocative conclusion of a LinkedIn post that caught my attention. Published in January 2025, following Zuckerberg’s announcements about changes to the META group’s moderation policy. The post came from the director of a “consultancy firm specializing in communications and public affairs focused on decoding societal trends.” This statement raises the question of coherence between an organization’s stated values and its strategic communication choices. The proposition that an organization should not pass value judgments on a platform is certainly pragmatic, but it seems to overlook important elements: reputation, ethical alignment, and the impact of communication choices on the organization’s image.

The argument “a social network is simply a technical device with a strategic audience” reduces communication to a purely instrumental approach. Yet communication is also a vehicle for engagement and positioning. Refusing to incorporate values into this choice amounts to denying the impact these decisions can have on an organization’s perception and credibility. Thus, being or not being on a social network is a strategic but also political choice that deserves careful reflection rather than a dogmatic response.

Questioning coherence, not just visibility

Personally, I believe that an organization can, and even should, judge the political angle of a platform, because the perception of that organization may have an impact on its choices. There is a form of coherence to maintain in one’s positioning if the values defended are linked to these choices.

The initial proposition rests on a purely utilitarian logic: “If my audience is on a platform, I go there. Regardless of the ethics or values it conveys.”

In reality, an organization’s positioning, with regard to its values and line of conduct, may lead to choices about its presence on social media. It is not about leaving social networks and living as a hermit, but about showing a certain coherence in one’s actions relative to one’s values. This seems to be within everyone’s reach. Why, at all costs, be on social networks (even if a strategic audience is present there) if the values conveyed by that network are contrary to those of the organization?

Values are not an adjustment variable

I believe that if an organization claims a strong commitment, it must own that commitment down to its digital strategy. This is not just a matter of posture, but of coherence. Concretely, this means:

• Adapting one’s presence: being everywhere is not an end in itself. One can choose platforms more aligned with one’s principles or focus on other channels (blogs, private communities, newsletters). This is a form of digital autonomy applied to communication.

• Explaining one’s choices: it is not so much the absence from a network that is the problem as the lack of clarity about the reasons for that choice. If a company decides not to be on X/Twitter or Facebook, it must be able to talk about it openly. Because publicly expressing outrage at this or that societal issue and stopping there is symptomatic of our society. As Louis de Diesbach states in his book ‘Liker sa servitude’ (Liking one’s servitude), we fall into the paradox of social media: “wanting to stand out by following everyone’s habits, being unique by doing what everyone else does.”

If some want to react to the deregulation on X/Twitter, they publicly express outrage at this scandal and then continue to tweet because there would be a strategic audience? No, Sir. In any case, I consider this approach, somewhat like greenwashing or astroturfing, to be dishonest. Just like a technology ethics consultant who was copy-pasting meaningless AI-generated responses when I challenged them on the need for transparency in AI use… do as I say, not as I do.

For example, organizations that claim to pursue sustainable development goals must be coherent in their attitude with regard to those goals. If an organization promotes responsible consumption, is it coherent for that organization to offer company cars to its employees? Conversely, an organization aligned with its values and coherent with the pursuit of its goals could offer more sustainable or shared mobility solutions. When we rightfully denounce the profit-driven race of Zuck and the rest of the Valley, why should an organization, if there is money to be made on Facebook or elsewhere, rush in headfirst, closing its eyes to its values?

For some organizations, being absent from a social network could be a political or activist gesture. When you offer your clients ethical and sustainable products, is it not necessary to consider a communication strategy that is itself ethical and sustainable? Why should we submit to the yoke of algorithms on the pretext that the network’s audience would be strategic?

This kind of reflection leads to a series of observations and assumptions that can be counterproductive. I would like to reflect on the means that allow us to reach a solution that, I hope, will be coherent, based on this specific case.

The myth of the presence imperative

If we focus on the economic aspect of being on a network, being on one network rather than another because of its audience would implicitly mean that this “strategic” audience would be nowhere else. In other words, one assumes that several people in our target would only be present on a single network (and therefore would not use other communication channels and/or social networks). There would then, for some, be exclusive consumption of a social network. If this assumption is questionable, it also tends to consolidate the omnipotence and omnipresence of social networks in our lives, considering in passing that a user of a given network cannot be present elsewhere. To “reach” them, one would therefore need to be present on all social networks containing a strategic audience.

One would therefore need to be everywhere to be sure of capturing every person in one’s target. This hypothesis seems easy to overturn. Like the dogmatic position that introduces this text, considering that some users would only be present on X/Twitter and that it is economically necessary to be present on X/Twitter to reach these users while this network does not represent the organization’s values is paradoxical. Indeed, how can a person who is only present on one network be part of this organization’s target audience?

Is there not a strategic error in taking this type of target into account? Are we sure we want to reach a target that does not share our values?

Even following this reasoning, we run up against the harsh law of algorithms. An organization remains subject to the opaque rules of algorithms — what one might call a logocracy. These algorithms determine what is visible, what is amplified, and what is ignored based on criteria that escape both users and content creators. We all have a different news feed with content pushed by the algorithm in a “somewhat secret” way. We also observe that the reach of company posts is lower than that of personal accounts. We are sold the idea that being present on platforms is essential, but reality is more nuanced. Between algorithmic filters, content saturation, and the erosion of organic reach, a question arises: what is the point of being there if nobody sees our messages or if our impact is negligible? Is it a superficial presence that is being prioritized at all costs?

Multi-channel consumption

In reality, this assumption may disregard a fact. We consume information through multiple channels (see on this topic Axel Burns - Are Filter Bubbles Real). Social networks are one of the available channels and are generally consumed non-exclusively. Consumption also depends on age. Some suggest that 2/3 of those under 35 primarily consume online content, while for those over 35 it is less than a quarter (David Chavalarias - Toxic Data, p.100).

I believe that consumed information does not originate solely from a social network. This is because information is often relayed on a network. It does happen, however, that a post or article is written exclusively on a network. This fact does not invalidate the hypothesis because I am not targeting the uniqueness of information but rather the uniqueness of information consumption.

One can consume multiple content from multiple media, with networks being relegated to a simple distribution channel or rather an aggregator of content. We therefore have multi-channel consumption. The conclusion drawn dogmatically therefore rests on an inaccurate hypothesis (there may be exceptions, but building a communication strategy on exceptions is surely a bad idea). I therefore believe it is nearly impossible for an information consumer to be present on only one single communication channel. For example, the user of a social network must have an email address to register. There are therefore already more than one channel available for the same person (the question remains how to capture that user’s email, some will say).

Since the target is often present on multiple networks and can access the same content through different channels, it is not essential to be everywhere to reach them. This awareness opens strategic perspectives: rather than seeking to be present on all networks, one must understand why the audience uses one channel or another. What motivates their choice? By analyzing these behaviors, one can not only adapt communication according to the channel but also enrich content by taking into account the specific expectations of users on each platform.

Let us remember that we started from a dogmatic position: “be on the networks, regardless of what they represent, as long as a strategic audience is present” to a more refined position adapted to reality: “choose your networks (and your channels) according to your values but also understand why your targets use one channel or another.”

What about value coherence?

Furthermore, let us consider that a person consumes content on a social network and realizes that an organization they are interested in is absent. What will they do? Turn away from the network or turn away from the organization?

Neither, in my opinion. The user will look for the channel where their organization is present and choose the channel that suits them best.

If we take a practical example, a website can offer a newsletter or an RSS feed. For convenience, the newsletter is preferred, but for some, the flood of emails is unmanageable and they prefer using an RSS feed aggregator to capture, in one place, the content they have subscribed to. The RSS feed user has not deleted their email address. They use a “tool” for a particular case that is not necessarily the same as their neighbor’s. This example is obviously a simplification of the problem and does not take into account the political aspect that a network or technology may have. Even if a presence everywhere may be deemed necessary for communication purposes, a publicly displayed stance on networks aligned with one’s values could have a beneficial effect.

Imagine: an organization working to protect freedom of expression communicates with its members, supporters, and subscribers through social networks. Following Zuckerberg’s announcement (source), the organization takes a position, publishes a statement indicating that it disapproves of Zuckerberg’s position and consequently will no longer use this network for an (in)definite period. This stance, coherent and aligned with its values, will resonate with the organization’s “members.”

I believe that taking a position and taking responsibility can be far more powerful than docile use of a network under the obscure pretexts that we must “be present on XYZ because everyone is there” or worse, “we must leave XYZ because everyone is doing it.”

Moral philosophy to the rescue?

My reflection was refined thanks to a post by a Philomag journalist who shared their approach to the subject and a synthesis of discussions that took place within their editorial team. They can be summarized as follows:

1. Leaving X would have no impact on the presence of fake news that proliferates there, since Philomag does not typically offer a fact-checking service (that is more the role of generalist media).
2. However, leaving X would have a negative impact on the quality of public debate, since the editorial team’s informed articles could no longer circulate there.
3. Finally, leaving X risks disadvantaging our journal, since by leaving, we would lose the opportunity to attract readers. Lower benefits, higher costs: a philosopher like Jeremy Bentham, the leading figure of consequentialism, would surely advise us to stay.

Conclusion for Philomag: they stay on X/Twitter but do the minimum on this network.

These elements led me to delve into moral philosophy and see whether possible solutions could emerge through a deontological or consequentialist approach.

It should be noted that the introductory statement of this article is a purely utilitarian approach that differs from the deontological approach.

Let us therefore briefly explore these two approaches.

The deontological approach

In moral philosophy, we speak of a “deontological” point of view to indicate that what matters is the spirit guiding an action, not the expected results. It is therefore a moral principle that guides our action.

As a lawyer, I am bound by the ethics of my profession in my professional life on one hand, but also, to a certain extent, in my private life. There is therefore a series of obligations that must be respected.

Independence is one of the most important ethical obligations for me and implies a series of very interesting reflections. Another obligation is impartiality and the prevention of conflicts of interest. In this regard, it is not ethically acceptable for a lawyer to advise a family member because familial proximity could undermine their independence. I am very attached to this for several reasons, and some of my close ones sometimes struggle to understand my refusal to advise them for this reason.

This deontological approach, transposed to the political impact of social networks, can be expressed in various ways but results in a form of “dogmatism” in the sense that one’s actions will be dictated or framed by the ethical principles to which one adheres. This rigidity can create tensions. To use an example commonly used to illustrate the deontological approach (theorized by Kant), the duty to tell the truth is a principle generally accepted by all. Consequently, lying is prohibited. In some cases, however, one might consider lying as the only way — a small lie is better than a terrible truth. Written like this, everyone can understand or even accept it. Yet the deontological approach creates complex situations when two principles, two duties, come into conflict. Keeping a secret for a friend or revealing it to protect a third party.

Consequentialism

The consequentialist approach consists of judging an action not by its intention, but by its consequences. What matters is not so much the spirit guiding the action as its actual impact. Utilitarianism, which is a specific form of it, goes further by positing a simple principle: an action is just if it maximizes collective well-being and minimizes suffering.

If we start from the definition of the general interest read through the lens of Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism, utilitarianism aims to determine the way to maximize collective well-being, understood as the sum or the average of the aggregated well-being of all affected beings.

The difficulty with this approach is whether the general interest should be greater than the sum of individual interests or whether it represents an average of individual interests.

Concretely, considering the general interest as being greater than the sum of individual interests leads us to a complex situation to implement. If we compare the individual interest of a citizen from the North and that of a citizen from the South, or the individual interest of a rich person and that of a poor person, for example, we face a difficulty in “arriving at” the general interest. In summary, what must be done to meet everyone’s interests.

What solution?

The deontological approach creates rigidity: certain acts are prohibited or obligatory, regardless of their consequences. The consequentialist approach evaluates the morality of an action based on its effects, which raises an ambiguity: if our principles lead to harmful consequences, should we not adjust them?

If we adopt a consequentialist approach, should our values remain fixed or should they evolve based on observed results?

An organization that defends ethical values could, in all good faith, refuse to use a social network deemed toxic. But if this absence prevents it from spreading its message and raising awareness among its audience, a consequentialist reasoning could lead to revisiting this position and engaging on the platform in a strategic and controlled manner, rather than a dogmatic one.

The risk, of course, is sliding toward total relativism where everything becomes negotiable based on expected results. If values are too flexible, they lose their meaning and become mere adjustment variables, which I refuted above.

The solution would then be to adapt one’s values without abandoning them — making them more relevant to the realities of the world in which they apply and accepting the need to question oneself.