DIGITAL DEMOCRACY: EXPLORING GENERATION Z’S POLITICAL ATTITUDES, SOCIAL MEDIA ENGAGEMENT, AND ACTIVISM IN THE DIGITAL ERA by SOPHIE HALLAM A THESIS Presented to the Department of Political Science and the Robert D. Clark Honors College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts June 2024 An Abstract of the Thesis of Sophie Hallam for the degree of Bachelor of Arts in the Department of Political Science to be taken June 2024 Title: Digital Democracy: Exploring Generation Z’s Political Attitudes, Social Media Engagement, and Activism in the Digital Era Approved: Dan Tichenor, Ph.D. Primary Thesis Advisor This thesis investigates Generation Z as a unique political cohort which is working to reshape the United States’ political landscape as more members age into voting. This thesis examines three core topics related to Generation Z and democratic politics: Fi rst, it investigates the similarities and differences between the political attitudes of Generation and other generations. Second, it delves into the ways which Generation Z utilizes social media as a political tool and how political leaders have adapted to this change in political expression and information dissemination. Finally, this thesis explores the impact of social media on the political engagement and activism of Generation Z surrounding important issues including climate change, gun violence, and racial justice and examines if this activism translates to voting mobilization. The evidence and conclusions within this thesis reflect research insights from survey and social media data, original interviews with nine politicians from Arizona and Oregon, and careful analysis of existing scholarly research and literature on the topic. 2 Acknowledgements First, I would like to warmly thank my primary thesis advisor Professor Dan Tichenor, who both inspired this research and made the completion of this thesis possible. His unwavering support which was marked by humor, kindheartedness, and intellect was always noticed and appreciated throughout this daunting process. Additionally, his leadership in the Wayne Morse Scholars Program and cultivation of informed debate has been crucial to my time in college. There’s a reason that everyone fondly refers to him as “Dan the man.” I would also like to thank Professor Neil O’Brian and Professor Casey Shoop for graciously agreeing to be on my committee and always being willing to support me in any way throughout this process. Further, I would like to acknowledge the pivotal role which both the Clark Honors College and the Political Science Department at University of Oregon have had in both creating and encouraging various academic interests throughout my time in college. I am forever grateful for the education I received at this institution. Additionally, I would like to thank Eden Henry and Naomi Friedman for their friendship and compassion during this process. The countless hours we spent together on the second floor of the Knight Library working on our separate theses made this process feel a lot less lonesome. I am so fortunate to have both of you as lifelong friends. Ultimately, I would like to thank my family for being my constant pillar of support throughout college and life. My wonderful parents, Jody and Mike Hallam, have always made me feel certain that I could accomplish whatever I desired and have relentlessly backed me in my educational pursuits. My two perfect brothers, Charlie and Sam, have both inspired me and motivated me throughout the years, and I am forever thankful for their friendship. And finally, I am indebted to Sam Hurley, who has been my biggest supporter the last four years from over 2,000 miles away. If I had half the work ethic and intelligence as you, I’m sure I would have completed this thesis a lot more gracefully! 3 Table of Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 6 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 7 Project Description .......................................................................................................................................... 7 Research Questions ...................................................................................................................................... 12 Generation Z’s Political Attitudes ................................................................................................ 13 Generation Z’s Political Attitudes and How They Differ from Other Generations ............... 13 Technology and Generation Z .............................................................................................................. 14 The World in which Generation Z Grew Up ................................................................................... 15 The Most Educated Generation Yet ................................................................................................... 18 The Most Diverse Generation Yet and what it Means for Tolerance .................................... 20 Political Attitudes: Generation Z’s views on hot button issues ................................................... 25 Generation Z’s Views on Governmental Power ............................................................................ 25 Generation Z’s Views on Climate Change ........................................................................................ 28 Generation Z’s Views on Racial Equality ......................................................................................... 30 Generation Z’s Views on Same Sex Marriage ................................................................................. 32 Generation Z’s Views on Gun Violence ............................................................................................. 36 What do these Political Attitudes Suggest? .................................................................................... 37 An Assessment of Generation Z’s News Consumption: The Role of Social Media and Technology ................................................................................................................................... 38 Social Media’s Role in Politics .................................................................................................................. 38 The Shift from “Legacy Media” towards “New Media” ............................................................... 38 News Consumption across Different Digital Platforms in the United States in 2023 .... 39 Social Media as a form of New Media ............................................................................................... 40 Social Media’s Impact on Generation Z’s Political Engagement ................................................. 45 Social Media as a Political Tool ................................................................................................................ 45 How Political Leaders Communicate through Social Media .................................................... 45 Political SNS Use ....................................................................................................................................... 48 Raising Public Awareness regarding Issues in a More Accessible Manner........................ 50 Organizing Movements and Activism ............................................................................................... 55 The Limitations of Political Discourse on Social Media ............................................................. 56 Algorithms and the Creation and Sustainment of Political Echo Chambers and Political Polarization ................................................................................................................................................. 58 4 The Problem of “Fake News” and Misinformation on Social Media ..................................... 64 Overexposure and Exhaustion ............................................................................................................ 67 Wrap-up on Generation Z and Social Media................................................................................... 67 Generation Z’s Digital Activism ................................................................................................... 69 What is Digital Activism? ............................................................................................................................ 69 The “School Shooting Generation” and Gun Violence Activism .................................................. 71 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, March for our Lives, and the National School Walkout ........................................................................................................................................................ 72 Climate Change Digital Activism ............................................................................................................. 76 Greta Thunberg and Fridays for Future .......................................................................................... 76 Global Climate Strikes and The Sunrise Movement .................................................................... 78 Racial Injustice Digital Activism .............................................................................................................. 79 Black Lives Matter Movement ............................................................................................................. 79 Conclusion: Final Thoughts and Looking Forward to Voter Mobilization in the 2024 Presidential Election ......................................................................................................................................... 81 Endnotes ........................................................................................................................................ 86 Methods............................................................................................................................................................. 86 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................. 88 5 List of Figures Figure 1: The Generations Defined, Pew Research Center 2020. 8 Figure 2: Percentage of American Adults who say the pandemic influenced their lives a fair amount or great deal. 16 Figure 3: Generations Compared by Enrollment in College and Parents' Education 19 Figure 4: Racial identity of 7-to-22-year old’s in each generation. 20 Figure 5: Generations' beliefs on whether increasing racial and/ or ethnic diversity is good for society 21 Figure 6: Weighted National Norms for all freshman, Fall 2008 24 Figure 7: 2019 CIRP Freshman Survey, Weighted National Norms- All respondents 24 Figure 8: 9th Graders’ Attitudes Compared Across Generations. 24 Figure 9: Generations compared by Views on an Activist Government 26 Figure 10: Percentage of U.S. adults who agreed that, when they were growing up, political leaders could generally be trusted. 27 Figure 11: Percent of U.S. Adults who believe U.S. should prioritize alternative energy production and phase out of fossil fuels. 29 Figure 12: Gen Z Republicans are more likely than Republicans in older generations to say blacks are treated less fairly. 31 Figure 13: Percent which believes that gay and lesbian couples is a ___ thing for society. 33 Figure 14: Gen Z Support for Same-Sex Marriage Drops, 2021-23 34 Figure 15: Percent of U.S. 18- to 25-year-olds who have had sex with at least one same sex partner since turning 18, 1989-2021. 35 Figure 15: News consumption across digital platforms 39 Figure 16: U.S. Adults under 30 are now almost as likely to trust information on social media sites as information from national news outlets. 41 Figure 17: Percent of U.S. adults who regularly get their news on each social media site. 42 Figure 18: Social Media Sites by portion of users who regularly get news there. 42 6 Introduction Project Description The world of politics in the United States is currently being transformed by the newest generation of voters, Generation Z. This cohort can be sought to be understood through examining its digital nativity and distinctive political beliefs. Throughout this thesis, I seek to explore the unique political attitudes of Generation Z through examining how these attitudes differ from previous generations and what implications these differences may have for the broader political landscape within the United States. Additionally, I investigate how Generation Z leverages social media as a political tool of expression and how political leaders have adapted their communication strategies in response to this shift. Finally, I delve into the impact of social media on Generation Z’s level of political activism through looking at instances of digital activism surrounding pivotal issues such as climate change, gun violence, and racial injustice. I also consider whether this online activism translates into tangible outcomes such as increased voting mobilization in past and upcoming elections. Through this investigation, I aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of Generation Z’s political engagement and its future implications on politics within the United States. Generation Z, which encompasses those born between 1997 and 2012, is fascinating because it is the first fully digital age cohort. This ages members of Generation Z between 12 and 27 years old in 2024. The below figure from Pew Research Center illustrates the cutoff between generations. For purposes of continuity, this thesis will use Pew Research Center definition of Generation Z. 7 Figure 1: The Generations Defined, Pew Research Center 2020. The internet and social media, specifically, have served as an integral part of Generation Z’s lives and have defined both their socialization and consumption of information. Due to this, it is crucial to explore how the use of social media has impacted and will impact Generation Z’s political participation. This is especially true within the tumultuous and polarized political climate which has characterized U.S. political life over several election cycles, currently exists in 2023, and is likely to loom large in the 2024 election—a contest in which the political participation of Generation Z is expected to significantly influence the outcome. Seven to nine million more members of Generation Z are expected to vote in the upcoming 2024 election than in the 2022 midterm election, according to research from Pew Research Center, with corresponding declines in older generations (Pew Research Center 2023). Though only about half of Generation Z will be of voting age in 2024, “16 million Americans reached the voting age 8 for the first time” since the last presidential election and approximately “10 million Americans exited the electorate for the last time”(Mouchard 2024). This will significantly influence the election results in 2024 according to how Generation Z both turns out to the polls and which candidate they choose to vote for. The 2020 election was one of the first elections that displayed the power that Generation Z will yield for years to come. The polling data from this election suggests that this was the election with the highest turnout of young people which has occurred in United States history (Pew Research Center 2021). These voters were motivated by issues including climate change, gun violence, racial justice, and health and economic issues resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic (Pew Research Center 2021). Generation Z is also the most racially and ethnically diverse generation in the history of the United States (Pew Research Center 2020). NBC exit polls suggest that a staggering 65% of people aged 18-24 voted for Joe Biden. (NBC 2020). This is an 11% increase from any other age group. Because Generation Z has established itself as an influential voting power, and it is the first fully digital generation, it is important to investigate how this increased social media use has affected both if and why members of Generation Z participate in politics and further how it affects their political activism. Popular social media apps including Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, TikTok, and Twitter have become an important access point for political information. Not only this, but these social media sites have become a place for discussions about politics and users’ beliefs. Research shows that social media is one of the reasons that members of Generation Z are showing an increased pre-adult interest in politics, relative to previous generations (Bode et al. 2013). Social media definitively influences public opinion and has become a primary source of political news for young people. 9 Generation Z is a generation which is defined by its contradictions. The diversity of its members makes it a generation which cannot be easily categorized. They are vastly different from other generations but are also seen to agree with Millennials on certain key political and social issues. Through this thesis, I hope to fully analyze the positive and negative implications of the increase of social media use and its influence of Generation Z’s public opinion. First, I will examine how Generation Z’s political attitudes differ from other generations, analyzing the impact of the economy, social diversity, and technological advancement. Next, I will move into how social media has set Generation Z apart, looking on its transformative effects on traditional political paradigms and political expression. Within this, I examine how politicians view these effects and their opinions on accessibility and the bypass of traditional media channels in turn for direct, informal communication with their constituency and specifically younger voters through using qualitative data from nine interviews which I conducted with various politicians from both Arizona and Oregon. These interviews ranged from 15 minutes to 40 minutes. The table below categorizes these politicians to give a sense of the specific politicians I spoke with by different defining factors. Position Local/ Federal/ Generation Party State Currently / State Once Held U.S. Federal Boomer Democrat Oregon Representative State State Millennial Democrat Oregon Representative State Senator State Millennial Democrat Oregon 10 City Council Local Millennial Democrat Arizona City Council Local Generation X Democrat Arizona State State Generation X Republican Arizona Representative State State Generation X Republican Arizona Representative State Senator State Millennial Democrat Oregon City Council Local Millennial Republican Arizona Table 1: Politicians organized through defining factors including position, level, generation, party, and state. Through utilizing the information gathered from these interviews in addition to the use of information from polls and existing scholarly research, I discuss how Generation Z uses social media both in peer-to-peer interactions and in interactions with politicians. In this discussion, I consider the harmful echo chambers and algorithms which increase polarization and may limit meaningful, diverse conversation. I then investigate the empowerment that social media offers through its unparalleled ability to mobilize and coordinate activism through looking at case studies of grassroots movements of Generation Z. I end with examining how this affects Generation Zer’s voter turnout in past elections and in the upcoming 2024 presidential election. 11 Research Questions 1) How do Generation Z’s political attitudes differ from other generations? 2) How does Generation Z use social media as a political tool? How have political leaders adapted their modes of communication in response to this, and how do they view this shift towards social media as a political tool? 3) To what extent does social media use specifically impact the level of political activism from Generation Z regarding specific “hot button” issues like climate change, gun violence, and racial injustice? Does this activism translate to voting mobilization? 12 Generation Z’s Political Attitudes Generation Z is an extremely diverse generation and has been observed to defy many boundaries of definition in its early years as a social and political force. To fully understand why Generation Z believes what they do regarding social norms and politics, the world which they grew up in must be examined. The political, social, economic, and technological factors which were present in Generation Z’s childhood and young adulthood can be applied to more fully understand why Generation Z’s attitudes both align and diverge from other generations on specific hot button issues including governmental power, climate change, racial equality, same sex marriage and gun violence. Generation Z’s Political Attitudes and How They Differ from Other Generations Generation Z has experienced a tumultuous landscape of change within their lifetimes. Merriman discusses this stating, “Politically, socially, technologically, and economically, we are moving at warp speed. This has created a generation very different than any known before” (Merriman 2015). To understand how political, social, technological, and economic change has impacted Generation Z and how this has in turn interacted with and informed their political attitudes survey data can be utilized in conjunction with preexisting literature. Beginning with Generation Z’s use of technology and how it is starkly different from other generations provides a basis of how Generation Z interacts with technology and has been established as the first fully digital age cohort. Then, looking at both the world in which Generation Z grew up through both a social and political lens and examining the unparalleled levels of education and diversity of Generation Z compared to other generations provides a basis for examining their political attitudes. Next, Generation Z’s political attitudes corresponding to important political factors will be investigated within this section. 13 Technology and Generation Z Technology has advanced so that the majority of Generation Z has had access to technology and social media for their whole lives. Unlike Millennials who had to adapt to this rapid progression in technology, most members of Generation Z have never known anything different. Due to their access and use of social media and technology, they are less social in person, and more individualistic than Millennials according to research (Twenge 2017). Communicating on social media networks and online instead of in person has led to different mental and social traits for members of Generation Z, which will be discussed later. Survey data conducted by Anderson and Jiang in 2018 for the Pew Research Center found that 95% of Generation Z have a smartphone and 45% are “almost constantly” connected to the internet, with most of this connection being through social media use. This shows a staggering increase in technology use from 2015 when Lenhart found that 75% of Generation Z have a smartphone and 24% of teens described themselves as being online “almost constantly”. These studies highlight the fact that social media is and will continue to be an integral part of everyday life for members of Generation Z. The most popular social media platforms that Generation Z uses when online include Snapchat, Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok. Various studies investigate the impact that this increased use of social media has had on this digital generation. Dhir demonstrates the unarguable impact that being constantly online has had on the psychological well-being of Generation Z through looking at compulsive use, fear of missing out, and increased levels of depression and anxiety. Twenge and Campbell also explore this, looking at the decrease in curiosity and increase in mental health issues among children with increased social media use. Recently, the Surgeon General issued an advisory about the negative effects of social media on youth mental health. 14 The World in which Generation Z Grew Up In addition to the impact of intense social media exposure, several significant U.S. social and political events created a tumultuous landscape for the lives of Generation Z. Many grew up during the largest recession in the United States since the 1930s, and have only known a world following the terrorist events of September 11th (Merriman 2015). The United States has been engaged with war, and more specifically a war on terror, for most or all of Generation Zer’s lives. Due to this, they have existed within an environment marked by social unrest and instability. Also, Generation Z has begun to regard school as dangerous in the wake of the Columbine school shootings. After Columbine, violence and shooting at schools have become a new norm for members of Generation Z. They perform lockdown drills and face increased security while they attended elementary school through high school. Even outside of the classroom, they are constantly bombarded by news of violence in schools on social media and online news sources. Instead of school being a place of safety and education, many members of Generation Z have induced trauma from their attendance. These tumultuous events have created a set of shared values and experiences which are unique to Generation Z, and this is reflected within their different behavioral traits (Mannheim 1952; Twenge 2017). Aside from the tumultuous events which shaped their personhood and values, Generation Z was set to inherit a stable and strong economy and record-low unemployment rates (K. P. and R. Igielnik 2020). But, after COVID-19 and its aftermath, the world which they were set to inherit dramatically changed as many entered the work force as adults. Not only was the political atmosphere altered, but both the social and economic landscape which Generation Z became adults within radically changed because of the pandemic. The below bar graph from the American Enterprise Institute’s Survey Center on American Life illustrates the percentages of 15 Americans who believe that the COVID-19 pandemic “influenced the course of their life a fair amount or a great deal” (Cox, Hammond, and Gray 2023). Percentage of American Adults who say the pandemic influenced their lives a fair amount or great deal 70% 60% 60% 59% 50% 47% 40% 43% 37% 30% 20% 10% 0% Generation Z Millenials Generation X Baby Boomers Silent Generation Source: Survey Center on American Life, 2023 Figure 2: Percentage of American Adults who say the pandemic influenced their lives a fair amount or great deal. 60% of Generation Z, or six in ten adults, asserted that the pandemic influenced their lives a fair amount or a great deal. This was similar to Millennials, which was reported by AEI as 59% of adults. After these two age groups, there is a sharp decline of how many people believed the pandemic significantly impacted their lives, with 47% of Generation X and only 43% of Baby Boomers reporting this result. Symptoms of increased effect on Generation Z and Millennials included many members having household members that either lost their jobs or had severe pay cuts (K. P. and R. Igielnik 2020). Further, young workers were more vulnerable to job loss than older workers during the 16 last few years as COVID-19 caused restaurant and service job losses (Kochhar and Barroso n.d.). So, Generation Z suffered economic losses for themselves and their families at a greater rate than older generations due to the pandemic and are also entering a workforce where jobs are scarce. Further, Generation Z has been impacted by other factors which have emerged as significant stressors in their lifetimes. The first factor is the climate crisis. Global warming has been rapidly accelerating in the span of Generation Zer’s lifetime, and a Pew Research Center study reveals that 76% of Generation Z felt anxiety about the future due to the impending climate crisis in 2021 (Pew Research Center 2021). Members of Generation Z are contemplating not only their own futures amid a climate crisis but also considering if they should start families with an uncertain timeline for their children. Greta Thunberg, a climate change activist, echoes the sentiment of many members of Generation Z when she says, “The climate and ecological crisis is the greatest threat that humanity has ever faced. It will no doubt be the issue that will define our future everyday life like no other” (Tsevreni et al. 2023). Due to this, many members of Generation Z feel what researchers have labeled “climate-anxiety” which is characterized by feelings including “sadness, anxiety, powerlessness, helplessness, and guilt” (Tsevreni et al. 2023). Another factor which emerged during Generation Z’s lifetime is extreme partisan polarization and toxic politics. Politics have rapidly transformed within their lifetimes, and tensions between and within the Democrat and Republican parties have reached a disturbing level of aggression and toxicity. People have begun to feel unsafe voicing their political views to friends and peers, and many feel anxiety about the state of democracy and the future leaders of the United States. Politics has shifted, and Abrams identifies this shift arguing: “Compared to years prior, when politics was more likely to be pluralistic and consensus driven, Gen Z came of age at a time when candidates habitually call for 17 the complete reordering of American politics and society. Now, one election has the potential to drastically alter the nation’s norms, practices, institutions, values and laws — and Americans don’t even get to recover from one election cycle until the next one begins. This political instability has created deep confusion and anxiety among young adults.” (How “Transformational” Politics Is Hurting Gen Z’s Mental Health 2022). Instead of candidates not attempting to make large changes during their terms, recent politicians have argued that American politics need to be completely altered. This sentiment is a large stressor for Generation Z, as it creates a sense of political instability. Even between elections, there is no escape from the fractioned and divided government and aggressive rhetoric between polarized groups. For these reasons, members of Generation Z feel high anxiety about how their vote may impact American politics and again a sense of hopelessness with the state of political polarization. The Most Educated Generation Yet A higher proportion of members of Generation Z are earning college degrees, putting them on track to be the best educated generation yet. Pew Research Center found that Generation Z is more likely to graduate from high school and be enrolled in college than previous generations (Pew Research Center 2019). The below figure compares Generation Z’s college enrollment in contrast with Millennials and members of Generation X. 18 Generations Compared by Enrollment in College and Parents' Education 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% N/A 0% Generation Z in 2018 Millenials in 2003 Generation X in 1987 Early Boomers in 1969 Among 18 to 21 year olds, Percent Enrolled in College Percent of 7 to 17 year olds with a parent who has a bachelors degree Source: Pew Research Center 1987, 2003, and 2018 Current Population Surveys and 1969, 1987, 2003 and 2018 Current Population Surveys Annual Social and Economic Supplement Figure 3: Generations Compared by Enrollment in College and Parents' Education This figure illustrated in 2018, 57% of 18- to 21-year-olds who are a part of Generation Z who were no longer in high school were enrolled in college. In comparison, 52% of Millennials and 43% of Generation X who were aged 18 to 21 in 2003 and 1987, respectively, were enrolled in college. Parker and Igielnik attribute this shift towards becoming better educated to changes in immigration, as second generation immigrants are more likely to both graduate high school and attend college than first generation immigrants (K. P. and R. Igielnik 2020). Further, this figure asserts that Generation Z is more likely to have a college educated parent than previous generations. This trend also reflects that an increased number of Americans are pursuing higher education than ever before (K. P. and R. Igielnik 2020). Since the youngest members of this cohort are only 12 years old, the full trend in high school and higher education has yet to be fully formed for this generation. 19 The Most Diverse Generation Yet and what it Means for Tolerance Generation Z is the most diverse U.S. generation yet. A poll from 2020 shows that 52% of members of Generation Z are non-Hispanic white, compared to 61% of Millennials that were non-Hispanic white in 2002 (K. P. and R. Igielnik 2020). Looking at the figure below, the trend of increasing diversity as generations progress can be observed. Racial identity of 7-to-22-year old's in each generation Early Boomers in 1969 Generation X in 1987 Millenials in 2003 Geneation Z in 2019 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Other Asian Black Hispanic White Source: Analysis of Pew Research Center's Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplements from 1987, 2003, and 2019 and the decennial census from 1970 Note: Data from 1987 regarding the Asian population of Generation X is not available. Figure 4: Racial identity of 7-to-22-year old’s in each generation. Strikingly, this greater diversity has gone hand in hand with increased levels of tolerance, both racially and culturally (Pew Research Center 2019; Twenge 2017). This is due to the fact that members of Generation Z have experienced a greater variety of culture within many different settings of everyday life, including primary and secondary schooling than older generations 20 (Pichler et. al. 2021). This increased diversity of Generation Z has been observed to directly lead to an increased tolerance. Looking at how cultural experience and diversity has translated into cultural perspective and tolerance, the differing support of diversity as an asset of the United States can be observed. The figure below compares Generation Z’s views growing diversity within the U.S with previous generations. Generations' beliefs on whether increasing racial and/ or 70 ethnic diversity is good for society 62 61 60 52 50 48 42 40 30 20 10 0 Generation Z Millenial Generation X Boomer Silent Generation Percent who believes that increasing racial and/ or ethnic diversity is good for society Source: Pew Research Center Surveys on U.S. Adults ages 18 and older which were conducted September to October of 2018 and also surveys on U.S. teens aged 13 to 17 which were conducted September to November of 2018. Figure 5: Generations' beliefs on whether increasing racial and/ or ethnic diversity is good for society Generation Z is most closely aligned with Millennials on this issue. 62% of members of Generation Z believe that increasing racial and ethnic diversity is good for society, compared to 61% of Millennials. This percent steadily decreases looking at older generations, with only 52% 21 of Generation X believing diversity is good for society and 48% of Boomers. Therefore, the growing diversity of members of Generation Z has distinctly resulted in them being more tolerant. Specifically, they have become more tolerant in the facet of both racial and ethnic diversity. This is directly linked to the fact that they grew up surrounded by increased diversity (Pichler et. al. 2021). Further, Generation Z shows an increased tolerance for diversity in other aspects, including their attitude toward gender equality and LGBTQ relationships. Pew Research Center found that 48% of Generation Z believed that same sex marriage was good for society, and 36% responded that it doesn’t make a difference (Pew Research Center 2020). When compared to older generations, the movement towards tolerance can be observed as only 33% of Generation Xer’s believe that same sex marriage is good for society (Pew Research Center 2020). They also have a commitment to achieving diversity in the workplace, specifically promoting gender equality at an increased level than other generations. The World Economic Forum found that 40% of Generation Z say that would discuss sexism within the workplace, compared with 24% of older generations (How Gen Zers are bringing the optimism on gender equity 2023). This showcases the increased commitment to diversity and tolerance for gender equality. This shift in tolerance towards diversity of not only race but of opinion can be seen through looking at studies of American 9th grader’s views. First looking at 2008 and comparing it to 2019, it is evident how radically tolerance has heightened. The following figures illustrate this shift through 11 years and a shift in generations. Specifically, using both studies weighted national norms for all Freshman at all BACC institutions the views of generations on their own personal tolerance and attitude towards diversity of belief can be observed. Freshman in high school in 2008 are Millennials, while freshman in high school in 2019 are members of 22 Generation Z. The relevant data from these tables is then used to create a bar graph which represents the shift between generations. 23 Figure 6: Weighted National Norms for all freshman, Fall 2008 Figure 7: 2019 CIRP Freshman Survey, Weighted National Norms- All respondents 9th Graders' Attitudes Compared Across Generations 100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Ability to see the world from Tolerance of others with Ability to work cooperatively someone else's perspective different beliefs with diverse beliefs Freshman's Views in 2008 (Millenials) Freshman's Views in 2019 (Gen Z) Source: CIRP Fresshman Survey: Weighted National Norms for all Freshman, Fall 2008 and Fall 2019 Figure 8: 9th Graders’ Attitudes Compared Across Generations. First looking at the “ability to see the world from someone else’s perspective”, in 2008 65.3% of students rated themselves as above average compared to those the same age at this ability. In 24 2019, this percentage skyrocketed more than 10%. 77.6% percent of Freshman in 2019 rated themselves as having the strength of being able to see the world from someone else’s perspective. This large shift illustrates that a larger amount of Generation Z believe they have a greater ability to see the world from other’s perspective, and though this is certainly due to many factors, it nonetheless illustrates the change in character and tolerance between generations. Next, looking at how Freshman rated their “tolerance of others with different beliefs”, 80.8% of Freshman in 2019 rated this as a major strength compared to only 73.2% in 2008. A similar shift is also seen within the category of “ability to work cooperatively with diverse beliefs”, as 87.4% of Freshman in 2019 reported this as a major strength compared to 78.7% of Freshman in 2008 who believed they were above average at this skill. The increase of almost tern percent in each category illustrates that Generation Zers view themselves as more tolerant of diversity of opinions. Though this does not prove that the Generation is in fact more tolerant, it does confirm the view from within the generation of tolerance and attitude towards diversity. This background on Generation Z’s life experiences and the character of the cohort allows for a deeper understanding of the defining factors of this generation. With this understanding cemented, their specific political attitudes can be readily compared with other generations and analyzed in conjunction with their traits. Political Attitudes: Generation Z’s views on hot button issues Generation Z’s Views on Governmental Power Governmental power and the extent of government activism has been a heavily debated topic for all United States history. Specifically, the debate over whether government should attempt to solve problems through intervention or if society is better off if governments and individuals act to solve these problems instead. The figure below compares Generation Z’s views 25 on an activist government to older generations in 2018. It is important to note that this data was collected before the COVID-19 pandemic, and it is feasible that the opinion of Generation Z and other generations surrounding governmental power may have shifted due to the government’s actions during the pandemic, including lockdowns. Generations Compared by Views on an Activist Government Believe that the government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals Believe the government should do more to solve problems 29% 34% 45% 49% 60% 70% 64% 53% 49% 39% GEN Z MILLENIAL GEN X BOOMER SILENT Source: Pew Research Center Surveys of U.S. Adults ages 18 and older conducted September 24th to October 7th 2018 and U.S. teens ages 13 to 17 conducted September 17th to November 25th, 2018 Note: Respondents that did not choose an answer are not included. Figure 9: Generations compared by Views on an Activist Government Members of Generation Z were more likely to believe the government should do more to solve problems, with 70% aligning with this point of view. Only 29% of this cohort answered that the government is doing to many things better left to businesses and individuals. When comparing this to older generations, they progressively believe that the government is doing too many 26 things better left to businesses and individuals. Though Millennials are similar to Generation Z, there is an almost a 20% decrease in belief in an activist government when looking at Generation X—far from a trivial difference. This data can be compared with data from 2023 which found Generation Z were less trusting of political leaders growing up, as can be noted in the figure below. Trust in public officials is closely connected with belief in government intervention, as without trust, citizens do not believe that politicians and the general government will work towards their best interest. Figure 10: Percentage of U.S. adults who agreed that, when they were growing up, political leaders could generally be trusted. For this survey, the Survey Center on American life asked respondents whether they felt that when they were growing up political leaders could generally be trusted. The majority of Generation X, Baby Boomers and the Silent Generation answered yes, with 54%, 66%, and 80% 27 respectively believing political leaders could be trusted growing up. In divergence, only 34% of both Generation Z and Millennials believed that political leaders could be trusted when they were growing up. This alludes to the fact that trust in government has been decreasing for years, meaning that people believe these political leaders could not be trusted to do the right thing (Cox, Hammond, and Gray 2023). Though Generation Z is more likely to believe in an activist government than members of older generations, most likely due to the increased likelihood they identify as Liberal rather than Conservative, they are simultaneously more likely to have less trust in government at a young age than older cohorts. But, regardless of this lack of trust, there is becoming a clear generational divide in terms of favoring a bigger government which provides more public services (Pew Research Center 2018). Specifically, Pew Research Center found that there is a becoming a trend towards younger generations believing that the government ought to do more for the needy, which includes health care and other services, regardless of if they believe this will push the country further into debt (Pew Research Center 2018). This belief of government helps inform Generation Z’s political engagement, as they are more likely to push for government intervention in terms of policy and in relation to other reform areas including gun reform. Generation Z’s Views on Climate Change Climate change has become a focus of national and domestic policy recently and has hence also caught the attention of citizens as one of the issues they care about political leaders acting about. Political attitudes towards climate change usually center around if climate change is human caused, and how the government ought to act to solve it or if it’s not an issue which they ought to be concerned with. Pew Research Center found that 54% of Generation Z believes that climate change is due to human activity (Pew Research Center 2020). The majority of 28 Millennials believe the same at 56%, and older generations show decreasing percentages with 48%, 45% and 38% for Generation X, Boomers, and the Silent Generation respectively (Pew Research Center 2020). So, though Generation Z is aligned on this belief with Millennials, they show a separation of opinion surrounding the debate of whether climate change is due to human activity. When looking at other survey data, it can be observed that this issue is very sharply divided both in terms of political affiliation and generation (Funk 2021). The below figure illustrates the difference in opinion of how Generation Z views issues related to climate change. These include if the United States should prioritize alternative energy or fossil fuels, if the United States ought to phase out fossil fuels, and opinions on electric vehicles and offshore oil or gas drilling. Percent of U.S. Adults who believe U.S. should prioritize alternative energy production and phase out of fossil fuels Source: Pew Research Survey conducted April 20 through 29 of 2021. Note: Respondents who did not provide any answer are not included. 90 80 71 76 81 72 70 63 60 50 43 42 40 33 32 30 25 20 10 0 U.S. Adults Gen Z Millenials Generation X Boomer and Older Percent of U.S. Adults who say the U.S. should prioritize alternative energy development Percent of U.S. adults who say the U.S. should phase out use of fossil fuels Figure 11: Percent of U.S. Adults who believe U.S. should prioritize alternative energy production and phase out of fossil fuels. Through looking at this figure, Generation Z and Millennials are in alignment on the political issue of climate change and support policy proposals which will shift various aspects of 29 American life surrounding fossil fuels. These younger generations have an increased interest in both taking personal action towards combatting climate change and are more likely to argue in favor of actions to potentially reverse its effects (Funk 2021). Further, they are more likely to engage both on social media and in person advocating for climate change. In contrast, members of Generation X and Boomers are less likely to want to give up fossil fuels and prioritize alternative energy development, with only 32% and 25% respectively believing the United States should phase out use of fossil fuels as seen in the above figure. This generational difference has also been found to be more pronounced in Republicans, with a sharper divide between older and younger generation’s views (Funk 2021). Overall, Generation Z and Millennials show more concern about climate change and its impact on future generations than older generations. Many argue this is due to their and their progeny’s proximity to the issue. Generation Z’s Views on Racial Equality Racial inequality is a social issue which has been one of utmost importance to Generation Z, as can be seen within events specifically in the past years. This ties back to the conversation surrounding Generation Z’s increased diversity compared to other generations. This has led in a value shift of members of Generation Z toward inclusion and the belief that diversity is an asset to society. The below figure from Pew Research Center examines how generations differ in their belief that African Americans are treated less fairly than white people. 30 Figure 12: Gen Z Republicans are more likely than Republicans in older generations to say blacks are treated less fairly. This figure divides the generations, but also compares Republican and Democrats to compare generations within these political groups. The generational difference within Republicans is much more pronounced than within Democrats. For Generation Z Republicans, less than the majority, 42%, believe that African Americans are treated less fairly than white people. Republican Millennials believe this at an even smaller percentage, at only 30%. This keeps dropping for the older generations, to only 2 in 10 people for both Baby Boomers and Generation X. Within the Democrat group, 82% of Generation Z agrees that African Americans are treated less fairly, and this percentage stays similar across generations to 76% at its lowest. Millennials and Generation Z are more likely to support the fight against police brutality and racial injustice (Brookings 2020). As generations become more racially diverse, they have begun to fight for a future which addresses their concerns with systemic racism that they encounter in the present. 31 Generation Z’s Views on Same Sex Marriage According to survey data, Generation Z and Millennials are the two most accepting generations of same sex marriage, with almost the majority of both believing that same sex marriage is good for society, and more than a quarter believing that it doesn’t make a difference (Pew Research Center 2019). This shift in acceptance can be ascribed to several factors, including an increased percentage of members of Generation Z identifying as gay, lesbian, and bisexual. But, recently, Generation Z support for same sex marriage has declined and the strictly generational divide which has previously existed in terms of support of same sex marriage has begun to shift. 32 Percent which believes that gay and lesbian couples is a ____ for our society. 100% 90% 80% 70% 36 37 60% 41 50% 40 40% 38 30% 20% 10% 0% Gen Z Millenial Gen X Boomer Silent A good thing Does not make a difference Is a bad thing Source: Pew Research Center Surveys on adults aged 18 and older conducted September 24-October 7, 2018 and Surveys conducted on U.S. teens ages 13 to 17 conducted Sept 17- November 25, 2018. Figure 13: Percent which believes that gay and lesbian couples is a ___ thing for society. Millennials began this shift of the national opinion towards being more accepting of same sex marriage. Pew Research Center found in 2014 that 67% of Millennials favored allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally get married, while nationally only 52% of adults held this same view (Pew Research Center 2014). Five years later in 2019, members of Generation Z were exhibiting a similar shift in favor of same sex marriage. In the figure above, 48% percent of Generation Z views same sex marriage as good for society, which is nearly identical to the 47% of Millennials who hold this same belief. Other generations hold this belief at much smaller percentages. Only 33% of Gen X believe same sex marriage is good for society, and 27% of Boomers and only 18% of the Silent generation. Further, members of Generation Z and 33 Millennials are the least likely to believe that same sex marriage is actively bad for society at 15%, compared to a staggering 43% of the Silent Generation. Percent of Americans who favor allowing gay and lesbian 90% adults to legally marry. 2021 2023 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Generation Z Millenials Generation X Baby Boomers Source: Surveys conducted by Survey Center on American Life in 2021 and 2023. Figure 14: Gen Z Support for Same-Sex Marriage Drops, 2021-23 But this increase in acceptance of same sex marriage has not remained constant. The above figure from the Survey Center on American Life depicts this shift away from acceptance of same sex marriage from 2021 to 2023 (Survey Center on American Life 2021, 2023.). In 2021, 80% of Generation Z was in favor of allowing gay and lesbian adults to marry. In 2023, this percentage decreased 11% to 69%. Thus, the age gap has also decreased, as Baby Boomers have become slightly more accepting of same sex marriage at 61% in 2023. Unusually, this same decrease that Generation Z experienced in same sex marriage support has not been observed in any other generation. There is no way to know from this data why the support for same sex 34 marriage has decreased, as it may have resulted from various factors including decrease of support for marriage in general. But, regardless of this shift away from acceptance as Generation Z has become more aligned with other generations on this topic, more members of Generation Z identify as LGBTQ+ which has influenced their political opinion on this topic. In 2021, 16.1% of young adults, equivalent to one out of six identified as not heterosexual but instead lesbian, gay, or bisexual according to the Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System (Survey Center on American Life 2021). The below graph demonstrates the increase in young adults who identify with these sexual orientations. For purposes of analysis, after 2017 most 18–25-year-old were part of Generation Z. Figure 15: Percent of U.S. 18- to 25-year-olds who have had sex with at least one same sex partner since turning 18, 1989-2021. Looking at this graph, it can be observed that the percentage of 18- to 25-year-olds who have had sex with at least one same sex partners has largely increased in the last thirty years. Looking at men, from 2005 to 2021, the percentage of LGBTQ+ of young adults has increased from around 4% to 11%. This shift illustrates the identity shift of young men from Generation X to 35 Generation Z. This shift is even more prominent for women, from around 10% in 2005 to 20% in 2021. Due to the increase in people in Generation Z who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, this has also partially contributed to their views of same sex marriage. Specifically, this large shift can be accredited to the shift of more members of Generation Z being bisexual (Survey Center on American Life 2023). The Survey Center on American life establishes the link between sexuality and political beliefs, stating “Sexual identity is strongly associated with political ideology, especially among younger Americans” (Cox, Hammond, and Gray 2021). Though the support of same-sex marriage has fluctuated and is uncertain in the future, the amount of Generation Z who identify as LGBTQ+ definitively has a strong influence on their political attitude towards the topic of same sex marriage. Generation Z’s Views on Gun Violence The last topic which is essential to Generation Z’s political attitudes is their view on gun violence. As was discussed earlier, Generation Z grew up experiencing school shootings, performing lockdown drills, and hearing constant reports on the news. Due to this, the issue of gun violence and reform is on the top of many of their minds. In the U.S. Youth Attitudes on Guns Report of 2023, the views of youth, all members of Generation Z, were studied through mixed methods to produce both qualitative and quantitative data. They found that 74% of United States youth agree that gun violence is a problem (U.S. Youth Attitudes on Guns Report 2023). They also found that “political identity impacts gun-related attitudes and mental health outcomes tremendously” (U.S. Youth Attitudes on Guns Report 2023). There is a substantial gap in data collected surrounding how older generations view gun violence. It can be posited that this is due to the nature of gun violence shifting towards mass shootings. The increase in active shooting incidents, specifically in spaces which youth occupy, 36 like schools, causes their increased attention to and advocation for gun reform. This also affects other generations, but maybe not to the degree it does Generation Z. This is reflected in the fact that gun reform has become one of the central pillars of Generation Z’s activism. What do these Political Attitudes Suggest? Generation Z is clearly distinct regarding their belief on various political and social issues. Throughout these sections, Generation Zers are consistently engaged with issues they find important and further show a commitment to solving these issues. The majority desire government intervention to solve issues which affect marginalized groups in pursuit of greater diversity. The majority also desires the United States to take more action towards the climate crisis and show willingness to make personal changes to further this action. They show a tolerance and desire to make changes within the arenas of racial inequality, same sex marriage, and gun violence. For all these issues, Generation Zers are closely aligned with Millennials but show sharp contrasts on some issues from the beliefs of older generations including Generation X and Boomers. As Pew Research Center identifies, Generation Z “is moving toward adulthood with a liberal set of attitudes and an openness to emerging social trends” (Pew Research Center 2019). Apart from this, Generation Z is also the first generation which has wholly grown up with technology. They have shared their lives on social media and become connected with peers and people across the globe in unprecedented ways. This use of social media has allowed them to communicate their political views and has definitively changed their views and provided them with access to information unbarred by gatekeeping institutions. This in turn has allowed them to actualize these political attitudes through digital activism. 37 An Assessment of Generation Z’s News Consumption: The Role of Social Media and Technology Within all the different social forces which shaped Generation Z’s political beliefs, one of the most intriguing is social media. Technology and the use of social media within politics is a relatively new phenomenon which has shifted both how Generation Z participates in politics and how politicians communicate with their constituents, including this young generation. This section on social media and technology will examine these shifts and inquire into the larger effects which they have on the creation and continuation of partisan polarization in the United States through flushing out the negative and positive effects of social media on the political world. Social Media’s Role in Politics The Shift from “Legacy Media” towards “New Media” Due to its persuasiveness in every aspect of life, it is argued by many scholars that technology and in particular social media have impacted politics by becoming a medium for the transmission of political thought. Further, the evolution of social media to seriously affect the functioning of political institutions and political actors highlights its unanticipated effects on politics. Communications Scholar Diana Owen discusses the shift from what she labels “legacy media” towards “new media” (Owen, 2018). Legacy media includes newspapers, radio, and television broadcast networks, which have dominated the dissemination of political information until new media became significant. It is a rigid form of media, and its contents are neatly determined by gatekeepers ranging from editorial staff to the news institutions. Legacy media is 38 calculated and is focused on delivering news which match the general partisan preferences of its viewers. The stream of political communication and information is only in one direction, not allowing for input from the people who are consuming that information. In contrast, Owen defines new media as “forms of communication that facilitate the production, dissemination, and exchange of political content on platforms and within networks that accommodate interaction and collaboration” (Owen p. 1, 2018). In this, Owen highlights the part of social media which is key to why this shift is so monumental: interaction and collaboration. Because of this key distinction, the way which ordinary people, the people who are voting in pivotal elections, has been altered. Owen describes this new mode of information dissemination through the media, saying “new media have introduced an increased level of instability and unpredictability into the political communication process” (Owen p. 1, 2018). News Consumption across Different Digital Platforms in the United States in 2023 Figure 15: News consumption across digital platforms A large majority of adults get some of their news using digital devices, whether that be news websites or apps, search engines, social media, or podcasts. These do not exclusively contain 39 new media, as legacy media still takes up space on digital platforms. 86%, the majority of American adults, either often or sometimes get their news from digital sites (Pew Research Center 2023). The print industry and overall traditional news industry has seen corresponding declines, with digital platforms becoming more preferred and accessible (Pew Research Center 2023). Social Media as a form of New Media One key section of new media is social media. Instead of being filtered through institutional gatekeepers which are crucial to legacy media, social media can be used to directly communicate niche information to specific groups of people. With this innovation has come an increased demand for content which stems from the new level of accessibility (Owen p. 1, 2018). News websites and apps still received a larger amount of use than social media from adults overall, but within Generation Z use of digital platforms, 69% often utilized social media as a source of news, compared to 59% who used news websites or apps (Pew Research Center 2023). Even with the absence of institutional gatekeepers to monitor the news, U.S. adults under 30 have begun to trust information from social media almost as much as news which they receive from national news outlets (Pew Research Center 2023). 40 Figure 16: U.S. Adults under 30 are now almost as likely to trust information on social media sites as information from national news outlets. U.S. adults under 30 are slightly less likely to trust information on social media than both national news organizations and local news organizations. But within ages 18 through 29 in 2022, which encompasses Generation Z, 50% said they had some or a lot of trust in the information which they receive from social media with only a 6% increase when asked about trust in the information received from national news outlets. Interestingly, there is a decline in trust of the information received from social media as age increases as seen in the above figure. This level of trust which Generation Z has in social media as a form of political news cements its place as a form of new media. The next two figures allow further analysis of Generation Z’s news consumption. 41 Figure 17: Percent of U.S. adults who regularly get their news on each social media site. Figure 18: Social Media Sites by portion of users who regularly get news there. 42 There is a large variety of social media sites which Generation Z receives their news from. Prominent social media sites for accessing news include Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, X (Twitter), Reddit, Nextdoor, LinkedIn, Snapchat, WhatsApp, and Twitch. As seen in Figure 17, in 2023 Facebook was the most used social media site to access news, with YouTube and Instagram falling close behind. Further, in Figure 18 what sites people regularly get their news from can be observed. Twitter (X) and Facebook are steadily popular from 2020 to 2023, with TikTok increasing in prevalence for news consumption over the last few years. Another unique news source is comedy shows, hosted by people including Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, John Oliver, and Trevor Noah. As these shows have become popular, younger generations including Generation Z have been engaged and receptive of them. The Annenberg School for Communication at University of Pennsylvania and the School of Communication at Ohio State University conducted a study of adults aged 18 to 34 years old showed that these young adults were more likely to remember information about politics when it was delivered with humor (Delivering the News with Humor Makes Young Adults More Likely to Remember and Share | Annenberg 2021). Though there is not recent data available as to how many members of Generation Z get their news from late-night comedy shows, a study in 2004 found that one-in- five young people regularly get their campaign news from late-night comedy shows including Saturday Night Live and the Daily Show (Pew Research Center 2004). Late-night shows have stayed consistently as an important and impactful way which people, especially young people, get their news. As can be observed in these figures, there are a variety of social media sites that U.S. adults receive their news from. But the common ground in this shift from legacy media towards new media lies within increased accessibility. Anyone can access these sites, without paid subscriptions or any other barrier. Further, an interesting facet of social media is incidental 43 exposure to the news, meaning people who are uninterested in the news still may consume news when using social media for other purposes (Fletcher and Nielsen 2018). From these figures, it is evident that the way people consume news has been radically altered by the proliferation of social media within politics and news. Though this trend has directly impacted all American adults in terms of news consumption, this paper will focus on how this shift from legacy media to new media and the expansion of social media as tool of political expression and engagement specifically for Generation Z. As established earlier, Generation Z has never known anything other than technology, and further, their political attitudes make them unique. 44 Social Media’s Impact on Generation Z’s Political Engagement Social Media as a Political Tool Social media did not originate as a means for political information, nor political discourse and engagement, as it was instead intended to connect people digitally with friends and community members. But over time, it has become clear that social media has been used by politicians for networking and has become an important medium of political expression, especially among young people. Barack Obama was one of the first politicians to utilize social media, specifically through his campaign’s use of Facebook and specific interaction with young voters (Dalton 2016). Following Barack Obama, social media has become increasingly prevalent as a tool of political communication between politicians and their constituents (Bode et al. 2014; Owen 2019). To fully understand how social media has completely altered the style of governance and politics within the United States, both the manner political leaders’ communication and citizens’ engagement with politics have radically changed in response and in conjunction with the development of social media must be discussed. Through analyzing this, the form of political engagement which Generation Z participates with on social media and further how they receive information on social media can be highlighted. How Political Leaders Communicate through Social Media With the prevalence of social media within the United States as an essential method of dissemination of political information, it was necessary that politicians adapt to this change to stay in touch with their constituency. This is true both during their terms and when they are campaigning both for election and for reelection. To analyze this shift from the point of view of politicians, I conducted interviews with nine politicians who varied in age, political ideology, 45 and office held. In these interviews, politicians emphasized how they use social media as a form of political expression. The first major way which politicians utilize social media is to engage with their constituency. When asked about this, one Oregon State Representative answered: “In terms of engaging with my constituency, I would say that I recognize how important the role of social media is to get information out. So, whether that be highlighting… events that I'm going to within my district or highlighting… news coming from the Oregon Health Authority or trusted agencies, right, so something relevant to the constituency, I do a lot of that on social media. But also recognize that these are important ways to engage people, I've definitely taken cues from, politicians at the federal level of doing the occasional, ask me anything to be like I am accessible. On the flip side of it, I will say that there are times when things are pretty heated, that I will take a step back from social media while people take a moment to calm down.” (Phone Interview. Oregon State Representative. 20 November 2023) Since such a large percent of politicians’ constituencies utilize social media to absorb political information, social media is a crucial tool to engage. As this State Representative expresses, many political leaders try to tailor information which is relevant to their constituency. This politician offered examples of events which are occurring within their district, or news from agencies which are relevant to the constituency and how they emphasized this within their posts on social media. Further, he mentions how social media expands accessibility, which is a large facet of social media that is fundamental to its profound effects on political engagement. He elaborates on how state politicians have mimicked politicians at a federal level who have utilized social media in a way to expand conversation with their constituency, namely through “ask me anything” segments on their pages. But an important caveat which this politician mentions is how social media does not allow for conversation surrounding issues which inherently raise tensions. This politician specifically explains that they take a step back from social media in these instances instead of engaging further. 46 This communication is markedly different from how politicians used to engage with their constituency before the creation and widespread use of social media. Before this, communication from politicians was contained to direct mail, broadcast on television or radio, and town hall or other debate appearances. A current Oregon State Senator elaborates on how this shift from traditional to new media has affected how political leaders communicate: “I think traditional media provides more space for nuance, more space, for context, more space for explanation. And I think there are some modern creative creators who are kind of effectively swimming upstream and using platforms that are not designed for nuance or context, in a way that still provides that nuance and context.” (Zoom Interview. Oregon State Senator. 6 December 2023.) The areas of emphasis which this Senator mentioned are nuance, context, and space for explanation. Because social media posts from politician many times necessitates this lack of context, this shift has taken away from the nuance which was able to be offered in more traditional forms of media. But she also elaborates on how creators and politicians have used platforms which aren’t designed to communicate political data creatively to still offer it, similar to what the Oregon State Representative mentions before to make social media more accessible. A notable example of this is the “Ask Me Anything” live streams of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Instagram which mimic more traditional media like town halls or other forms of community dialogue. So, though there are some glaring problems with politicians and their teams using social media as their primary method of communication, much of this relies on both the politician’s use of social media and further how citizens interact on social media with these political leaders. Specifically, this online expression of both politicians and their constituents can be further elaborated upon through looking at how political social networking operates—and the further benefits and problems which this form of communication has on Generation Z, specifically. 47 Political SNS Use As social media has begun to be used as a medium for political news, it has become apparent how unique political participation is on these sites. Unlike gatekeeping agencies like newspaper and media agencies controlling what political information is available, using social media is open to discourse from all users. Bode et. al explore this difference and create the concept of “political SNS (Social Networking Site) use” and define it in terms of political expression. “Specifically, we develop the concept of “political SNS use,” which can be defined as using a social networking site for explicitly political purposes, like displaying a political preference on one's profile page, or becoming a “fan” of a politician. We situate political SNS use among a range of other political behaviors, including expression and participation, and differentiate its implications. We conceptualize political SNS use as a new form of online political expression – but rather than emphasizing the interpersonal discussion often tapped by previous measures of online expression… the location of these interactions on social networking sites incorporates a more public element. Thus, political SNS use is unique to social networking sites, and meaningfully different from generic online political participation, in that it captures the ability of individuals to not only exchange information about politics but also to publicly affiliate themselves with a group.” (Bode et al. 2014) The concept of political SNS use is defined as “using a social networking site for explicitly political purposes” which Bode et al. argue includes displaying political preference on one’s social media profile or becoming what they label as a “fan” of a politician. Political SNS use functions within expression and participation, though it has different implications. Due to the nature of social media, political SNS use necessarily is more public than other forms of political expression. Additionally, instead of users simply exchanging political information, they are affiliating themselves with a group publicly. Further, this is different than traditional forms of participating due to the fact that there are not substantial barriers or any cost associated with this form of participation (Bode et al. 48 2014). However, this form of participation is closely linked to other forms of political participation, as people who choose to engage in political SNS use also are more likely to engage in other more traditional forms of political participation. Bode et al. raise the question of how social media, and specifically this new form of political participation affects overall political participation of adolescents. They assert “political SNS use, in and of itself important, becomes especially consequential if it is providing new ways for adolescents to get involved politically, or conversely, if it is hindering a process better served through face-to-face communication” (Bode et al. 2014). Though the evolution of political participation on social media is extremely important, this participation also has large implications both in assisting and encouraging members of Generation Z to become politically involved. But this can also operate in the opposite way, as this form of participation could have or will potentially replace other forms of participation which may have better accomplished the overall goal of a politically involved electorate. Youth are particularly important in this conversation, as political habits are created both early in one’s life and also during times in one’s life where elections and voting occur according to various studies (Gerber, Green, and Shachar 2003; Valentino and Sears 1998). To fully answer this question, both the benefits and problems which political SNS use have had in relation to Generation Z’s political engagement must be fully examined. There are various benefits which stem from the use of social media for political SNS use—which includes in of itself expression, public affiliation, and participation (Bode et al. 2014). There is an array of motivating factors which push people, and in particular youth, towards the use of social media for political purposes, including but not limited to social interaction, gaining information, and also entertainment (Predictors of Internet Use: Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media: Vol 44, No 2). Though what pushes Generation Z and other 49 generations towards the use of social media for political purposes is important, the implications of this social media and how they in turn effect political behavior is the focus of this discussion. Raising Public Awareness regarding Issues in a More Accessible Manner The first, and arguably largest, benefit of social media use for political purposes is the ability to disseminate information at unprecedented rates. Unlike direct mail or other forms of traditional media, information can be spread to a multitude of people with simply the press of a button. Since social media allows this rapid spread of information, politicians and citizens have harnessed this power to raise public awareness regarding issues which are paramount. Bode et. al discuss this power, stating that the “incorporation of politics into this medium has the potential to affect not only the teen’s engagement, but also his or her entire network of friends, thus reaching hundreds, sometimes thousands, of people with a single click” (Bode et al. 2014). So, apart from politicians being able to reach a large amount of people with a single click, this opportunity is awarded to anyone who chooses to use these sites. This is not solely people who are intending to find this information, but people also incidentally see political posts when they are simply scrolling on social media sites for entertainment. This destroys the gatekeepers which were ever present in traditional media. Additionally, the information which is found on social media sites is “likely to be more relevant than that from traditional sources, given that it comes from trusted known others” (Bode et al. 2014; Huckfeldt et al. 1995). The unique way which information is distributed on social media, sometimes by people’s close friends or those they respect, is different from receiving communications from politicians or other elite on news networks who are unknown or unfamiliar. Due to this, public awareness around issues of importance may be more easily spread through networks people trust on social media than on traditional media sources which may be 50 polluted by gatekeepers. So, public awareness can be raised surrounding issues of both national and personal importance on social media in a similar way to conversation, but to a greater degree. Another important aspect of the way political information spreads on social media is the difference in the accessibility of the content. A key component of this information being shared in a faster and more widespread way is that it is also much more accessible to many people. Within an interview an Oregon State Representative commented on the effects of this different medium of political communication: “You explain what's going on, in a way that's understandable to people who don't spend their life thinking about politics, right? Like, yeah, what is what is the debt ceiling? Right? How does that work? What's the point of it? How does it impact my life? In Oregon, there's a bunch of different issues like Measure 110, drug addiction, behavioral health supports, these are really complicated things, you're not going to explain the situation very well on like a single tile photo. Maybe like a montage of photos. You'll see people use Instagram in that way, right? Like, they'll have like seven photos with text. And it's like one sentence per photo, and you slide through to get the information.” (Phone Interview. Oregon State Representative. 20 November 2023.) Politicians and other social media users can explain information on social media in a way which is much different than other forms of traditional media. Instead of complicated news articles which use technical words and phrases and necessitate the reader to employ their own expansive political knowledge, social media communication tends to be more easily accessible—many times because its format necessitates this. This Representative identifies that the political social media content which they observe is presented in “a way that’s understandable to people who don’t spend their life thinking about politics”. He provides the example of the debt ceiling, and how this complicated concept might be able to be explained in an accessible way through social media and presented in a way which is more personal, as is “How does it impact my life?”. There is an acknowledgement of how social media can be limiting through its format, but new features 51 allow for multiple slides, more text, and features like “going live” which allow politicians and other social media users to further explain the issue in this more accessible space. The person who is absorbing the information does not need a news subscription or other qualifications which may limit them, they simply need access to technology. But the accessibility and communication of this information does heavily depend on the way which the social media user decides to use their platform. This caveat is discussed below by a former Arizona City Councilmember. “I would say, I think it has made people it has made people more involved. And I think, and I'm thinking about that, because of like people that I know, who are like, big on like, TikTok, right? Or what have you, and who have worked to make things more accessible, have worked to explain policy concepts in like, 30 seconds, right, versus like, having to go hunt down a website and all of that. And so, I think as a result, as a result of the fact that it has been made more accessible, that people have taken that and have upped their participation in it.” (Phone Interview. Arizona City Councilmember. 11 December 2023.) This former Councilmember offers the example of popular creators who dedicate their platform to making political information more understandable and accessible through policy explanation which take a short time. She compares this to the alternative to finding information which would involve looking up the information online and trying to find a reliable website that is also comprehensible. This is much less accessible, especially because this information must be sought out. Instead, when people are scrolling on social media as a form of entertainment, they will happen upon a video which explains policy. This again allows information to be more widespread as people who are not intentionally hunting down websites to understand an issue like the debt ceiling still are absorbing this political communication. Though some politicians and other creators are utilizing social media in this way, this accessibility has certain downfalls 52 which will be elaborated upon when discussing the fall backs of social media as a form of political expression. Not only is this accessibility and spread of information crucial in relationship of politician to constituent, but it is also observed that there is a large amount of information dissemination from peer to peer. This many times closely mimics conversations which would be had in person. Instead of receiving their political information from news sources and politicians, many members of Generation Z have begun to get their information from posts or reposts which their peers post on social media sites. Further, since Generation Z is chronically online, they are likely to be incidentally exposed to news (Fletcher and Nielsen 2018). When scrolling on social media including Instagram and TikTok for entertainment, members of Generation Z may be incidentally exposed to news from people they don’t know, from people they follow, and from friends. This heightens the exposure to political news, as social media users do not need to seek out political information through purposely watching, listening to, or reading news from traditional news sources. This level of accessibility is directly tied to raising public awareness regarding issues which Generation Z deems important. Before social media, previous generations sometimes faced large obstacles in promoting issues they cared about and communicating these issues with their peers, politicians, and the larger population. They could have peer-to-peer conversations but were limited in how broadly they could share their beliefs without a platform. But now, during times when members of Generation Z have political opinions, they can easily choose to both share these opinions and organize action through social media. This is arguably the largest benefit which has come from social media and will be further analyzed through case studies in a later section. But though this is a large benefit, it also comes with the compromise of 53 opinions not being fully explained as they would in peer-to-peer discourse as social media encourages brief headlines instead of detailed information. Another area which political SNS use becomes extremely important is information dissemination during campaigns. The first time the full potential for social media use regarding campaigns became realized was during the Obama and McCain race in 2008. Obama was one of the first politicians who placed an increases emphasis on utilizing new forms of media in an effort to connect with voters (Bode et al. 2014). One New York Times piece from 2008 analyzed the actions from Obama and his campaign team which “sought to understand and harness the Internet (and other forms of so-called new media) to organize supporters and to reach voters who no longer rely primarily on information from newspapers and television” (Nagourney 2008). Scholars including Bode, Nagourney, and Oakes argue that this revolutionized the way which campaigns operate within the United States and had the effect of more people having access to information and turning out to vote. Since Obama and his campaign team revolutionized using technology and new media, including social media, this strategy has become cemented into most, or all, campaigns (Oakes 2020; Obama and the Power of Social Media and Technology | Stanford Graduate School of Business; Pew Research Center 2012). An important aspect of this strategy is that politicians have begun to shift their campaign resources towards paid advertisements on social media which they can target towards who they want to communicate with during their race. A former U.S. Representative discusses that “more and more campaigns are shifting money from broadcast, obviously, I mean, I think direct mail will continue to be important. But you're just seeing a lot, a lot more investment in the social media, to drive the elections” (In-Person Interview. U.S. Representative. 17 November 2023). This movement towards spending campaign resources on social media advertisement instead of 54 broadcasts or other forms of communication was also discussed by a current Arizona City Councilmember who expanded on the possibilities, and failures, of this feature being utilized to break barriers between political parties: “So I do think the targeting aspect of paid social media where you can literally like you can very, very precisely identify who you want to communicate messages with, that does create an opportunity for people to break through and maybe try to craft messages that appeal to people who normally disagree with or try to win new supporters who aren't current supporters. Now. That's a possibility. Is that how people are using it? I don’t know. I, frankly, I’m a little bit skeptical” (Phone Interview. Arizona City Councilmember. 5 January 2024.) The feature of paid advertising allows politicians to connect with the people they have pertinent information to share and mobilize their electorate. But this politician argues that they are skeptical that paid advertisements on social media are being utilized in this manner. Though this may allow politicians to break through barriers which polarization and echo chambers have caused, many politicians are not doing this. Instead, it is more likely that politicians are communicating with people who already support them. Organizing Movements and Activism Bennett discusses how the use of social media in this way has transformed politics into a part of people’s lifestyle, which tend to be “more personal and local than national and governmental in scope and relevance” (Bennett 1998). Though Bennet was studying the shift in participation towards lifestyle politics in 1998, the application of his theory still lends insight into how social media has changed political participation. Social media fit seamlessly into a world where political participation was moving away from traditional interest in electoral politics towards “increased individual interest in politics, higher frequency of political discussions with friends, rises in petition signing, and increased support for boycotts, demonstrations, and other 55 forms of direct action” (Bennett 1998). Social media allows for the conversation surrounding these issues, and further allows for direct action to be taken in the form of physical protest. The dissemination of information to raise public awareness regarding important issues and the increased level of accessibility have radically shifted the political world and altered how both politicians and citizens, specifically members of Generation Z, have communicated and expressed political beliefs in an individualistic manner. But political SNS use also has various drawbacks which have both lead to and accompanied the extremely fractured political system which exists in advance of the 2024 presidential election. The Limitations of Political Discourse on Social Media One of the largest limitations of political discourse is the lack of common ground and space for conversation. Though people share their views, many times there is no back and forth conversation which will act to create a common ground between ideologies which are at stake with each other. Due to this, many politicians attempt to appeal to a broader audience. A current Oregon State Representative talks about why appealing to a broader audience is the preferred method for the way he utilizes social media, saying: “My official accounts are almost always designed to have messages that are… appealing to a broad audience, I'll say, right, like, I'm talking about bills that are not, I don't want to say non-controversial but not partisan. Like, I don't talk very much about only things that are democratic priorities. There was a couple of exceptions, right? There's a bill that was like, very divided along party lines, that was important to me. And so, I use social media for that purpose. And you can see in the comments, I got attacked by people who disagree with me. And that's, that's part of the reason why, like, I would say, I don't want to say like generic, but a lot of my social media content, which, frankly, my staff writes, most of I always approve and review, but we're sticking to things like, you know, like, more technical.” (Phone Interview. Oregon State Representative. 20 November 2023.) He explains that many times their team will post messages that are broadly appealing, and not partisan. But an important caveat this Oregon State Representative mention is that they do use 56 their platform to promote partisan messages when that message is of importance to them. However, this resulted in there being comments which were aggressive coming from people who held opposing views. Since this is not productive, as no one is getting convinced by a social media post if they disagree and there is not any space for conversation, many politicians opt to not use their social media space for partisan, or controversial topics. Of course, this does vary from politician to politician, as some are more committed to stronger partisan beliefs and have different convictions about how to use social media. There are many factors which influence how politicians choose to use social media, including age, party, and whether they are communicating on a local, state, or national level. This politician elaborates, saying the messages that they focus on tends to be “a bunch of updates on like, here's the work I'm doing to like, get this road improved, rather than like, abortion, gay rights, transgender issues, like you try to avoid those things, because social media is a hard place to have any conversation, let alone very sensitive conversations.” The issues this politician states which they choose to ignore are some of the hot button issues which were discusses earlier, like abortion and gay rights. These are extremely sensitive issues, and therefore this politician feels as though social media is not the place for this information as there is not space for conversation and informed debate. Though social media is skilled at disseminating information, it fails to have the back and forth which is essential to changing opinions and bridging divides. Many people attribute this to both a factor which contributes to and a symptom of the high amount of political polarization which currently plagues the United States. Further, the algorithms also contribute to create and sustain the political echo chambers which are mirrored within social media which is the next point of discussion. 57 Algorithms and the Creation and Sustainment of Political Echo Chambers and Political Polarization “Right now, it seems very clear to me that social media is dividing us and [is] being used as a weapon to divide us. And [is] being used by political interests, to reinforce the beliefs of the people who consume it. There was this big promise that social media was going to be used to connect the world and to bring people together and to help people build relationships.” (Zoom Interview. Arizona State Representative. 20 January 2024.) Social media was made with the intent to connect the world. As it was beginning, people imagined a world where distance had no bearing on connection. But as social media has continued to develop, this mission has been convoluted by algorithms and personal interests which have skewed the way social media and society interact. This Arizona State Representative laments how social media has begun to operate, saying that it is “dividing us and [is] being used as a weapon to divide us.” This is occurring through “reinforcing the beliefs of people who consume it.” This is accomplished through the interaction and effects which political echo chambers and polarization have on social media users. Political polarization is one of the largest issues which is affecting the United States today and there is a large focus on this problem in advance of the 2024 election. Political polarization is defined as a harsh division along ideological lines and tending towards ideological extremes instead of the center, and it is usually marked by a high level of antipathy towards the opposing group (Pew Research Center 2014). Though this has been a problem before social media and this intense polarization has existed for more than a decade, many people attribute the rise in polarization to the shift towards social media (Pew Research Center 2014). Political polarization is problematic because it makes democracy, and society, incapable of “addressing the range of issues—or formulating the variety of solutions—necessary for government to 58 function and provide the services critical for society” (Kelly et al. 2021). Without conversation and compromise, democracy is at risk of failing to function the way it was intended. Social media is one place this polarization is clearly evidenced. But social media’s algorithms and the creation of political echo chambers within it may function to worsen this polarization. Social media algorithms function to promote content to users which is like the content which they interact with. They do this for all videos and posts on each site. This is not problematic in of itself, but when the content is political, it begins to have worrisome implications. For example, when a Democrat interacts, meaning likes, comments, or spends time on a post, social media sites like Instagram or TikTok begin to show that person more content which aligns with that through using built in algorithms. Therefore, these people begin to only see content which they align with, placing them in what is labelled a “political echo chamber” and making them become more solidified in their opinions through limiting their exposure to other, diverse opinions. A political echo chamber is defined as an environment or space where people solely encounter opinions which align with their own, resulting in these opinions being validated and reinforced. A current Oregon State Representative comments on these algorithms, saying: “The other thing I think about, though, is like, just the algorithms themselves, what content is being promoted? What is the goal of that content? Is the goal just feeding people what they want? Or is it possible that there could be more nefarious goals in the algorithm? And I don't want to like, make accusations? Because I don't know the answer to these questions, I don't have the information. But if the algorithm is controlled by a company that is effectively controlled by a federal government, like China, does not and does not that company, or at least the country, controlling it, have an interest in destabilizing our country or dividing our people or making us disagree rather than agree?” (Phone Interview. Oregon State Representative. 20 November 2023.) Though algorithms are not in of themselves created to polarize and divide the country, the way which they operate means that this is a possibility. Further, this opens the opportunity to other 59 countries to control the dialogue in the United States and influencing the functioning of American politics. But does social media create this polarization, or is it a reflection of an already fractured national political landscape? Most literature agrees that social media and its algorithms which create and maintain political echo chambers should not shoulder the blame for creating this immense amount of polarization. This doesn’t mean social media escapes blame entirely as “Although social media is unlikely to be the main driver of polarization… it is often a key facilitator” (Bavel et al. 2021). Though polarization is not caused directly by social media, it is of utmost importance in understanding why and how polarization is operating at such a high level in the United States at this moment in time. After the January 6th insurrection at the Capitol, the Brookings Institution published a report through the Center for Business and Human Rights at New York University titled “Fueling the Fire: How Social Media Intensifies U.S. Political Polarization—And What Can Be Done About It”. This report analyzed over 50 social science studies and interviews with 40 academics and concluded that “platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter likely are not the root causes of political polarization, but they do exacerbate it” (How tech platforms fuel U.S. political polarization and what government can do about it.; Polarization Report). One study this report cites analyzes how social media algorithms directly exacerbate polarization saying “Social media technology employs popularity-based algorithms that tailor content to maximize user engagement” and that this is “in part because of the contagious power of content that elicits sectarian fear or indignation” (Finkel et al. 2020). These algorithms are not intended to intensify polarization, but the way they function necessarily does so. Due to social media sites not making changes regarding this, people’s use of these sites has worsened politician polarization and 60 sectarianism. Scholars do disagree on this point, as some studies suggest that changing or reversing algorithms does not significantly change the user’s level of issue polarization or affective polarization (Guess et al. 2023). These studies should be given credence, but they do not take away from the fact that social media could sustain polarization without creating or worsening it. A former prominent United States Representative from Oregon comments on how he observes these political echo chambers functioning on social media and how this has changed political conversations, arguing this is the biggest problem of news consumption on social media: “That's what I see as the biggest problem is that you're on social media, you just see, oh, that person agrees to me. And then if you see someone else who doesn't agree with, you're like, Oh, they're just stupid. Like, I don't like there's no informed debate around any of these issues, which I think is something that was really powerful, for a long time, was just like informed debate, watching debates, talking amongst ourselves, which I just, I mean, people post things, but it’s the way the algorithms work. You're only seeing what you're going to engage with.” (In-Person Interview. U.S. Representative. 17 November 2023.) He discusses how people only see people who agree with them, and when they do encounter people who do not agree, they dismiss the information as “stupid”. This reflects the lack of informed debate around this issue, and how politics within civilians has shifted away from conversations with peers about issues. As he states, social media’s algorithms which are intended to maximize user engagement across their platform make it so “You’re only seeing what you’re going to engage with.” A current Oregon State Senator agrees with him, saying “I think social media is really responsible for a lot of that hardening and the movement and lack of communication” which is observed within the United States today (Zoom Interview. Oregon State Senator. 6 December 2023.). These algorithms work to cement and further existing partisan divide through creating political echo chambers on social media which then reverberate into social life in the United States. 61 This is also true for the posts which social media users and members of Generation Z are seeing from politicians. A former Arizona State Representative comments on how the people that are viewing their social media are people that have already chosen to follow them because they agree with their ideological views, or that they follow them or interact with their page because they have already decided that they disagree with these views and therefore want to comment hateful things. “Largely the people who are receiving the media that I'm putting out there are people who have like, consciously made the decision to follow, right, because they are already interested, they're already supportive, or are people who have made the decision to follow me so that they can come in whatever hatred they want to… My belief is that people are coming in with their minds already made up on whether or not they they're going to enjoy what I'm posting, or whether or not they're going to just hate on it.” (Phone Interview. Arizona State Representative. 4 February 2024.) This quote illustrates the point of view of politicians surrounding the content which they are providing on social media. Largely, people are not coming to their page to get educated on topics or to explore the opinions of different politicians. Not to say that some social media users are doing this, but most social media users are coming to politicians’ pages with their opinions cemented. This relates back to the concept of political SNS use, and how people follow and comment on political leaders’ pages to publicly show their support and align themselves with a certain politician or party. Generation Z has specifically felt these effects, as they are the most online generation. Looking at the Digital News Fact sheet which was published by Pew Research Center in 2023, it can be observed that members of Generation Z have the highest percentage of social media news consumption over all other generations, with percent slowly dropping each generation (NW, Washington, and Inquiries 2023.) Since Generation Z is more likely to get their news from social 62 media, they are more deeply impacted by polarization and political echo chambers on social media than other generations. Further, another large difference in Generation Z’s social media news consumption from other generations is their trust in information from social media in comparison to other news outlets, as was discussed earlier. In 2022, 50% of Generation Z had some or a lot of trust in social media sites, while 56% had some or a lot of trust in national news organizations (Liedke and Gottfried 2023). This gap is the smallest in all the age groups, and further, as Liedke and Gottfried note, the smallest gap in trust in any generation from the polls done in previous years as well. Looking at ages 30 to 49, there is a substantially lower amount of trust in the information found on social media, with only 36% having some or a lot of trust in the information which they receive from these sites. This change in trust between generations is important because if members of Generation Z are more trusting in the information found, they are unlikely to seek other sources on this information, like going to read more about the issue on a trusted national news source or engaging in further conversations. Additionally, they become more effected by these political echo chambers as they have an inherent trust in the content which they are interacting with, and do not hold importance to the fact that they are not seeing multiple opinions. So, though this problem of political echo chambers on social media effects all users, it is particularly worrisome for Generation Z, the first generation of digital natives who are chronically online and therefore absorbing more news from these political echo chambers. So, what is there to do in response to these political echo chambers on social media which have acted to maintain political polarization in the United States? When asked this, most politicians gave the same answer: “Just keep trying to educate people”. Though there are glaring problems with social media, politicians and users must take personal responsibility for remaining 63 open and committed to informed debate on social media and outside of it. This may not solve the problem, and further government and social media corporate action ought to also be taken. The Problem of “Fake News” and Misinformation on Social Media Another glaring problem of social media as an avenue for political expression and news absorption is how “fake news” and misinformation have occurred on social media. Because social media does not have the traditional gatekeepers which act to certify news as reliable, misinformation is able to be spread at a fast rate. Some social media sites, like Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok, have attempted to add features to target and remove misinformation, but have largely failed at rectifying this problem. A former Arizona City Councilmember laments on the amount of misinformation and if there could be a potential solution: “Right now, it's pretty out of control… There have been people who sort of tried, you know, to set up sites where, you know, come here, and get real information. I wouldn't give up on it. But it's going to be really, really hard to somehow, because things are so polarized to kind of penetrate either of those extremes and say, hey, just look at this. But got to keep trying.” (Phone Interview. Arizona City Councilmember. 12 January 2024.) This politician notes that misinformation is out of control currently. Though there have been efforts to create new social media sites which only had real information on them, this effort has largely failed. They also discuss how it is hard to penetrate social media to allow for the eradication of fake news due to political polarization. This issue affects Generation Z at a higher level as studies have shown that Generation Z is more likely than older generations to be convinced by false headlines. A test which was developed by University of Cambridge titled “The Misinformation Susceptibility Test” was utilized in a study to see what age groups were most susceptible to believing fake headlines were real (The Misinformation Susceptibility Test 2023). The polling of around 2,000 US adults found that on average these US adults were able to classify 65% correctly of what they were shown as 64 either real or fake. Additionally, this study found that younger adults were overall worse at identifying if headlines were fake and further found correlation between spending more time on social media and being less likely to determine real news from misinformation. This is different from the commonly held conception that older generations like Boomers would be more susceptible to fake news on social media as they are more unfamiliar with the platforms. Younger Americans scored an average of 12 out of 20 correct, which was less than the 15 out of 20 which older Americans got correct on average (University of Cambridge 2023). 18-to-29-year old’s scored the worst, and this study hypothesizes that both younger adults are more likely to trust misinformation and more likely to lack trust in headlines which are true which may signal a greater distrust in news headlines overall. Therefore, the high amount of time which Generation Z spends online in conjunction with other factors makes them more susceptive to incorrectly identifying both misinformation and real information. This study also found a high correlation between partisanship and susceptibility of misinformation, with Democrats and Independents performing better than Republicans on the Misinformation Susceptibility test. The headlines which Republicans were most likely to be tricked on were surrounding Government manipulation and Left-Wing Extremism (How well can Americans distinguish real news headlines 2023). The issue which most politicians were extremely worried about and almost all brought up during the interview process was deep fakes. Deep fakes are an interesting and alarming new form of fake news which has started gaining in popularity. Both the Organization for Social Media Safety and the Department of Homeland Security have published that deep fakes constitute large future risks. The Department of Homeland Security defines deep fakes as a form of synthetic media which “utilizes a form of artificial intelligence/ machine learning to create 65 believable, realistic videos, pictures, audio, and text of events which never happened” (Department of Homeland Security 2022). Though some of these are used for entertainment, they have been used and have the potential to be used in the future to mislead people about what important political leaders say. They also constitute a large risk when used by foreign countries including Russia, China, Iran, and more. These countries could easily influence American politics and blur the truth through utilizing deep fakes. This becomes worse when these are spread on social media, as fact checks many times do not exist or fail, and therefore, videos of politicians could spread like wildfire on these social media sites with no hopes for intervention. A current Oregon State Representative discusses how this could occur and inquires about what regulations should be on social media saying, “On the distribution side on social media, what are the rules? What are the requirements? What are the safeguards to ensure that you're not, you know, spreading things that are going to cause violence or destabilize our democracy?” (Phone Interview. Oregon State Representative. 20 November 2023). These deep fakes hold so much power because they can efficiently convince a vast amount of people that a specific important figure said something, and as this State Representative notes, this could work to destabilize our democracy. The Department of Homeland Security offers some examples of scenarios, and their recommendation of how to avoid harm from these deep fakes as they become more prevalent are based in AI tools which will work to identify and alert people of deep fakes on social media since it may become impossible for users to identify these with their own resources (Department of Homeland Security 2022). This is another important risk on social media which is an extension of fake news and will continue to be both relevant and important in the coming years and decades. 66 Overexposure and Exhaustion An issue which is plaguing the American public and more specifically Generation Z is overexposure and exhaustion. Due to the fact many Generation Z members are almost constantly online, they either purposely or incidentally encounter a high amount of political news. This can become exhausting, as many times the political news is of tragedy or societal unrest. Many social media users report being worn out from social media posts. Back in 2020 around the election, 55% of social media users reported being “worn out” by political posts and discussions on social media (Anderson and Auxier 2020.). This shows a sharp increase from the same survey which Pew Research Center conducted just 4 years prior during the 2016 election, with 16% more Americans feeling worn out from social media political posts. This trend and the ever-increasing presence of social media suggests this feeling will be even more pronounced during the 2024 election. The share of people who find political posts on social media “interesting and informative” also dropped from 2016 to 2020, from 35% to 26% (Anderson and Auxier 2020). This frustration over seeing political posts when not intending to have caused exhaustion from many people surrounding political debate. This negative impact on Generation Z’s wellbeing was very prominent during the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown. This overexposure and exhaustion of encountering political posts on social media also has the possibility to translate into other avenues of political participation. Wrap-up on Generation Z and Social Media These negative and positive effects of social media on social media users, and specifically Generation Z, have completely shifted how they interact with politics. As social media has become cemented as a prominent news source, how different generations use social media for news consumption and political expression have shifted in return. This use of social 67 media as a political tool through Political SNS Use and absorption of information from fellow users and politicians has many benefits and drawbacks. Benefits of Generation Z’s shift towards using social media in this way includes raising public awareness, increased accessibility, and organizing social movements or other forms of activism. Conversely, drawbacks of this include political echo chambers, increased polarization, fake news prevalence, and the resulting overexposure and exhaustion. Though many scholars agree that technology has revolutionized the way Generation Z and other voters participate in politics, it is important to acknowledge that this relationship cannot be proven to be strictly causational. As seen in this discussion, there is a plethora of other factors which have and will continue to influence Generation Z outside of technology and social media that are relevant in shaping Generation Z political participation. 68 Generation Z’s Digital Activism “People always say, ‘Get off your phones,’ but social media is our weapon. Without it, the movement wouldn’t have spread this fast”- Jacklyn Corin Though the benefits and drawbacks discussed in the previous section are extremely important to the current and future political landscape, one area of this discussion which definitively has altered American politics is Generation Z’s digital activism. Generation Z will continue to make waves in politics with their activism surrounding the issues which they hold of importance through utilizing social media and technology, including but not limited to those discussed in the first section detailing Generation Z’s political attitudes. Through looking at specific cases of digital activism which Generation Z has accomplished, the way which they harness the unprecedented power of social media as a tool for political organization and weapon against harmful norms and institutions as a young generation can be fully highlighted as an extension of this discussion surrounding their use of social media as a political tool. After examining these instances of activism, how the digital activism of Generation Z influences voting mobilization in elections will be discussed with special attention to the upcoming 2024 election. What is Digital Activism? Digital activism is an evolving form of activism which has accompanied the rise of social media as a medium for political communication. Digital activism is defined below: “A form of activism that uses the internet and digital media as key platforms for mass mobilization and political action. From the early experiments of the 1980s to the modern “smart mobs” and blogs, activists and computer specialists have approached digital networks as a channel for action. Initially, online activists used the Internet as a medium for information distribution, given its capacity to reach massive audiences across borders instantaneously. A more-developed undertaking of digital activism used the World Wide Web as a site of protest that mirrors and 69 amplifies off-line demonstrations.” (Digital activism | Online Campaigns, Social Media & Protests | Britannica) Digital activism is a form of activism which specifically utilizes both the internet and digital media, like social media, as a platform for mass mobilization and influencing or taking political action. This quote also discusses the shift from people using the internet solely for information dissemination into a more complex use which hosts protests and has transformed internet and social media into a site for protest and recruitment. Because of social media, Generation Z has the newfound ability to amplify their voices on issues they care about, as was discussed in the first section regarding their political attitudes. Though the last section explored how Generation Z uses social media as a political tool to dissemination information, communicate political preferences, and gain knowledge, the digital activism which Generation Z utilizes social media for will and has a large impact on the American political landscape. Generation Z is also able to effectively create change through their digital activism due to their youth. Gash and Tichenor discuss how youth activism functions, arguing that youth are attractive activists for two reasons: adults listen to youth when they speak with clarity and resolve as they have low expectations of young people and young people are more willing to take risks when they observe injustices and unwilling to accept compromise (Gash and Tichenor 2022). In these ways, youth are uniquely situated to make impactful change. With this unique ability in hand, young people can use social media to attract participants and create action on issues they care about. To truly grasp how digital activism has empowered Generation Z, case studies of different instances of digital activism can be used in the areas of school shootings and gun violence, climate change, and racial injustice. Their notable support for these issues and 70 proximity to them makes these areas the most crucial to highlight. First, Generation Z’s activism regarding gun violence and its profound effects can be seen through looking at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and the National School walkout in 2018. Next, their climate change activism can be studied through looking at Greta Thunberg, Fridays for Future, and global climate strikes including the Sunrise Movement and the Extinction Rebellion. Finally, the most diverse generation’s actions and support during movements to address racial injustice can be studied through looking at their involvement in Black Lives Matter protests and organizations including The Conscious Kid, Youth for Black Lives, and the NAACP Youth & College Division. The “School Shooting Generation” and Gun Violence Activism The U.S. possesses 42% of the world’s guns, even though it only accounts for 4.4% of the world’s population (How Parkland Students Are Taking on Politicians in the Gun Control Battle 2018). Within the United States, thoughts about gun violence are split upon party lines with 81% of Democrats saying gun violence is a very big national problem and 38% of Republicans saying the same (Pew Research Center 2023). But overall, Americans are increasingly saying that gun violence is a very big problem, with 60% answering yes to this question compared to 53% in 2019 (Pew Research Center 2023). Even though there is a majority of Americans who believe gun violence is a problem, American politicians have failed to take any action against this issue in terms of actual policy to correct the issue of school shootings. The generation that this has most intensely impacted is Generation Z, which has been called the “school shooting generation” or “mass-shooting generation” (Maciel 2021; We are the Generation of Mass Shootings | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson 2023). Consider that in 2023 alone, there were 346 school shooting incidents (School Shootings by State | U.S. News 2023). 71 This means that the U.S. averaged almost one school shooting per day. Every time a school shooting occurs, there is media outrage, and calls for change. In response, politicians call for and promise policy change, and offer their thoughts and prayers (Telnaes 2021). But repeatedly, politicians fail to enact any substantial policy change which works to rectify this issue. For example, in 2012, after a school shooting which left twenty first graders dead, President Obama issued an executive order to limit gun violence through a background check. But Congress failed to pass legislation to limit gun sales, even though the proposed bill was bipartisan. Ever since, there has become an all too familiar pattern of gun violence and failed efforts at “reform,” as gun violence in schools have continued apace. In response, Generation Z, the “school shooting generation,” decided that they would take the issue of gun safety into their own hands. They were able to do so in one way: grassroots organizing and mass mobilization through social media. Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, March for our Lives, and the National School Walkout On February 14th, 2018, 17 students and staff were shot dead at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. In the days following this massacre, the Generation Z voices from this high school went viral as they hurled deserving insults at the NRA and called for reform in the form of universal background checks, a renewed assault weapon ban, and for gun-ownership records to be digitized. Charlotte Alter discusses this digital activism which occurred following the Parkland Shooting in a piece for the TIME. She comments on the nature of this generation and its activism: “Most of these kids cannot vote, order a beer, make a hotel reservation or afford a pizza without pooling some of their allowance. On the surface, they’re not so different from previous generations of idealistic teenagers who set out to change the world, only to find it is not so easy. Yet over the past month, these students have become the central organizers of what may turn out to be the most powerful 72 grassroots gun-reform movement in nearly two decades. For much of the rest of the country, numbed and depressed by repeated mass shootings, the question has become, Can these kids actually do it?” (Alter 2018). The members of Generation Z which were leading this protest and the subsequent movements which followed were not of voting age. They were unable to alter legislation through voting. Alter discusses how this narrative fits with the mold of youth, or teenagers, who decide they want to change the world through activism. But she notes that this time was different, as these kids were able to create the “most powerful grassroots gun-reform movement in nearly two decades” with no expertise or status of political power (Alter 2018). The team of Generation Z was comprised of Sarah Chadwick, Cameron Kasky, Delaney Tarr, David Hogg, Jacklyn Corin, and the support of various other classmates. They harnessed their pure fury of the repeated school shootings which had been occurring before Sandy Hook, and which Sandy Hook cemented in their minds would keep occurring until action was taken. Their youth fueled their power, as they made a desperate plea for change. These students turned this harrowing event into an activist event, and a month later used social media to facilitate a walkout of over a million students across the country (Witt 2019). Further, they were then able to organize the largest youth protest since the Vietnam War at the Capitol a few days after this. Social media was essential in these youth’s ability to mass organize and facilitate national protests and demonstrations. This widespread organization at this speed would not have been possible without the use of social media, and specifically the use of it as an instrument of political change. So, how exactly did social media shape the March for our Lives movement and facilitate large national movements like the National School Walkout in 2018? This movement can be classified as what Castells calls a “Networked Social Movement” in his book Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Digital Age. Castells classifies these movements as 73 having two important qualities which unite them: a crisis of legitimacy in the political system and autonomous communicative capacity (Castells 2015). The first, a crisis of legitimacy, is important because people no longer find an outlet of expression or representation in their politicians. This is clear within the March for our Lives movement, as Generation Z felt as though politicians were not acting for their best interest through creating gun control legislation or taking any action to address the distressing frequency of school shootings. This pushes them towards the creation of a social movement in an aim to create their desired change. The second contextual feature identified by Castells also applies to March for our Lives, which is autonomous communicative capacity. Castells defines this as “being able to connect among the participants and with society as a whole via the news social media, mediated by smart phones and the whole galaxy of communication networks” (Castells pp. 223 2015). Generation Z specifically harnesses this power as they are technologically savvy, compared to earlier generations, and can connect with more members within their generation as they are the most actively online. Further, their youth positions them as more likely to ignite social change as they are more likely to dislike and seek to change the existing social order which they are growing up within (Castells 2015). These factors allow social movements facilitated through digital activism to flourish and gain large amounts of traction. This movement succeeded as social media allowed it to be viewed on a global platform, and therefore victims of gun violence, like Chadwick, Kasky, Tarr, Corin, and Hogg, could connect with other victims of gun violence and share their story with people to spread awareness. Because this movement was operated through social media, Generation Z was also able to form a collective identity which gave the movement a greater impact and additionally allowed them to mobilize people and organize protests much more successfully. 74 Though it cannot be definitive, it is likely that March for Our Lives and the protests which were organized could not have reached and recruited as many people as it was able to without social media. Castells asserts that “Indeed, the diffusion of Internet-based social networks is a necessary condition of these new social media movements in our time. But it is not a sufficient condition” (Castells 2015). The real power which fueled this movement came from the character and political attitude of Generation Z, and their desire to make a lasting change in this policy arena which was impacting their lives drastically. It has now been five years since the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, and March for Our lives is still working to change the world of gun violence. On their website, they point to tangible policy innovations that their movement helped spur: “Over 250 gun safety laws have been passed since March For Our Lives [MFOL] was founded, billions of dollars have been committed to lifesaving programs, and youth voters turned out at record numbers in the last three elections, in no small part because young people were moved by MFOL to take action and see themselves as part of the civic process” (Impact Report 2023). This highlights the change which these youth have and will continue to make through their use of social media for the purpose of digital activism. They state their mission for the next year, communicating the urgency of this issue that has made it necessary that they enact change: “We’re fighting against a century of entrenched forces, but it’s a fight we’re particularly suited for because of a simple reason—because we must. With boundless hope for the future, and with an implacable sense of urgency, young people are rising to meet this moment because no one else will. The fact is gun violence is not normal. It’s a choice our leaders have made, and it’s a choice that we will make untenable.” (Impact Report 2023) Youth have taken this mission to fight gun violence because they have been failed by and no longer trust the political elite in the country to take up this fight for them. As they state, this is not a choice, but a fight they must participate in. And, through social media, they have been able 75 to do this. Without political power and without a platform, this youth-based movement has still made remarkable strides in influencing policy through harnessing the power of social media and digital activism. This can also be observed within climate change activism and youth’s fight for climate change legislation globally. Climate Change Digital Activism Climate change is one of the problems on the forefront of a lot of Generation Zer’s minds, especially since they and their posterity are going to feel the results of lack of action on the issue. Generation Z has utilized social media to share their concerns about climate change and advocate for climate justice and tangible steps to mitigate the issues which have and will occur with climate change. The most notable figure in Generation Z which this discussion will center upon is Greta Thunberg, and her creation of Fridays for Future. Also, Global Climate Strikes, including the Extinction Rebellion and the Sunrise Movement, showcase the immense power which social media can have for digital activism related to the problem of climate change. Greta Thunberg and Fridays for Future Greta Thunberg is a social media activist who has amassed 9.6 million followers on Instagram. She is a 21-year-old from Sweden, who developed a passion for climate change. She began her activism by sitting by herself outside school for weeks in 2018 at the age of 15, holding a sign which read “School Strike for Climate.” She was inspired to take this action by studying student led protests and school walkouts, including those after the massacre at Stoneman Douglas (Gash and Tichenor pg 170 2022). As she continued to sit outside of her school in the summer heat, her story gained traction on social media after she posted selfies on both Instagram and Twitter, and more people, especially young people, began to join her. Eventually, this morphed into “Fridays for Future,” which entailed Thunberg skipping school 76 each Friday to strike. This movement spread like wildfire across social media, and hundreds of thousands of students globally began to join the “Fridays for Future” initiative. This global movement for climate change that was led by a 15-year-old girl was unprecedented and would not have been possible without the use of social media which spread her message and story globally. Castells’ framework for Networked Social Movements applies as well to the case of Generation Z climate action as it does to its movement against gun violence. First, as with the March for Our Lives movement, there is a crisis of legitimacy surrounding climate change, given that, from Generation Z’s perspective, politicians and the governments have done little to nothing address their concerns about climate change. This led to Thunberg’s action, as waiting for and trusting politicians was no longer an option. This is exemplified in a viral quote from Thunberg in which she declares: “You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words…We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money, and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!” (Fridays for Future – How Greta started a global movement). Second, autonomous communicative capacity was also present in this case and allowed for Thunberg’s message to spread globally and have other members of Generation Z and other generations commit to work towards a solution for climate change as a united force. This would not have been possible with traditional media sources, as Thunberg did not possess any political power or status before going viral on social media. In 2021, a few years after this movement began, 45% of Generation Z reported that they engaged on social media about the need for climate action in the past few weeks (A. T. Funk Brian Kennedy and Cary 2021). This statistic shows how climate change has become common on social media, and how this has furthered Generation Z’s activism and allowed Greta Thunberg to reach a global audience. Greta Thunberg acted as not only a “leading voice for 77 climate change, but a catalyst for transforming youth unrest into a global uprising” (Gash and Tichenor 2022). This can also be observed in looking at youth led movements and global climate strikes which followed these efforts by Greta Thunberg, specifically the Sunrise Movement. Global Climate Strikes and The Sunrise Movement The prevalence of climate change digital activism and how widespread it has become is exemplified through global climate strikes, and particularly the Sunrise Movement. The Sunrise Movement defines themselves as “A movement of young people fighting to stop the climate crisis and win a green new deal”(About Sunrise). They position young people against the government and have worked through social media platforms to organize demonstrations throughout the years. One of their past actions was the Global Climate Strike in 2019, where they say that “Over 3 million people chose to #StrikeWithUS at over 4,000 events in 150 countries” (About Sunrise). Yang and Taylor discuss how the Sunrise Movement has used an autonomous public community which it created online and translated that into public policy outcomes (Yang and Taylor 2021). This community’s ability to unite and mobilize people on social media about their concern for the lack of action on climate change is morphed into action in public policy that seems to allow for social impact which would not be possible without the community created online by this organization. Climate change movements and other environmental movements are increasingly turning to social media to both reach new supporters and also to coordinate action (Hopke and Paris 2022). Further, they must use these untraditional channels instead of avenues of traditional political action and participation as discussed earlier, as these are seen to be largely ineffective. In the future, this will continue to be a unique channel of action until traditional political decision-making systems begin to act towards the change which Generation Z is advocating for at the top of their lungs. 78 Racial Injustice Digital Activism Racial injustice is another area in which Generation Z has utilized social media as an avenue to create change. Because Generation Z is the most ethnically and racially diverse generation in United States’ history, members of this generation are growing up increasingly exposed to diverse perspectives. Their digital activism can be seen within the Black Lives Matter movement, as they led various marches and online campaigns to advocate against police brutality and racism against Black people. Black Lives Matter Movement Police brutality is an issue which has existed across American history, but the issue gained traction as a national focus after the murder of George Floyd went viral on social media in 2020. Though this movement spanned all demographics in America, Generation Z activists instigated much of this movement and acted as leaders. The Black Lives Matter movement took over social media, and protests were held in various cities across the country. A specific instance of one of these protests was held in Katy, Texas which is a small conservative city. Erika Alvarez, Jeffrey Jin, and Foyin Dosunmu organized a protest in this town through utilizing social media, and in specific, Facebook. In only a few days, they had amassed over 3,000 people. Gash and Tichenor comment on this march and how these youth achieved such a large feat in such a short amount of time and without any traditional experience in organization: “Three students, without the traditional trappings of means or experience, organized in four days what more formal organizations could not deliver with weeks or months of planning. It was because of rather than in spite of their youth that this small Texas town shed its apathy and united to protest policy brutality. The organizers’ youth made Katy’s protest more inviting and more impactful, especially to reticent Katy and nearby residents. No one expected high school students to take on a leadership position of this magnitude. Community members were both surprised by their initiative and motivated to support the young students, though joining the protest was as much about fighting anti-Black racism 79 as it was about supporting the three local teenage heroes.” (Gash and Tichenor pg. 180 2022) They identify how these youth were able to accomplish such a feat not because of solely their character and actions, but also because of their unique position as youth. People in this community were impressed with this activism, which made them more likely to participate in this march. They were impacted by these actions emotionally, instead of just intellectually, to show their support for the fight against policy brutality and racism. Though their position as youth made them uniquely able to acquire the attention and action of the community around them. These Generation Z activists were also able to do so through social media. Since they are particularly able to utilize social media due to their familiarity with it, they were able to quickly spread the information about their mission and their plans to march very quickly. They organized, as Gash and Tichenor say, “in four days what more formal organizations could not deliver in weeks or months of planning” (Gash and Tichenor pg 180 2022). Even without money or any experience planning a march, these youth were able to make an impactful change on a political area which they cared about through social media. This is only one small example of the thousands of instances of youth led activism which occurred in support and in conjunction with the Black Lives Matter movement. This activism continues today, with various youth led organizations including The Conscious Kid, Youth for Black Lives, and the NAACP Youth and College Division utilizing social media to spread their messages about the injustices of racial inequality, racism, and police brutality. 80 Conclusion: Final Thoughts and Looking Forward to Voter Mobilization in the 2024 Presidential Election The exploration of Generation Z within this thesis has set it apart as a unique and complex generation, marked by distinctive political attitudes which reflect a generation with the highest levels of education and diversity in the United States’ history. Generation Z appears consistently engaged with issues they find important and has been receptive to emerging social trends as they emerge as an adult generation. Further, Generation Z is the first generation to have fully grown up with technology and have connected with the world as youth in a vastly different way than past generations. Specifically, social media has become a pivotal force within their lifetimes and has further become an outlet for their communication and expression. This has echoed into political paradigms and changed the way which citizens within the United States express themselves politically. This shift and its reverberating effects on the political landscape is cemented through the testimony of politicians who have been a part this era of digital democracy. Further, the way which social media operates within politics has worked to sustain political polarization through algorithms and political echo chambers—altering the American political landscape. Apart from these effects, social media has also provided a place for Generation Z to actualize their political attitudes through instances of digital activism. Specifically, the case studies which were discussed all lend insight how Generation Z is using their youth and social media to make changes in the political and social areas which they care about. Though all these core sections on Generation Z lend insight into how this generation functions politically and how social media has transformed their political expression, one of the largest way Generation Z’s impacts on politics will be seen is in the upcoming 2024 election as many of them will vote for 81 the first time. Though Generation Z appears extremely involved through their use of social media for political expression and activism, does and will this translate to voting mobilization in past elections and in the 2024 presidential election? In the 2024 presidential election, 40.8 Million members of Generation Z will be eligible to vote (Medina et al. 2023). This includes 8.3 million members of Generation Z who were unable to vote in the 2022 midterm election. Looking at Census data, it can be observed that Generation Z’s voter turnout in 2022 was higher than the voting turnout of Generation X and Millennials when they were aged 18-24 (Gen Z Voted at a Higher Rate in 2022 than Previous Generations in their First Midterm Election 2023). Census data shows that 31% of young people who were under 30 voted in the 2022 election, which is the highest turnout in 50 years (Census Bureau 2022). Further, in the 2020 presidential election, 50% of youth aged 18 to 29, the majority of which were members of Generation Z, voted in the presidential election (Half of Youth Voted in 2020, An 11-Point Increase from 2016 2021). This is an 11-point increase from the amount of the same age group which voted in 2016, with only 39% of youth participating in that presidential election. This exemplifies that Generation Z is already defying the expectations for historical youth voting turnout. Since Generation Z will impact how the 2024 election will play out, it is important to investigate how social media and digital activism have interacted with voting and specifically if this increased amount of activism in different policy arenas translated to voting mobilization. Historically, young voters turn out to the polls at a lesser rate than older people. So, even though Generation Z turned out to the polls at a higher rate than Millennials and Generation X when they were aged 18 to 24, they still turn out at a lower rate overall. According to US Census data from the 2022 Midterm election, 25.6% of people aged 18 to 24 voted and 34.9% of people 82 aged 25 to 34 voted. This percentage continues to steadily increase as the age group gets older. This shows a sharp disconnect from the amount of activism which was discussed from Generation Z. But this lack of youth voting is a trend throughout the world. There are many different reasons for this lack of voting, but it is not attributed to apathy. Merriam and Gosnell identify this trend and explain why young people vote less than their elders (Merriam and Gosnell 1924). Though their analysis was in the 1920s, the reasons which they identify for non- voting of youth still hold true to this day. The first of these is that voting is heavily tied to habit formation, and young voters are less likely to have formed the habit because they haven’t had enough time to do so. Plutzer reiterates this idea, detailing the shift between “habitual nonvoters” to “habitual voters” (Plutzer 2002). This is also externally reinforced, which is a purpose which social media may be helpful for. People are influenced by their friends’ actions, so if they see them voting they are more likely to do the same (Franklin 2004). The second reason which Merriam and Gosnell identify which leads to the lack in youth voting turnout is opportunity cost. Youth are more likely to be unable to have the opportunity to vote due to having less cemented community ties in housing situations and less secure employment (Merriam 1924). There are many other reasons for lack of voting turnout of Generation Z, but disinterest and apathy are not one of them. Generation Z’s participation in other forms of political action, like the examples of activism which were discussed earlier, give credence to the assertion that they are not disinterested. Holbien and Hillygus discuss this in their book Making Young Voters. Their findings back up that youth are not refraining from voting due to disinterest, and they find “the number of young people who express an interest in elections (76 percent), care who is president (74 percent), have interest in public affairs (85 percent), and intend to vote (83 percent) is 83 especially high” (Holbein and Hillygus 2020). Further, research from the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance finds that when there is lower election turnout occurs, it occurs in tandem with “other forms of citizen activism, such as mass protests, occupy movements and increased use of social media as a new platform of political engagement” (Solijonov). So, how can social media be utilized for increasing youth voting turnout? The most basic way to increase youth turnout is giving them the information which is needed so that they know how, when, and where to vote. Many people have utilized social media for this, posting and reposting infographics about how to vote. This is positive since social media is accessible to a wide population. This is coupled with the dissemination of information about different issues which voters care about. Further, when politicians signal they care about youth voters through engagement on social media, these youth are more likely to feel involved with politicians and their decisions and vote (Schmir and Shlafstein 2022). Schmir and Shlafstein discuss this power of social media for issue engagement which leads to voting engagement, saying "By democratizing the political conversation, social media has been instrumental in breaking the cycle of low young voter turnout, giving people of different backgrounds a place to voice the issues they care about and the mechanisms to promote posts that resonate with them" (Schmir and Shlafstein 2022). This democratization of the political conversation is important for influencing youth turnout. But, the 2024 election will help offer further definition to Generation Z, as this election will be coupled with high dissatisfaction with political candidates and a higher amount of Generation Z polling with support for Donald Trump. Voting turnout may not be as high for this election due to people’s dissatisfaction with both Joe Biden and Trump, which has worsened 84 during the Israel-Palestine war. A recent poll by Times and Siena college found that 47% of registered voters strongly disapproved of how Biden was handling his job as president, and 61% of all registered voters disapproved of Biden’s job performance at some level (Cross-Tabs 2024). This disapproval has led to a trend in polls of Generation Z moving towards voting for Trump, which goes against the political attitudes which they previously exhibited and how they voted in the 2020 election (Pew Research Center 2024). The same poll by Times and Siena College found only 8% of Generation Z felt happy, excited, or hopeful about the upcoming election, the lowest of any age group (Cross-Tabs 2024). They also felt angry, disappointed, or resigned at a higher level than any other generation, with 36% of people reporting they felt this way about the upcoming 2024 election. For these reasons, the way which Generation Z will act cannot be fully predicted using the 2020 election and can only be determined by time. Overall, the voting power of Generation Z will truly be seen in the upcoming 2024 election. This thesis has investigated how Generation Z’s political activism and their political communication on social media have allowed them to be incredibly politically engaged in a way which previous generations have not. The easy access to information and the power to mobilize which social media has provided will allow Generation Z to break barriers of political participation if they so choose in upcoming elections. But these defining factors may not apply uniformly across the generation and there are inherent complexities and nuances in attempting to define a broad generation. The way which Generation Z behaves in the 2024 election will be a significant indicator of if their defining factors have held true and how this generation will impact the future of American politics. 85 Endnotes Methods My research focuses on various methods to analyze the relationship between Generation Z and social media in the different lenses which I shift between within this paper. First, to analyze the political attitudes of Generation Z, I utilize polling research from various institutions, including Pew Research Center and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). I use this data to draw distinctions about Generation Z and conclusions surrounding the implications of this polling data in tandem with literature regarding this topic. I continue to utilize polling data to establish Generation Z’s use of social media, specifically examining polling data which demonstrates their use of social media as a political tool and as a source of political information. As I was researching this topic, I found a gap in research corresponding to how politicians and political leaders perceive social media’s impact on political communication and specifically their view on how social media and Generation Z’s increased reliance on it will shape the political future of the United States. As my contribution to this research, in November and December of 2023 I interviewed nine politicians who held different political offices around the United States, asking them questions concerning Generation Z, social media, and what this relationship means for the future. These questions were meticulously crafted to allow each politician to offer their opinion on the issue. All questions asked within the thirty minutes to hour long interviews were open ended, as they were intended to gather qualitative information. I utilized these interviews to assist in my analysis of how Generation Z and politicians employ social media as a tool of political expression and communication. My last method which I utilized is case studies. Specifically, I looked at how these political attitudes have been realized using social media as both a tool of political expression and 86 political communication, and how this has resulted in Generation Z’s digital activism. Through utilizing various case studies relating to hot button issues like gun violence and climate change, how Generation Z’s social media use and political attitudes have been actualized within the political world can be observed. Further, these case studies shed light on the implications of social media as a political tool and aid in answering the question of how social media will continue to operate in the future as a simultaneously beneficial and harmful bedrock of politics. 87 Bibliography “41 Million Members of Gen Z Will Be Eligible to Vote in 2024.” 2023. https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/41-million-members-gen-z-will-be-eligible-vote- 2024 (March 13, 2024). “About Sunrise.” Sunrise Movement. https://www.sunrisemovement.org/about/ (March 13, 2024). Anderson, Monica, and Brooke Auxier. “55% of U.S. Social Media Users Say They Are ‘Worn out’ by Political Posts and Discussions.” Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/08/19/55-of-u-s-social-media-users-say- they-are-worn-out-by-political-posts-and-discussions/ (January 22, 2024). Bavel, Jay J. Van, Steve Rathje, Elizabeth Harris, Claire Robertson, and Anni Sternisko. 2021. “How Social Media Shapes Polarization.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 25(11): 913–16. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2021.07.013. Bennett, W. Lance. 1998. “1998 Ithiel De Sola Pool Lecture: The UnCivic Culture: Communication, Identity, and the Rise of Lifestyle Politics.” PS: Political Science and Politics 31(4): 740. doi:10.2307/420711. Bode, Leticia, Emily K. Vraga, Porismita Borah, and Dhavan V. Shah. 2014. “A New Space for Political Behavior: Political Social Networking and Its Democratic Consequences*.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19(3): 414–29. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12048. Bureau, US Census. “Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2022.” Census.gov. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/voting-and-registration/p20- 586.html (March 13, 2024). Castells, Manuel. 2015. Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age. Second edition [revised]. Cambridge Malden, MA: Polity press. Pew Research Center. 2014. “Political Polarization in the American Public.” Pew Research Center - U.S. Politics & Policy. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american- public/ (March 8, 2024). Cox, Daniel A, Kelsey Eyre Hammond, and Kyle P Gray. “Generation Z and the Transformation of American Adolescence.” “Cross-Tabs: February 2024 Times/Siena Poll of Registered Voters Nationwide.” 2024. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/05/us/elections/times-siena- poll-registered-voter-crosstabs.html (April 16, 2024). Dalton, Russell J. 2016. The Good Citizen: How a Younger Generation Is Reshaping American Politics. Second edition. Thousand Oaks, California: CQ Press, an Imprint of SAGE Publications, Inc. 88 “Delivering the News with Humor Makes Young Adults More Likely to Remember and Share | Annenberg.” 2021. https://www.asc.upenn.edu/news-events/news/delivering-news- humor-makes-young-adults-more-likely-remember-and-share (April 14, 2024). “Digital Activism | Online Campaigns, Social Media & Protests | Britannica.” https://www.britannica.com/topic/digital-activism (March 12, 2024). Finkel, Eli J., Christopher A. Bail, Mina Cikara, Peter H. Ditto, Shanto Iyengar, Samara Klar, Lilliana Mason, et al. 2020. “Political Sectarianism in America.” Science 370(6516): 533–36. doi:10.1126/science.abe1715. Fletcher, Richard, and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. 2018. “Are People Incidentally Exposed to News on Social Media? A Comparative Analysis.” New Media & Society 20(7): 2450–68. doi:10.1177/1461444817724170. Franklin, Mark N. 2004. Voter Turnout and the Dynamics of Electoral Competition in Established Democracies since 1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511616884. “Fridays for Future – How Greta Started a Global Movement.” Fridays For Future. https://fridaysforfuture.org/what-we-do/who-we-are/ (March 12, 2024). Funk, Alec Tyson, Brian Kennedy and Cary. 2021. “Gen Z, Millennials Stand Out for Climate Change Activism, Social Media Engagement With Issue.” Pew Research Center Science & Society. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2021/05/26/gen-z-millennials-stand-out- for-climate-change-activism-social-media-engagement-with-issue/ (February 27, 2024). Funk, Cary. “Key Findings: How Americans’ Attitudes about Climate Change Differ by Generation, Party and Other Factors.” Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/05/26/key-findings-how-americans- attitudes-about-climate-change-differ-by-generation-party-and-other-factors/ (March 3, 2024). Gash, Alison L., and Daniel J. Tichenor. 2022. Democracy’s Child: Young People and the Politics of Control, Leverage, and Agency. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. “Gen Z Voted at a Higher Rate in 2022 than Previous Generations in Their First Midterm Election.” 2023. https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/gen-z-voted-higher-rate-2022- previous-generations-their-first-midterm-election (February 27, 2024). Gerber, Alan S., Donald P. Green, and Ron Shachar. 2003. “Voting May Be Habit‐Forming: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment.” American Journal of Political Science 47(3): 540–50. doi:10.1111/1540-5907.00038. Gracia, Shanay, and Hannah Hartig. “About 1 in 4 Americans Have Unfavorable Views of Both Biden and Trump.” Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short- reads/2024/03/19/about-1-in-4-americans-have-unfavorable-views-of-both-biden-and- trump/ (April 16, 2024). 89 Guess, Andrew M., Neil Malhotra, Jennifer Pan, Pablo Barberá, Hunt Allcott, Taylor Brown, Adriana Crespo-Tenorio, et al. 2023. “How Do Social Media Feed Algorithms Affect Attitudes and Behavior in an Election Campaign?” Science 381(6656): 398–404. doi:10.1126/science.abp9364. “Half of Youth Voted in 2020, An 11-Point Increase from 2016.” 2021. https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/half-youth-voted-2020-11-point-increase-2016 (April 16, 2024). Holbein, John B., and D. Sunshine Hillygus. 2020. Making Young Voters: Converting Civic Attitudes into Civic Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108770446. Hopke, Jill, and Lauren Paris. 2022. “Environmental Social Movements and Social Media.” In , 357–72. doi:10.4324/9780367275204-26. “How Gen Zers Are Bringing the Optimism on Gender Equity.” 2023. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/03/gen-z-workplace-equity/ (April 14, 2024). “How Parkland Students Are Taking on Politicians in the Gun Control Battle.” 2018. Time. https://time.com/longform/never-again-movement/ (February 15, 2024). “How Social Media Mobilized Gen-Z to the Polls This Year.” Schmir and Shlafstein. 2022. Democracy Docket. https://www.democracydocket.com/opinion/how-social-media- mobilized-gen-z-to-the-polls-this-year/ (March 15, 2024). “How Tech Platforms Fuel U.S. Political Polarization and What Government Can Do about It.” Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-tech-platforms-fuel-u-s-political- polarization-and-what-government-can-do-about-it/ (March 8, 2024). “How ‘Transformational’ Politics Is Hurting Gen Z’s Mental Health.” American Enterprise Institute - AEI. https://www.aei.org/articles/how-transformational-politics-is-hurting-gen- zs-mental-health/ (April 14, 2024). “How Well Can Americans Distinguish Real News Headlines from Fake Ones? | YouGov.” https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/45855-americans-distinguish-real-fake-news- headline-poll?redirect_from=%2Ftopics%2Fpolitics%2Farticles- reports%2F2023%2F06%2F29%2Famericans-distinguish-real-fake-news-headline-poll (March 9, 2024). Huckfeldt, Robert, Paul Allen Beck, Russell J. Dalton, and Jeffrey Levine. 1995. “Political Environments, Cohesive Social Groups, and the Communication of Public Opinion.” American Journal of Political Science 39(4): 1025–54. doi:10.2307/2111668. Igielnik, Kim Parker and Ruth. 2020. “On the Cusp of Adulthood and Facing an Uncertain Future: What We Know About Gen Z So Far.” Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/05/14/on- 90 the-cusp-of-adulthood-and-facing-an-uncertain-future-what-we-know-about-gen-z-so-far- 2/ (January 30, 2024). Igielnik, Kim Parker, Nikki Graf and Ruth. 2019. “Generation Z Looks a Lot Like Millennials on Key Social and Political Issues.” Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/01/17/generation-z-looks-a-lot- like-millennials-on-key-social-and-political-issues/ (January 29, 2024). “Impact Report.” March for Our Lives. https://impact.marchforourlives.com (March 12, 2024). Journalism, Pew Research Center:, and Media Staff. 2006. “The Late Night Shows.” Pew Research Center’s Journalism Project. https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2004/07/12/the-late-night-shows/ (April 14, 2024). Kelly, Morgan, High Meadows Environmental Institute on Dec. 9, 2021, and 10 A.m. “Political Polarization and Its Echo Chambers: Surprising New, Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives from Princeton.” Princeton University. https://www.princeton.edu/news/2021/12/09/political-polarization-and-its-echo- chambers-surprising-new-cross-disciplinary (March 8, 2024). Kochhar, Rakesh, and Amanda Barroso. “Young Workers Likely to Be Hard Hit as COVID-19 Strikes a Blow to Restaurants and Other Service Sector Jobs.” Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/03/27/young-workers-likely-to-be-hard- hit-as-covid-19-strikes-a-blow-to-restaurants-and-other-service-sector-jobs/ (January 30, 2024). Liedke, Jacob, and Jeffrey Gottfried. “U.S. Adults under 30 Now Trust Information from Social Media Almost as Much as from National News Outlets.” Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/10/27/u-s-adults-under-30-now-trust- information-from-social-media-almost-as-much-as-from-national-news-outlets/ (March 9, 2024). Lipka, Michael, and Elisa Shearer. “Audiences Are Declining for Traditional News Media in the U.S. – with Some Exceptions.” Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/11/28/audiences-are-declining-for- traditional-news-media-in-the-us-with-some-exceptions/ (December 22, 2023). Maciel, Jacqueline. “The So-Called, ‘School Shooting Generation.’” The Spectator. https://seattlespectator.com/2021/04/28/the-so-called-school-shooting-generation/ (April 14, 2024). Mannheim, Karl. “The Sociological Problem of Generations.” Merriam, Charles Edward. 1924. Non-Voting : Causes and Methods of Control. Chicago, Ill. : The University of Chicago Press. http://archive.org/details/nonvotingcausesm0000merr (March 15, 2024). 91 Merriman, Marcie. “What If the next Big Disruptor Isn’t a What but a Who?” yumpu.com. https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/54544003/what-if-the-next-big-disruptor- isnt-a-what-but-a-who (February 6, 2024). Nagourney, Adam. 2008. “The ’08 Campaign: Sea Change for Politics as We Know It.” The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/04/us/politics/04memo.html (March 5, 2024). NW, 1615 L. St, Suite 800 Washington, and DC 20036 USA202-419-4300 | Main202-857-8562 | Fax202-419-4372 | Media Inquiries. 2018. “2. Views of Scope of Government, Trust in Government, Economic Inequality.” Pew Research Center - U.S. Politics & Policy. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/03/01/2-views-of-scope-of-government-trust- in-government-economic-inequality/ (March 2, 2024). NW, 1615 L. St, Suite 800 Washington, and DC 20036 USA202-419-4300 | Main202-857-8562 | Fax202-419-4372 | Media Inquiries. “Digital News Fact Sheet.” Pew Research Center’s Journalism Project. https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/digital-news/ (December 22, 2023a). NW, 1615 L. St, Suite 800 Washington, and DC 20036 USA202-419-4300 | Main202-857-8562 | Fax202-419-4372 | Media Inquiries. “News Platform Fact Sheet.” Pew Research Center’s Journalism Project. https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/news-platform- fact-sheet/ (December 22, 2023b). Oakes, Andy. 2020. “How Has Social Media Changed the US Presidential Election?” New Digital Age. https://newdigitalage.co/social-media/how-has-social-media-changed-the-us- presidential-election/ (April 14, 2024). “Obama and the Power of Social Media and Technology | Stanford Graduate School of Business.” https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/case-studies/obama-power- social-media-technology (April 14, 2024). Owen, Diana. “The Past Decade and Future of Political Media: The Ascendance of Social Media.” OpenMind. https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/articles/the-past-decade-and- future-of-political-media-the-ascendance-of-social-media/ (April 14, 2024). Pichler, Shaun, Chiranjeev Kohli, and Neil Granitz. 2021. “DITTO for Gen Z: A Framework for Leveraging the Uniqueness of the New Generation.” Business Horizons 64(5): 599–610. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2021.02.021. Plutzer, Eric. 2002. “Becoming a Habitual Voter: Inertia, Resources, and Growth in Young Adulthood.” American Political Science Review 96(1): 41–56. doi:10.1017/S0003055402004227. “Polarization Report.” NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights. https://bhr.stern.nyu.edu/polarization-report-page (March 8, 2024). 92 “Predictors of Internet Use: Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media: Vol 44, No 2.” https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15506878jobem4402_2 (March 5, 2024). Schaeffer, Katherine. “Key Facts about Americans and Guns.” Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and- guns/ (April 16, 2024). “School Shootings by State | Best States | U.S. News.” https://www.usnews.com/news/best- states/articles/states-with-the-most-school-shootings (February 15, 2024). Solijonov, Abdurashid. “Voter Turnout Trends around the World.” staff, Pew Research Center: Journalism & Media. 2012. “How the Presidential Candidates Use the Web and Social Media.” Pew Research Center’s Journalism Project. https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2012/08/15/how-presidential-candidates-use- web-and-social-media/ (April 14, 2024). Telnaes, Ann. 2021. “Opinion | Thoughts and Prayers, Again.” Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2017/10/02/thoughts-and-prayers- again/ (April 14, 2024). “The Misinformation Susceptibility Test.” 2023. University of Cambridge. https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/misinformation-susceptibility-test (March 9, 2024). “The Nation’s Racial Justice Protests Are a Pivotal Moment for Millennials and Gen Z.” Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-nations-racial-justice-protests-are-a- pivotal-moment-for-millennials-and-gen-z/ (March 3, 2024). Tsevreni, Irida, Nikolaos Proutsos, Magdalini Tsevreni, and Dimitris Tigkas. 2023. “Generation Z Worries, Suffers and Acts against Climate Crisis—The Potential of Sensing Children’s and Young People’s Eco-Anxiety: A Critical Analysis Based on an Integrative Review.” Climate 11(8): 171. doi:10.3390/cli11080171. Twenge, Jean M. 2017. iGen: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy--and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood--and What That Means for the Rest of Us. Simon and Schuster. “U.S. Youth Attitudes on Guns Report.” Southern Poverty Law Center. https://www.splcenter.org/peril-youth-attitudes-guns-report (March 3, 2024). Valentino, Nicholas A., and David O. Sears. 1998. “Event-Driven Political Communication and the Preadult Socialization of Partisanship.” Political Behavior 20(2): 127–54. doi:10.1023/A:1024880713245. “We Are the Generation of Mass Shootings | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson.” https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/2/21/editorial-generation-mass-shooting/ (April 14, 2024). 93 “Will Young Voters Shift American Politics in 2024?” 2024. Governing. https://www.governing.com/politics/will-young-voters-shift-american-politics-in-2024 (April 15, 2024). Witt, Emily. 2019. “From Parkland to Sunrise: A Year of Extraordinary Youth Activism.” The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/from-parkland-to-sunrise-a- year-of-extraordinary-youth-activism (March 12, 2024). Yang, Aimei, and Maureen Taylor. 2021. “From Organizational-Centric Engagement to Network-Centric Engagement: The Role of Autonomous Public Communities in a Mediated Public Policy Advocacy Network.” Social Media + Society 7(3): 20563051211038262. doi:10.1177/20563051211038262. 94