Null Aeternum
In an age where information travels faster than thought, social media has become both a boon and a bane. Platforms like Twitter (X), Facebook, and Instagram were built for personal expression, global connection, and creative sharing. Yet, today, they have become battlegrounds for political propaganda, public manipulation, and emotional engineering. Maybe it’s time we reimagine how political communication functions in the digital era.
Politicians must be banned from using mainstream social media platforms for political agendas, announcements, or grievance redressal. Instead, all political communication should be centralised on a single, professional platform—an official digital ecosystem dedicated solely to governance and accountability.
This idea might sound radical, but in today’s chaotic information landscape, it makes perfect sense. Here’s why.
Social media was never meant to be a political warzone. It was designed to connect people, promote creativity, and encourage dialogue across boundaries. But now, political narratives dominate feeds, drowning out art, education, science, and individual voices. By moving political communication to a dedicated governance platform, we can return social media to its authentic purpose—human connection, not manipulation.
Politics today is less about policies and more about popularity. A well-timed tweet or viral post can influence millions more than a well-drafted policy paper. This has birthed a new kind of politician—the digital populist—who prioritises optics over substance.
By banning political activity on public social media, we can shift the focus from performance to policy. Real work, not digital theatrics, should shape public opinion.
A single, verified platform for political communication would mean every statement, promise, or announcement is documented in one place. It eliminates ambiguity and the tendency of leaders to retract or distort previous claims. Citizens could easily track legislative updates, policy changes, and public funds, all without wading through propaganda or misinformation.
Think of it as a Digital Parliament Portal—accessible, traceable, and free from chaos.
One of the most dangerous outcomes of political activity on social media is the viral spread of misinformation. Fake news, doctored videos, and hate campaigns divide societies and inflame communal tensions.
By confining politics to an official platform with verified sources and moderation, we can drastically reduce misinformation and ensure citizens receive only fact-based, accountable communication. Political debate should be built on truth, not Twitter trends.
See Also: The Silent Drain: How Constant Criticism and Lack of Self-Reflection Kill Energy in a Room
Let’s not underestimate the emotional impact of online politics. Constant exposure to outrage, propaganda, and ideological battles creates anxiety, division, and apathy among citizens.
Separating politics from everyday digital spaces would cleanse the collective psyche—allowing people to engage with governance when they choose to, not when it’s forced upon them via algorithms. It creates mental distance between civic responsibility and personal life—a boundary that modern democracy desperately needs.
The most visible downside of political social media culture is the normalisation of personal attacks and digital aggression. Figures like Donald Trump have exemplified how platforms meant for discourse can devolve into arenas of insult and intimidation. What should have been spaces for policy discussion became tools for mocking opponents, targeting individuals, and spreading division.
When leaders use their digital megaphones to belittle others, it doesn’t just degrade politics—it poisons public culture. Their followers, emboldened by these tactics, often mirror the hostility, turning online spaces into echo chambers of hate.
This isn’t democracy; it’s digital anarchy. And it must stop
In 2025, the line between leader and influencer has almost vanished. Algorithms have replaced accountability, and digital virality dictates national conversations. A politician’s tweet can crash markets, inflame international relations, or distort public sentiment within minutes. The world no longer needs faster communication—it needs responsible communication.
Creating a dedicated, government-regulated digital platform for all political parties and leaders would professionalise political communication, ensuring that citizens engage with governance in a constructive manner rather than emotionally. Social media, then, can once again become a space for humanity, creativity, and authentic expression—free from the noise of political theatre.
In conclusion, democracy doesn’t die in silence—it dies in noise. The constant chatter, outrage, and emotional manipulation on social media dilute civic consciousness and reduce governance to gossip.
A centralised, professional political platform would not only elevate democratic discourse but also restore balance to our digital lives.
It’s not censorship. It’s discipline for democracy in the digital age.
[VP]
Suggested Reading: