Can Posting Actually Change the World? Citizenship in the Information War

A golf influencer just made a political statement. Parenting bloggers who usually avoid politics are criticizing ICE's excessive force. Knitting accounts are condemning federal agent violence. The events of the past three weeks in Minnesota have shaken the American social media ecosystem to its core.

Footage of Alex Pretti being shot while kneeling in the street was captured from multiple angles and went viral. But these videos didn't just capture the attention of politicians and activists. Content creators who typically post apolitical material began finding their voices.

When the Apolitical Become Political

Political digital strategist Amanda Litman calls this phenomenon the first of its kind since the George Floyd protests of 2020. "My algorithm clearly knows who I am—it knows I like politics, it knows I work in politics," she explains. "But over the last three weeks, the parenting creators, book reviewers, and romance writers I follow have been calling Pretti's shooting 'the last straw.'"

What makes this particularly significant is their influence. Research published by Wired in December found that political content posted by nonpolitical creators has more impact than posts from political professionals. The reason is simple: existing trust relationships with their followers.

Take the golf influencer who posted a video from a driving range, saying, "Golf is political because you can't play it if you get shot by agents of the state in the street." The post resonated precisely because it came from an unexpected source.

Does Posting Actually Matter?

"Did my posting (or any of our posting, on any platform) do anything?" It's a question many people grapple with. Litman provides a clear answer: "I used to think posting doesn't matter. But I've moved my barometer for success."

The reason lies in media fragmentation. Everyone receives different algorithms, different news feeds. "If I post the picture of Liam Ramos [the 5-year-old detained by ICE] or headlines from the Minneapolis paper, it might be the only thing someone sees about that story if they follow me."

This fragmented media landscape means individual voices carry more weight than ever before. When trusted sources in someone's network share political content, it can break through information silos that traditional media cannot penetrate.

The Power of Parasocial Politics

The phenomenon extends beyond American borders. In any country with active social media use, we see similar patterns: K-pop fan accounts suddenly posting about social issues, gaming streamers expressing political opinions, lifestyle bloggers addressing current events. Their statements create ripple effects because they leverage established trust.

Litman advocates for what she calls "virtue signaling." "The right has tried to make vice signaling very cool," she notes. "They've tried to make being an asshole and a bigot the hot, cool thing, and shame you if you're a good person. I think that's dumb. We should be proud of doing good things."

Building Real-World Networks

The most crucial element is connecting online activity to offline action. Litman's personal experiment proves this point: throughout 2025, she hosted 52 Saturday dinner parties at her home, welcoming over 100 people and 40-some children.

"Having people over for dinner was the most political thing I did in 2025," she reflects. "And I am a political operative who voted in two different elections, gave money, and engaged extensively. But when ICE comes to New York—which they will—the people I'm going to text are the folks who've come over to my home for dinner."

This approach addresses what many call the "loneliness epidemic." Litman discovered that people were "shocked" to be invited into someone's home, revealing how atrophied our social muscles have become.

The Right Amount of Online

For political leaders, finding the "right amount of online" becomes crucial. Litman distinguishes between politicians who suffer from brain rot and those who don't understand the internet at all.

"J.D. Vance has brain rot. Trump has brain rot. They're so online they can't see it's an echo chamber," she explains. "Then you have politicians who clearly have no idea how the internet works and can't communicate in ways that work for 2026."

Successful examples include AOC, Maxwell Frost, Chris Murphy, and Brian Schatz—politicians who are "online enough to know how to use the tools" while understanding "that the internet is not real life, but it is a huge part of life for tons of people."

The Antidote Principle

Perhaps most importantly, Litman offers a framework for consuming difficult content: "Only take the poison I have the antidote for." This means focusing on issues where you can take meaningful action, whether through voting, donating, volunteering, or community organizing.

"Pick the poison you've got the antidote for," she advises. "And remember that the antidotes are more varied than you might think." Someone feeling helpless about Minneapolis might channel that energy into their local mayoral race, creating concrete change in their immediate community.