You can't really guarantee that everyone on social media will be a "responsible citizen" and look into facts on their own; the reason why social media is harmful to democracy is that many people rely on it as their only source of information. I'm interested in hearing about your research to that support citizens debunk misinformation on their own.

In reality, social media's algorithms are created so that you primarily see content that you agree with. According to "Social Media Increases Polarization," "The algorithms that Facebook, YouTube and others use to maximise 'engagement' ensure users are more likely to see information that they are liable to interact with. This tends to lead them into clusters of like-minded people sharing like-minded things, and can turn moderate views into more extreme ones." This means that social media does not help you to broaden your views; it has the opposite effect.

Social media is actually lessening the positive effects of movements. According to “How Social Media Helps Dictators” by Erica Chenoweth, “Nonviolent resistance has actually become less successful compared to earlier, pre-internet times. Whereas nearly 70 percent of civil resistance campaigns succeeded during the 1990s, only 30 percent have succeeded since 2010.” This could be attributed to the use of social media for social issues rather than actively engaging in public protests. Without face-to-face contact with the group activists are supporting, movements lack internal trust and unity, so they can easily collapse under pressure. Therefore, social media hasn't really helped social movements to progress.

Some may argue that social media is beneficial because it can be used to advocate for social movements. However, social media can actually reduce the positive effects of protests. According to Zeynep Tufekci in the article “Why Street Protests Don’t Work” by Moisés Naím, “Before the Internet, the tedious work of organizing that was required to circumvent censorship or to organize a protest also helped build infrastructure for decision making and strategies for sustaining momentum. Now movements can rush past that step, often to their own detriment.” This means that, nowadays, movements are less established due to the ease of simply posting on social media. Movements have less longevity as there are no solid foundations for them to be built upon.

I agree with this. Additionally, only seeing one side of the argument can lead to beliefs becoming more radical, which adds to political polarization.

According to “Fake stories outperformed real political news over the election’s final months” by Bryan Clark, approximately 1.4 million more people engaged with the most popular fake election stories than the most popular election stories from legitimate media outlets. This shows that, while social media does give people access to news, it may not necessarily be true, factual news that is consumed. While social media does encourage people to vote, it gives them nonfactual information, leading to misinformed voting decisions.

Social media has led to protests that had a goal to overthrow democracy. As a joint session of Congress was meeting to count electoral votes to certify Joe Biden’s presidential victory, a riot broke out and people stormed the U.S. Capitol. According to Vox’s article “How Trump’s internet built and broadcast the Capitol insurrection,” the mob that attempted to overthrow the results of the election had planned their takeover in advance on the social media networks Parler and Gab. Vox says that these sites are lightly moderated and allow for radicalization to occur. In addition to the egregious attempt to reverse the results of the election, photographs of the breach were shared on social media sites, leading to the rioters being praised for their unlawful actions. Social media was a large factor in the U.S. Capitol insurrection which attempted to undermine democracy, so social media is not conducive for a democratic society.