New Delhi, Aug 2 (IANS) The number of Indians in the 14 to 29 years age group, which represents GenZ, numbers around 407 million or nearly 28 per cent of the national population, according to UN World Population Prospects data.
This large segment constitutes the decisive voter base for the coming decades, but the fact that it is hooked onto social media poses a serious risk of being influenced by fake online propaganda, according to an article by Indian Narrative.
The article sites IIM Rohtak study which concluded that nearly 39,000 respondents aged between 18 and 25 years recorded an average daily screen time of about seven hours with substantial portions devoted to social platforms.
When hundreds of millions of young people devote this volume of attention each day to algorithmically curated feeds, then we must not ignore one disturbing fact that the content that reaches them is not a neutral reflection of reality, the article states.
It equates these algorithms with highly paid attention merchants. They do not ask what is true or what is good for society. They ask only one question, that is, what will keep this person scrolling longer so that more advertisements can be sold.
“The core issue is that algorithm driven social media is not a neutral mirror of reality but it is, rather, designed to maximise engagement and that design often rewards outrage, polarisation and emotionally charged content. In practice, this can distort public debate, suppress inconvenient information and even intensify real world political violence. These platforms have become the most efficient propaganda tools ever invented,” states the article by Lt Gen (retired) Abhay Krishna.
The article highlights that in the US, the Twitter Files and related disclosures have suggested that platform decisions around the Hunter Biden laptop story were influenced by internal policies and outside government pressure, raising concerns that information was managed rather than simply moderated.
Meta has faced similar criticism. Its own systems have been accused of amplifying harmful content for engagement with especially severe consequences in places like Myanmar where Facebook’s recommendation engine helped spread anti-Rohingya hate and contributed to atrocities.
UN investigators and a subsequent Amnesty International report concluded that Meta’s algorithms played a determining role in radicalising populations and organising the dissemination of hate.
The technology of mass emotional steering has already been operational since over a decade as we had seen its impact during the Arab Spring. The same dynamics are now clearly visible across the South Asia region. In Nepal, in Sep 2025, a government ban on major social platforms triggered a rapid GenZ uprising organised primarily through TikTok, Discord and other accessible channels. The platforms did not merely transmit information but rather they structured the emotional sequence of the revolt. Similar pattern was visible in Bangladesh too, the article states.
It points out that India is now going through a similar experience in the NEET paper leak protests. Instagram Reels, AI-generated videos and coordinated influencer networks converted student grievance into sustained national mobilisation. Deepfake content and misinformation circulated at scale, some of it which were later traced to foreign-linked accounts have steered emotions of not only the GenZ but also of a large section of common mass too.
The article states that the most worrisome is that these systems now sit at the centre of political life for the largest youth cohort on earth. They shape what nearly 400 million Indians see, feel and ultimately act upon for several hours every day. The organisations that control them, Meta foremost among them, actually now exercise a form of soft power that no democratic government has yet constrained.
“Invoking outright ban on platforms like Meta, Google and social platforms would provoke generational resistance leading to outright political costs. We, therefore, need to evolve strategies of digital control without outright platform bans, such as, prioritising legal ambiguity, economic leverage, infrastructural dependence and narrative framing instead of enforcing crude prohibition,” the article observes.
–IANS
sps/pk
