⭐ Before you begin
If this content resonates with you, we’d love for you to subscribe, share it with someone who might benefit, drop a comment with your thoughts, and/or follow us on Instagram! Every share, like, and conversation helps us reach more people and build a stronger community around these crucial topics. We’re grateful for you.
Founder of Campus Consent Culture Niko Coady recently connected with Apathy is Boring’s Partnerships and Engagement Manager, Ashley Igboanugo, to learn more about their Democracy Under Influence campaign, and dive into the importance of understanding how digital environments shape our beliefs. You can learn more about their campaign here.
Niko: The campaign focuses on how digital environments shape beliefs in ways we don’t always recognize. When we talk about influence online, what kinds of influences tend to get overlooked by the public?
Ashley: When people think about influence online, it’s usually the obvious stuff like ads, political opinions, or content that’s clearly trying to persuade you of something. What gets overlooked is everything happening in the background. The way that content on our feeds is ordered. What gets repeated. What gets quietly boosted over and over again. And just as importantly, what doesn’t get shown at all. A lot of influence today doesn’t feel like influence in the moment. It just feels like “this is what’s online.” But over time, that shapes what people think is normal, credible, or even worth paying attention to and that becomes the starting point for how people understand the world.
Niko: Many people imagine misinformation as something overt or intentionally deceptive. How do algorithms and recommendation systems shape our beliefs more subtly through repetition, visibility, and exposure?
Ashley: Most influence online isn’t happening through a single moment of persuasion. It’s happening through repetition over time. Algorithms are designed to keep people engaged, so they prioritize content you’re most likely to interact with. That means you end up seeing certain ideas, aesthetics, or perspectives again and again. Even if you don’t actively agree with them, repetition builds familiarity. And familiarity can quietly shift into credibility. So instead of thinking “this changed my mind,” it’s more like “I’ve seen this enough times that it feels like it must be common.”
Niko: Research has shown that controversial or emotionally charged content often performs well online. What risks does that create when misogynistic narratives or gender stereotypes become highly engaging content?
Ashley: One of the biggest risks is that engagement can sometimes become a kind of reward system for harmful ideas. Content that is provocative, emotional, or divisive tends to travel further. That includes stereotypes or narratives that reduce gender to really simplified roles or assumptions. Once those ideas start getting more visibility, they don't just exist in the background they start circulating as part of mainstream content. And the tricky part is that repetition can blur interpretation. Something might start as satire, or a "joke," or commentary, but over time, constant exposure can make those ideas feel less extreme and more acceptable than they actually are. And the impact doesn't stay online. In Canada, multiple sitting MPs have pointed to online harassment and threats as a direct reason for leaving politics and data shows that fewer than 1 in 3 elected officials at the federal level are women, despite women making up just over half the population (Gill, 2025). When misogynistic content is normalized through likes, shares, and algorithmic reach, it shapes something much bigger than a comment section; it shapes who feels safe enough to show up, speak up, and lead.
Niko: As AI-generated content becomes more common, what new challenges emerge when harmful stereotypes or biases are embedded in the information people consume?
Ashley: AI adds a new layer because it can make content feel incredibly neutral, even when it isn’t. If biases exist in the data it learns from, they don’t just disappear, they can show up in outputs that feel polished, consistent, and objective. That can make them harder to question, because there isn’t always an obvious human perspective attached to what people are reading or interacting with. So instead of encountering bias in a clearly opinionated way, it can appear as “just information,” which makes it easier to absorb without noticing.
Niko: How can recommendation systems gradually normalize harmful ideas—not through a single piece of content, but through repeated exposure over time?
Ashley: Normalization usually doesn’t happen in a single step. It happens through gradual shifts in what gets shown. Someone might engage with something fairly neutral, then get recommended content that’s slightly more extreme, or more confident, or more narrow in perspective. Each step on its own doesn’t feel significant. But together, it creates a pathway where certain ideas become more familiar over time. And once something feels familiar, it can start to feel acceptable even if it once felt outside the norm.
Niko: Can seemingly small forms of exposure—memes, jokes, influencer content, comment sections—collectively shape beliefs about consent in ways people don’t immediately recognize?
Ashley: Oftentimes it’s not just one single piece of content that shapes people’s perceptions, but rather the accumulation. A meme that reinforces a stereotype. A joke that goes unchallenged. A comment section where certain attitudes get rewarded. An influencer casually repeating a framing of consent culture or a political belief system.Each one on its own can feel insignificant. But together, they build a kind of cultural background noise that shapes what feels normal, what gets questioned, and what gets dismissed.
Niko: Your campaign connects digital influence to democracy. How do conversations about gender equality, safety, and inclusion fit into broader conversations about democratic participation?
Ashley: Democracy isn’t just about voting, it’s about whether people feel able to participate in public life at all. If certain groups are consistently harassed, dismissed, or made to feel unsafe in online spaces, that affects participation long before anything formal like elections. It shapes who feels comfortable speaking up, sharing, or having their voices heard in public conversation.
Niko: If certain voices are amplified while others are suppressed or dismissed online, what impact can that have on whose experiences are considered credible or worthy of attention?
Ashley: It shapes what people come to understand as “reality.” When certain voices are consistently amplified, they start to feel like the default perspective. Meanwhile, other voices get pushed to the margins or treated as less credible or less representative. Over time, that imbalance affects how people interpret what is common, what is exaggerated, and what is worth taking seriously. It doesn’t just shape conversation, it shapes understanding.
Niko: Do you see a connection between digital literacy and people’s ability to challenge harmful social norms, including sexism and gender-based misinformation?
Ashley: Yes, but not in the sense of just spotting misinformation. It’s more about understanding how attention works. That what shows up in your feed is curated. That repetition influences perception. That engagement drives visibility. Once people understand that, they can start to separate what they’re seeing from what’s actually representative. That creates space to question norms instead of just absorbing them.
Niko: What are some practical ways young people can become more aware of how online environments are shaping their perspectives without feeling overwhelmed by the problem?
Ashley: It doesn’t need to be constant awareness or constant critique. It can be small things like noticing when your feed feels repetitive, following perspectives you don’t normally see, or stepping away when content starts to feel emotionally heavy or overly intense. Even just talking with other people about what you’re seeing helps ground it. It pulls it out of the feed and back into shared reality.
Niko: What responsibility do platforms, educators, and community organizations have in helping people recognize these forms of influence?
Ashley: This has to be shared responsibility, because the system itself is shared. Platforms design how content is surfaced, so they have a responsibility to be more transparent about that process. Educators can help build the skills to understand how digital environments shape perception. Community organizations can create space for reflection and conversation. The goal isn’t to place the burden on individuals to constantly decode everything but to make the system itself more visible and understandable.
Niko: If you could leave audiences with one question to ask themselves when they’re scrolling online, what would it be?
Ashley: Not “is this true?” because a lot of what shapes us online isn’t simply true or false. I’d ask: “What is this shaping me to think is normal, and who benefits from me seeing it this way?” Most online influence doesn’t happen through direct persuasion. It happens through repetition, visibility, and what gets amplified over time. The more you see something, the more it starts to feel like it reflects reality even if it’s only one curated version of it. And what we come to see as “normal” matters. It quietly shapes how we understand relationships, trust, safety, and even whose voices we take seriously in public life. That’s where it connects back to something bigger. Because democracy isn’t just about institutions, democracy relies on shared understanding. And that shared understanding is increasingly under strain.
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.