By Madison Yang
Many social media influencers have moved beyond promoting beauty and fashion to now introducing politics to online platforms and college campuses.
Some content creators, like Charlie Kirk, James Klüg and Steven Crowder, visit college campuses with signs, tables or just a mic, carrying controversial messages.
With 2.7 million subscribers on YouTube, Charlie Kirk is a well-known political commentator who posts clips of his debates with college students over topics like gun control and immigration policy.
Recent Long Beach State visitors James Klüg and Cam Higby carried a sign reading, “We support mass deportation,” filming student reactions and debates on Feb. 24.
These demonstrations often spark heated discourse, with some students seeing them as a ploy to gain more views and income.
“They somewhat monetize off of these controversial topics that are incredibly real to some people,” Tiffany Valmocena, a third-year studio art major, said. “If they wanted to start a conversation, they should start from the middle ground and not from the extreme ends of the spectrum, like, ‘We support mass deportation.’”
Carrying controversial signs and clickbait titles attracts larger audiences, which Andrew Lohmann, psychology lecturer, attributes to people’s enticement to watch debacles.
“We’re attracted to spectacle,” Lohmann said. “And so you have these ‘influencers’ who use the social media platforms as a way of making money — and how are you going to do that? You’re going to produce content that is controversial.”
Influencers intentionally stir up debates on college campuses specifically, as Rafael Heredia, a fourth-year psychology major points, to grow their online following.
“Because they are influencers, their main audience is the younger folks,” Heredia said. “If you’re going to be asking an older demographic, they may not get as many views because that’s not the target audience that their viewers are.”
While outside entities promoting messages on campus is not a foreign concept, the rise of “influencers” has changed the nature of these demonstrations.
It is no longer just about fostering political debates or civil discourse, but rather, focused on provoking students in a way designed to attract attention.
When the primary purpose of social media influencers bringing political debates to college campuses is to spark controversy for more views and not to start civil discourse about a controversial topic, what will follow?
These disputes will never reach a conclusion, nor will there be a clear acknowledgment of the other side’s beliefs.
Political influencers approach college campuses intending to incite arguments and cause drama to increase engagement.
“My general belief [is that] those things that are oriented toward just evoking emotion — without critical thinking — generally doesn’t produce positive benefits anywhere,” Lohmann said. “When you start having folks arguing disingenuously, going and misrepresenting the data, the facts, to elicit a certain response, I’m not seeing much of an upside there.”
While influences have the right to express their beliefs, the debates they ignite can deeply impact students.
“It somewhat brings, not even a physical violence, but a verbal violence that comes with it,” Valmocena said.
She said emotional and physical dangers are at risk as these influencers ultimately seek enticing content for their videos.
Though these discussions can highlight campus activism, a danger lies beneath using young adults passionate about such topics and capitalizing on their rage for views.
