SYNTHESIS. "What do you rely on?" – Mechanisms of influencing global public opinion in the age of social networks

The influence of global opinion currents has shifted, in recent decades, from an elite-centered model – universities, think tanks, mass media – to a fragmented ecosystem dominated by social platforms, algorithms, and influencers, where anyone can emit messages with global potential.

1. The traditional role of think tanks

Think tanks have emerged as organizations at the intersection of academia, government, and business, with the primary mission of influencing public policies through research, expertise, and proposed solutions. The early models – close to universities, but without students – focused on broad studies, technical reports, and direct contacts with decision-makers, not with the general public.

A recent study highlights that the defining feature of think tanks is precisely the objective of influencing policies, either by providing evidence-based analyses or by introducing new ideas into public debate. They are actors in a "marketplace of ideas," where thousands of organizations compete for the attention of governments, international institutions, and the media. Traditionally, their channels of influence were relatively narrow: reports, briefs for parliamentarians, conferences, parliamentary hearings, and opinion articles in the print media. The "university without students" model (Brookings), the "contract organization" model (RAND), and the "advocacy organization" model (Heritage) illustrate three types of approaches: from academic research and technical consulting to direct ideological promotion. Even in more militant forms, the audience remained for a long time the "elite" – ministers, parliamentarians, high officials, business leaders.

2. Global networks of think tanks and the "climate of opinion"

The history of neoliberalism provides a clear example of how think tanks were conceived as instruments of paradigm change, not just as providers of punctual expertise. Friedrich Hayek, through the Mont Pelerin Society, explicitly promoted the idea of creating a network of intellectuals and institutions capable of restoring the prestige of market liberalism and influencing, in the long term, the way the public understands the role of the state and the market.

In his text "The Intellectuals and Socialism," Hayek advocated for a strategy of "offering ideas" to intellectuals – journalists, professors, commentators – who in turn shape public opinion. From this logic arises the concept of think tank as a "factory of ideas" that does not necessarily target today's decision-maker, but the "climate of opinion" of tomorrow.

Networks such as the Mont Pelerin Society and, later, the Atlas Network, connected hundreds of pro-market think tanks from dozens of countries, creating a transnational circuit of ideas, funding, and expertise. An ABC article shows how, in Australia, this type of network supported the establishment of free market think tanks and how, currently, there are official concerns regarding their role in spreading misinformation about climate and energy. This organization in global networks has several effects:

• Synchronization of messages: the same rhetoric about "free market" or "excessive bureaucracy" appears simultaneously in several countries.

• Transfer of know-how: older think tanks become models for new ones regarding communication and fundraising.

• "Packaging" ideas: reports, articles, training for journalists, manuals for activists are produced, all aimed at changing the framing of issues (for example, the climate crisis described as a problem of "economic freedom").

Essentially, traditional think tanks and their networks have influenced opinion currents through a combination of expert authority and long-term work on political vocabulary ("free market," "small state," "individual responsibility").

3. Changing the environment: from gatekeeping to "networks in network"

In the classic model, information passed through a few "gatekeepers": newspaper editors, television, book publishers. They decided what deserved to be published and how much visibility it received. Blogs, and then social networks, have cracked this monopoly, introducing "gatewatching" practices – people and communities that do not necessarily produce news but select, comment, and amplify them.

Another useful concept is "network gatekeeping": the decision about what becomes important is actually made through the accumulation of shares, likes, comments, and interactions in networks, where the public and elites influence each other. The article on "post-publication gatekeeping" shows how hashtags, reactions, and post-publication conversations can raise or lower the relevance of topics initially ignored by the traditional press.

In this context, influencing opinion is no longer a linear flow (think tank → journalist → public), but an ecology in which:

• Organizations, journalists, influencers, and the general public are all emitters and amplifiers of messages.

• Platform algorithms decide what each user actually sees, based on their consumption history, interactions, and the behavior of others with similar profiles.

• The "public" becomes a collection of partially separate communities, each with its own favorite sources, its own "stars," and its own vocabulary.

This change in informational infrastructure is essential for understanding how the role of think tanks is changing and how new types of actors emerge that influence global opinion currents.

4. How social networks shape public opinion

Synthesis literature shows several repetitive mechanisms through which social networks influence public opinion and social mobilization.

4.1. Speed, access, and "micro mobilization" Social networks allow for an extremely rapid circulation of information, at almost zero cost, to large and transnational audiences. A literature review highlights that platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram support social movements through:

• Rapid dissemination of information and updates.

• "Micro mobilization": short messages that call for concrete actions (participate in protests, sign petitions, donate).

• Creation of collective identities through hashtags (#BlackLivesMatter, #MeToo, climate activism). In movements like the Arab Spring or recent global protests, studies show that social networks helped people connect, coordinate, and transmit images and messages directly to a global audience, bypassing state-controlled mass media.

4.2. Algorithms, bubbles, and confirmation of beliefs

A common thread in research is the role of algorithms - what we see is not a neutral image of the world, but a flow filtered by rules that prioritize "engaging" content because:

• Algorithms favor content that receives many reactions (likes, shares, comments), often emotional or conflictual.

• Users are grouped into "filter bubbles" and "echo chambers," where they are mainly exposed to similar opinions, which reinforces existing beliefs.

• Repetition and validation in the community can transform rumors or unfounded claims into perceptions of "common sense" for that group.

Renee DiResta simply explains this mechanism: influencers who seem "like us" become, at the same time, main sources of information and opinion leaders, and algorithms connect them with highly receptive communities, where their messages are constantly reinforced. In this environment, viral attention often weighs more than accuracy, and rumors can be "reinforced" through repetition and social approval.

4.3. Slacktivism, misinformation, and polarization

Literature reviews also highlight the limitations of this model.

• "Slacktivism": an important part of "activism" remains at the level of symbolic gestures – likes, shares, profile picture changes – without offline involvement.

• Misinformation and manipulation: the same infrastructure that allows rapid mobilization also enables coordinated manipulation campaigns, bots, and networks of fake accounts.

• Polarization: the emphasis on emotional content and homogeneous communities favors the division of sectors of society, as people relate to different informational realities.

In areas such as public health, an article from the medical literature shows how social networks provide a direct channel between experts and the public, but also a stage for the rapid spread of anti-scientific messages, without the editorial filter of the traditional press.

4.4. The public becomes a producer

A central outcome is that the public is no longer just a consumer of information but also a producer: they post, comment, translate, remix messages. Studies on "network gatekeeping" and hashtags show how communities can reactivate ignored topics, amplify counter-narratives, and put pressure on institutions.

This has two contradictory effects:

• Democratization: marginalized voices have access to audiences they would not otherwise have.

• Fragmentation: in the absence of common verification standards, incompatible versions of reality circulate in parallel, supported by different groups.

5. How think tanks are reinventing themselves in the social media era

In the new environment, think tanks can no longer rely solely on long reports and relationships with a few decision-makers. The competition for attention is fierce, and legitimacy is contested, including due to opaque funding or partisan positions.

The study "Whose Bright Idea Was That?" emphasizes that think tanks are forced to rethink both their influence strategies and how they measure their impact: not just how many reports they publish, but whether their ideas are taken up in debates, in the media, and in concrete decisions. At the same time, pressure from funders for "measurable results" leads organizations to seek indicators such as mentions in the press, reach on social networks, and participation in public events.

5.1. Entering social networks

The analysis on "Ways and Means: How think tanks use social media to influence public debate" shows that think tanks are increasingly expanding their presence on platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. The three types of organizations studied – Brookings, RAND, Heritage – use social media in different ways:

• "University" organizations emphasize rational arguments and links to detailed reports.

• "Contract" organizations use channels more for legitimization and institutional visibility.

• "Advocacy" organizations adopt the style of influencers: short, emotional messages, attractive visuals, direct appeals to the community.

The study shows, based on content analysis, that advocacy think tanks rely more on "peripheral routes" of persuasion – emotion, identity, belonging – while more traditional forms rely on logical arguments and data.

5.2. Bypassing gatekeepers and "direct to public"

Social networks allow think tanks to address the public directly, bypassing the editorial offices that, in the past, decided whether a press release or report deserved publication. This has clear advantages:

• You can build your own community, from newsletters to followers on platforms, without relying on the goodwill of an editor.

• You can test messages, titles, and narrative frames in real time, based on audience reactions.

• You can participate directly in online conversations, from threads on X to interventions in live debates. But there are also risks: the pressure to "perform" in terms of engagement can push think tanks to oversimplify, to emphasize polarizing messages, or to select only the data that "catches" the public's attention.

5.3. Think tank networks in the digital environment

Networks like Atlas Network, already mentioned, now use both classic tools (conferences, training) and digital ones (coordinated campaigns, communication kits for social media). The ABC article notes concerns about how these networks can coordinate narratives regarding energy and climate, amplifying messages that question scientific consensus.

Thus, the think tank ecosystem becomes an integral part of the digital infrastructure of influence: their reports are transformed into infographics, memes, short clips, and key messages repeated by politicians, influencers, and activists. The impact no longer rests solely on "the quality of expertise," but also on the ability to connect to the distribution networks of the age: platforms, influencers, online media.

6. Influencers, algorithms, and "narrative factories"

If think tanks represented the model of the "idea factory" of the 20th century, social networks bring two new actors to the forefront: influencers and the "engineers" of platforms (those who control algorithms, rules, and infrastructure).

Renee DiResta describes an ecology in which influencers, algorithms, and online crowds interact to transform lies or half-truths into "reality" for certain communities. Influencers manage to appear authentic and relatable, and the way they combine opinion, emotion, and entertainment gives them a credibility different from that of traditional experts.

The mechanism is often as follows:

• An idea or narrative framework (for example, "public health measures are a plot against freedom") is formulated, sometimes in ideological media or think tanks.

• Influencers translate it into simple and emotional language, "packaging" it into memes, clips, podcasts.

• Algorithms detect high engagement and promote the content, bringing it in front of millions of users, especially those already predisposed to agree.

• Public reactions (likes, shares, comments) reinforce the impression that "everyone thinks the same in my bubble," which can influence perceptions of social norms.

DiResta also talks about the transformation of political concepts into identity "memes" – terms like "free speech" are used as signals of belonging, not as precise legal concepts. This process facilitates emotional mobilization but complicates rational debate, as people relate to emotionally charged symbols.

In parallel, coordinated manipulation campaigns emerge, in which state or private actors use networks of accounts and bots to amplify certain messages, create the impression of consensus or conflict, or sow distrust in institutions.

7. From "idea factories" to ecosystems of influence

Looking at the whole, several major transformations can be distinguished in the process of influencing global opinion currents:

• From elite to networks: Traditional think tanks operated in a universe dominated by a few centers of intellectual and media power; today, the same ideas circulate in a crowded "marketplace," where competition for attention is global and ongoing.

• From gatekeeping to co-production: The decision about what "matters" no longer belongs exclusively to editorial offices or experts; the public, influencers, bots, and algorithms all participate together in the selection and amplification of messages.

• From argument to emotion: Without disappearing, rational argument gives way to emotional frameworks, identity narratives, and potentially viral content. Advocacy think tanks and influencers intensively use these tools.

• From national to transnational: Networks like Atlas connect think tanks from dozens of countries, while social networks make any narrative potentially global within hours or days.

• From limited transparency to algorithmic opacity: While it was relatively clear before who funded a think tank and what it published, now a large part of influence plays out in the "black box" of algorithms and in hard-to-map ecosystems (private groups, influencer networks, new platforms).

In this landscape, think tanks do not disappear, but their role changes: they become content providers and interpretative frameworks in a platform- and influencer-dominated environment, and their influence increasingly depends on their ability to adapt to the logic of social networks without compromising their credibility. Social networks, in turn, transform public opinion into a fluid battlefield, where ideas circulate rapidly, combine, radicalize, or trivialize, and the boundary between informing and manipulating is often hard to draw.

Synthesis made with the help of Perplexity