Modern Politics has undeniably been diluted by social media content. Many Politicians have looked towards Social Media platforms, notably Instagram and Facebook for extra coverage. Facebook has seen legal probing from the Senate in the States [1]. Inquiries were made regarding the potential consequences, whether utterly detrimental, or potentially liable to swing votes in intended directions, to the will of the Company. The political arena should remain as guarded as it possibly can, to prevent unwarranted interference with the Rule of Law, and should perhaps be scrutinised only by existing legal mechanisms already in place, such as the elections and majority voting systems, ballot box days. With the addition of these new platforms, which are not screened  by the common people, the realism that has always been attached to Politics and left its mark in History, slowly dissipates and loses its tightened grasp.

Cancel Culture has been termed recently. It roughly means, that any conduct from relevant authorities that do not go in accordance with the social norm at the moment is to be publicly repudiated. Whether or not this is a good elemental addition into the sphere of legal conceptual establishments and polite civil society is debatable. Be it as it may, the Cancel Culture has been warned by the former President of the United States to be dangerous, as it might go “overboard” [2]. Reasons that may go with this argument overlap with the above-mentioned concern; social media platforms such as Instagram and Facebook are not screened in the chosen absorption of information by people using the applications. Simply what this means is that uninformed citizens who are exposed to information, may easily swim with the tide, if it aligns with their established perception of society.

Small businesses are jeopardised, in that they operate based on the stability of a political system in a country. When the politics of a country is threatened, riots happen. Store windows are smashed into, people take advantage of such situations and loot whatever it is that they can get hold of, such as the George Floyd incident [3]. Such an incident circulated online, through aforementioned platforms and sparked a wave of unrestrained public anger, causing such an outrage. This indirectly affects the commercial reality of businesses operating in the States, and negative revenue is sure to ensue if authorities are not able to handle such matters properly. Now, going back to the above-mentioned concern in the first paragraph, we speak of the realism that is attached to Politics and the way civil society is based on. When a perception of grandiosity is shattered, such an incident may ensue. If local citizens were able to quench their anger and allow for relevant authorities to curb the problem peacefully, perhaps the outcome would not have been as detrimental as it turned out to be. Though, social activists may claim otherwise. Of course, there exists elements of historical discrimination in this particular example, such as slavery to which might have contributed to the culminated riots. With Instagram, social media influencers, who possess a degree of influence on the younger generation, may prompt juvenile vandalism, despite the seriousness of the issue.

Based on the realism that came with civil society and attached to the political system, is this the right direction to be going forward [4] ? This would require further scrutinised work and detailed research. However, in relevance to the commercial side of the issue, businesses may look to go online and physical stores might cease to exist in the possible future. E-commerce may be the way to be paved for in the future. We see this in applications such as Grab, FoodPanda, HonestBee. This could mean a possible dystopian future where people are more and more reluctant to go outside to shop, or purchase commodities, food to eat or drinks to enjoy with friends. Though such an outcome may be unlikely, the route is still possible. It will only be more likely if the degree of exposure and commercialisation of Modern Politics continue to increase, especially if it is inversely proportional to the degree of perceived realism in Politics by the public. The author opines that this might not be a good direction to head towards, and a balance must be struck to ensure that civil society’s benefits and the enjoyment that may be derived from our everyday life are not threatened. 

The question then lies on where such a balance might be. For the political realm to continue existing within an Ivory tower, and only citizens having the right to vote, may lead to corruption from within, despite the majority votes and the mechanisms put in place to fight against it, which was one of the major reasons for the prompt increase of awareness that came with the touch screen phone. Previously, only available in fine print in newspapers, which would require more effort to look into and take action, as the awareness was only surrounded by neighbours and family members alike. Now, it is widespread on the internet, and everybody is linked together as one due to globalisation. What this means is that the fear of repercussions for being a potential political dissident is taken away with the fact that people know the public norm is equivalent to what they assume is the truth. 

As such, perhaps further mechanisms with the help of specialists such as data engineers and computer scientists should be further looked into in the future, and applications to filter unprocessed data and important information that might be placed into younger adults, or children to be held in restraint from being spread onto. As such, Companies might have to look into potential investments into such technology, where they might be new in the industry and be hooked on a high price. The question of whether this is acceptable for Companies might have to be looked into further in the future where this will happen. However, one thing that seems to be predictable is the fact that Companies might have to invest more into the office of such matters if they wish to be kept in trend with their competitors.