How Influence Peddlers Exploit Divisive Narratives to Manipulate Public Opinion

This report examines how influence peddlers exploit divisive narratives to polarize identity and political groups, analyzing mechanisms, digital tools, financial incentives, and real-world consequences. Drawing from academic research, investigative journalism, and case studies, it synthesizes insights into the intersection of social media algorithms, targeted advertising, and algorithmic manipulation in shaping public discourse and policy.

Mechanisms of Division: Constructing Narratives to Pit Groups Against Each Other

Simplified Narratives and Moral Framing

Influence peddlers construct divisive narratives by simplifying complex social dynamics into binary oppositions, often framing one group’s grievances as morally superior while vilifying others. These narratives amplify perceived injustices and assign blame to external actors, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of polarization1. For example, a narrative might portray transgender communities as threats to traditional values or MAGA supporters as defenders of national identity, obscuring shared societal goals. Such narratives thrive in polarized societies where historical tensions or political instability already exist.

Role of Media in Amplifying Divisions

Traditional and digital media amplify these narratives by selectively highlighting events that align with divisive storylines. Journalists, even when striving for objectivity, often inadvertently reinforce biases through framing choices—e.g., labeling certain groups as “victims” or “aggressors.” Social media platforms further accelerate this process by prioritizing emotionally charged content that generates engagement, such as outrage-inducing posts or conspiracy theories. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter use algorithms that favor content likely to provoke strong reactions, creating echo chambers where users are repeatedly exposed to polarizing viewpoints1 2.

Strategic Targeting of Identity Groups

Influence peddlers strategically target identity groups by exploiting existing insecurities or grievances. For instance, they may weaponize issues like racial justice or gender identity to provoke backlash among opposing groups. This tactic relies on narrative bias—the tendency to favor stories that align with preexisting beliefs. By framing issues through a lens of moral superiority (e.g., “protecting children” vs. “radical gender ideology”), peddlers manipulate public sentiment while obscuring systemic issues like inequality or systemic racism1.

Digital and Social Media Influence: The Role of Algorithms and Targeted Advertising

Algorithmic Manipulation and Echo Chambers

Social media algorithms prioritize content that maximizes user engagement, often favoring divisive material. Platforms use behavioral data (e.g., search history, location, demographics) to micro-target users with tailored content. For example, a user who interacts with anti-transgender content may see increasingly extreme posts, pushing them toward radicalization. This “radicalization pipeline” exploits psychological vulnerabilities, such as confirmation bias or outrage, to deepen polarization2.

Targeted Advertising as a Tool for Influence

Expanded Examples of Targeted Digital Advertising and Divisive Messaging

To provide a more balanced perspective, here are additional examples of how targeted digital advertising has been used to deliver divisive messages across various contexts:

1. Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election

The Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Russian organization, used Facebook’s ad-targeting tools to exploit identity divisions in the U.S. For example:

Ads targeting African Americans initially promoted Black empowerment themes (e.g., celebrating Black art and dignity) but later shifted to discourage voting, framing the election as irrelevant to their interests.
Simultaneously, other ads targeted conservative groups with messages emphasizing patriotism and anti-immigration sentiments, stoking fears of cultural erosion1 5.

These campaigns relied on Facebook’s ability to micro-target users based on interests such as “African-American Civil Rights Movement” or “Second Amendment rights,” ensuring tailored messages reached specific audiences while avoiding detection by opposing groups1.

2. Cambridge Analytica and Brexit/Trump Campaigns

Cambridge Analytica harvested data from millions of Facebook users without consent to craft hyper-targeted political ads:

During the 2016 Trump campaign, ads were designed to appeal to different voter segments. For example, rural voters were shown messages about gun rights and immigration, while suburban voters were targeted with economic growth narratives.
In the Brexit referendum, ads emphasized sovereignty and immigration concerns for pro-Leave voters while avoiding economic arguments that might alienate undecided voters6.

This approach exploited psychological profiles derived from user data to deliver emotionally resonant messages that reinforced existing biases6.

3. LGBTQ+ Issues in Advertising

Targeted ads have also been deployed to polarize debates around LGBTQ+ rights:

Conservative groups have run ads portraying transgender rights as threats to children’s safety, often using fear-based rhetoric to mobilize opposition against inclusive policies.
Conversely, progressive campaigns have targeted younger demographics with ads celebrating diversity and inclusion, sometimes provoking backlash from conservative audiences2 3.

For instance, Bud Light faced significant criticism after featuring a transgender influencer in its marketing campaign, illustrating how brands can inadvertently become flashpoints for cultural polarization3.

4. Radicalization Pipelines on Social Media

Social media platforms have been used to guide individuals toward extremist ideologies through targeted advertising:

Advertisers promoting conspiracy theories (e.g., QAnon or anti-vaccine narratives) use ads to draw users into closed groups or forums where they are exposed to progressively extreme content.
These “breadcrumb trails” leverage algorithms that prioritize engagement, ensuring users are repeatedly exposed to similar content until their views become more radicalized4.

This tactic has been observed in both domestic extremism (e.g., January 6 insurrectionists) and international recruitment efforts (e.g., jihadist propaganda)4.

5. Wedge Issues in Political Campaigns

Political campaigns frequently use wedge issues—controversial topics designed to divide voters—to target specific demographics:

During elections, some groups run ads emphasizing reproductive rights or immigration policy exclusively to women or minority voters while avoiding these topics with other demographics. This creates a fragmented understanding of candidates’ priorities2.
Dark posts on Facebook (ads visible only to targeted audiences) have been used to spread misinformation about these issues without public accountability or fact-checking2.

Misinformation and Disinformation Campaigns

Influence peddlers frequently disseminate misinformation to destabilize public trust. For example, false claims about voter fraud or public health policies may be shared across social media to incite fear among specific groups. Platforms like WhatsApp and Telegram enable rapid dissemination of such content, often bypassing traditional fact-checking mechanisms. This strategy erodes consensus on factual issues, deepening societal divisions1.

Case Studies: Documented Examples of Divisive Influence Peddling

1. Enron and Corporate Influence Peddling

Enron exemplifies how financial incentives drive divisive tactics. The energy giant used campaign contributions and lobbying to deregulate markets, creating an environment for price manipulation. While not explicitly targeting identity groups, Enron’s tactics relied on exploiting political divisions—e.g., framing deregulation as a free-market solution to appease conservative lawmakers while ignoring its consequences for vulnerable communities. This case highlights how corporate actors profit from policy manipulation, often at the expense of public welfare3.

2. Jack Abramoff and Political Corruption

Lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s scandal revealed how financial bribes and influence peddling corrupt political processes. By funneling money to lawmakers in exchange for favorable policies, Abramoff prioritized corporate interests over public good. Though not overtly divisive, his tactics entrenched partisan divisions by creating a culture of distrust in government. This underscores how financial incentives distort political decision-making, enabling peddlers to exploit existing polarization3.

3. Watergate and Political Espionage

The Watergate scandal involved illegal surveillance and disinformation to discredit political opponents. While primarily a case of abuse of power, it demonstrates how political actors use covert tactics to manipulate public perception. For example, the Nixon administration’s attempts to frame opponents as radical or unpatriotic foreshadowed modern disinformation campaigns targeting identity groups3.

4. Digital Radicalization Pipelines

A modern example is the use of social media to radicalize individuals into extremist movements. Platforms like Gab or Parler have been exploited to spread anti-transgender or white supremacist ideologies. By targeting users with tailored content, peddlers gradually escalate rhetoric, moving individuals from moderate views to radical positions. This process mirrors traditional propaganda but leverages algorithmic precision to maximize impact2.

Financial Incentives: Profit Motives Behind Divisive Tactics

Corporate and Political Profit Models

Influence peddlers often profit directly from divisive campaigns. Corporations may lobby for policies that benefit their bottom line (e.g., tax breaks, deregulation) while framing opposition as threats to “economic freedom.” Political consultants and media outlets also monetize polarization by attracting advertisers or clicks through sensational content. For instance, partisan news networks thrive on conflict-driven narratives, incentivizing them to amplify divisions3 4.

Financial Incentives in Tax Policy

The ICEPP study on tax incentives illustrates how poorly targeted financial incentives can backfire. Governments offering tax breaks to attract foreign investment may inadvertently favor firms that exploit loopholes, leading to public distrust. Similarly, peddlers promising financial gains (e.g., “protecting jobs”) may prioritize short-term profits over long-term societal cohesion, exacerbating divisions4.

Donations and Lobbying Networks

Peddlers often rely on donations from wealthy individuals or organizations. For example, dark-money groups may fund campaigns that stoke racial or gender divisions to mobilize specific voter blocs. These networks create a cycle where divisive tactics generate donations, which in turn fund more divisive campaigns3.

Impact on Public Discourse and Policy Outcomes

Polarization and Erosion of Trust

Divisive tactics erode trust in institutions, media, and political processes. When narratives are reduced to simplistic binaries (e.g., “us vs. them”), nuanced dialogue becomes impossible. This polarization manifests in policy gridlock, as seen in debates over healthcare, education, or climate change. For example, anti-transgender legislation often frames gender-affirming care as a “threat to children,” ignoring medical consensus and marginalizing communities1.

Policy Capture and Regulatory Deregulation

Peddlers frequently shape policy to benefit specific interests. Enron’s deregulation efforts demonstrate how corporate influence peddling can lead to regulatory capture, enabling exploitation of markets. Similarly, lobbying by fossil fuel companies has delayed climate action by framing environmental regulations as “job killers.” These policies often deepen inequities, disproportionately affecting marginalized groups3 4.

Radicalization and Violence

Extreme divisiveness can incite violence, as seen in attacks on Black churches or transgender individuals. Social media’s role in spreading hate speech and conspiracy theories (e.g., “great replacement theory”) has amplified such risks. By normalizing dehumanizing rhetoric, peddlers create environments where violence is perceived as justifiable1 2.

Media Literacy and Narrative Awareness

Educating the public on narrative bias and disinformation tactics is critical. Campaigns explaining how algorithms work and how to identify simplified or misleading narratives can empower individuals to engage critically with media1.

Regulatory Reforms and Transparency

Strengthening regulations on lobbying, campaign finance, and social media is essential. Measures like the Transparency in Political Advertising Act aim to disclose who funds online ads, reducing covert influence peddling. Algorithmic transparency requirements could force platforms to audit bias in content recommendations1 2.

Collaborative Dialogue Initiatives

Fostering cross-group dialogue through civil society organizations can counteract polarization. Programs that amplify diverse narratives—e.g., sharing stories of marginalized communities alongside those of majority groups—help rebuild empathy and common ground1.

Economic Incentives for Ethical Practices

Reforming tax incentives to prioritize equitable outcomes over profit-driven motives can reduce exploitation. For example, tying corporate tax breaks to community investment programs ensures that financial gains align with public welfare4.

Addressing Divisive Influence Peddling in a Polarized Era

Influence peddlers exploit divisive tactics to profit from societal divisions, leveraging digital tools to amplify polarization. Their strategies—simplified narratives, targeted ads, and financial incentives—undermine constructive dialogue and democratic institutions. Countermeasures must combine regulatory action, media literacy, and inclusive narratives to rebuild trust and foster dialogue. By understanding these mechanisms, policymakers and civil society can create safeguards against the exploitation of identity and political differences for profit.