Less than one in five social media posts comes from people users actually know, according to a new report from the Institute for Public Policy Research, which argues that platforms are prioritising influencers, adverts and brands over users’ friends and family, making for a less social online experience.

Following analysis of thousands of posts across Instagram, Facebook, X, Bluesky and TikTok, the think tank found that less than one in five of the top posts in users’ feeds (18%) come from someone they actually know. 

Meanwhile, more than a third (35%) of these posts are from influencers, public figures or recommended content, and 29% are from adverts and brands.

Of the worst-performing platforms, IPPR found that just one in 10 posts seen by users on TikTok and X were from friends and family, but one in seven were from brands or adverts.

The data reveals a sharp political divide, with those who voted Reform in the last general election the least likely to see content from someone they personally know, and the most likely to see content from brands and news organisations. 

By comparison, IPPR found that just 13% of Reform voters see content from someone they know, versus almost a quarter (23%) of Green voters, a difference that highlights the decline of ‘social’ content across these platforms for some users, and which may contribute to polarised information environments.   

According to IPPR, the data is indicative of a fundamental change in how these platforms work, with channels no longer primarily connecting people to others they know or to their interests, but instead are optimised to “keep users scrolling”. 

The report describes this as “sticky design”, where content is prioritised because it holds attention, arguing that influencers and celebrities are more likely to be promoted because users spend longer watching them, and are more likely to spend money engaging with their content.

These trends, said the think tank, risk fragmenting society by making it harder to build common beliefs and politics, and are reshaping public life by shifting how information circulates and gains traction online.

“These platforms are not just reflecting society – they are shaping it. By prioritising content that keeps us hooked, they are making us less visible to each other and more isolated,” said Dr Sofia Ropek-Hewson, senior research fellow at IPPR.

“If we want a healthier, more democratic online world, we need to take back control from algorithms designed purely for profit.”

To mitigate the impact that social media firms have on public discourse, the report recommends that the government amend the Online Safety Act to tackle “manipulative algorithmic design” and give regulators stronger powers over platform architecture.  

IPPR also said that platforms should be required to promote public interest content, including from charities, community groups and public bodies, and that a new public service social media platform should be developed, led by the BBC and EU public broadcasters, to provide an alternative to for-profit platforms. 

Recommended

• UK Gov Launches ‘World’s Most Ambitious’ Consultation on Social Media Use
• Ofcom Opens Official Online Safety Act Probe Into X
• X Under Fire Over ‘Staggering Amplification of Hate’ During UK Riots
• Big Tech Faces EU Digital Services Act Reckoning

However, recent figures show that the vast majority (85%) of Reform voters do not trust the BBC, labelling it “institutionally liberal” and hostile, suggesting that a BBC-anchored social platform is unlikely to win over those users.

Added to that, with many of the platforms targeted in the report based in the US, any enforcement measures could well fall foul of the kind of legal quagmire stifling Ofcom’s action against 4chan under the Online Safety Act, especially given the Trump administration’s views on “extraterritorial censorship”.    

Even then, the largest platforms are leaning into the decline of social content. Last year, Mark Zuckerberg told a US court that the purpose of Facebook “wasn’t really to connect with friends anymore” and had instead evolved to become “a broad discovery and entertainment space”, a statement that undercuts IPPR’s stance.