In November, X began displaying each account’s country of origin. Unsurprisingly, this caused an uproar. Users rushed to prove that their online enemies were foreign interlopers. Many accounts that claimed to be from one country were, in fact, from another.

It was funny. But it also revealed a serious problem.

Politically engaged Americans should understand that large online followings may not reflect genuine American support.

As the developing world gains broader access to the internet, American political and cultural discourse becomes increasingly vulnerable to foreign influence.

According to the International Telecommunication Union, 5.4 billion people had internet access in 2023, roughly 67% of the world’s population. That marked a 4.7% increase from 2022. Because 93% of people in high-income countries already had internet access, most of the growth is now coming from poorer countries. The ITU reports that internet access in low-income countries increased 44.1% from 2020 to 2023. From 2022 to 2023 alone, the number of internet users in low-income countries rose 14.3%.

Simply put, the internet becomes more global every day.

What does that mean for Americans? After all, foreign users do not vote in our elections. Why should anyone care what people in slums halfway across the world say about American politics?

That objection misses the nature of the problem.

In the age of social media, clicks are king. To be important online is to have a large following. All of us, to some degree, are tempted to think this way. We see a big number on someone’s profile and assume, “This person matters.”

Audience size has always mattered in media. Television executives obsessed over ratings. But when American television dominated American culture, a large American audience usually meant actual Americans were watching. Access outside the country was limited.

That is no longer true. The internet has democratized and globalized the distribution of information. English remains the world’s dominant online language, creating a new path to political and cultural relevance. If your business is clicks, it doesn’t really matter whether those clicks come from Nigeria or Wisconsin.

There is nothing inherently wrong with appealing to an international audience. The problem comes when influencers convert foreign support into domestic political capital. Credulous observers see a large following and conclude that someone must be expressing the voice of America’s silent majority.

The silent majority of Jakarta, perhaps.

RELATED: The one word that can help you use technology — without letting it use you

VCG/VCG/Getty Images

Foreign bot networks make the problem worse by artificially boosting narratives and talking points that serve non-American interests. But even organic foreign engagement threatens the coherence of American political discourse when it is mistaken for domestic opinion.

The rise of the so-called “anti-Zionist right” offers a useful example. Since October 7, a collection of questionable internet personalities has tried to steer American right-wing discourse away from domestic concerns and toward the Israel-Palestine conflict. As with any foreign country, Israel is open to valid criticism. But the monomaniacal focus on Gaza demanded by this crowd goes far beyond normal foreign-policy debate.

Domestic support for Israel has declined, especially among Democrats and younger Americans. But anyone using social media as the primary barometer would likely assume the decline is far greater than it is. Why? Because anti-Israel content appeals to large foreign audiences, especially in the developing world. Bot networks amplify it as well.

This helps explain why Florida Republican gubernatorial candidate James Fishback has put anti-Zionism at the center of his campaign. In an ad posted to X, Fishback referenced claims that Israel is committing genocide and that Benjamin Netanyahu is a war criminal — claims he suggested could land people in jail. Florida does have anti-Semitism laws, and while such legislation should raise concerns, asking those questions will not send Floridians to prison.

The ad drew three million views and 30,000 likes. That is more traction than most campaign ads receive online. Based on those numbers alone, you might conclude Fishback is going places.

There is only one problem: He is polling at 7%.

As it turns out, catering to the anti-Israel online sphere is not a clear path to electoral success as a Republican. A poll of attendees at the recent Turning Point USA America Fest conference found that only 13.3% did not believe Israel is an ally of the United States.

Fishback’s campaign shows what happens when political actors mistake the internet for real life. The size of your reach matters, but so does its composition. It is not only how many people you reach; it is who they are.

Larger influencers have made the same mistake. Candace Owens has bragged about her sizable international audience. She once claimed that her documentary on Brigitte Macron went viral in China. I believe it. But millions of Chinese viewers watching an American political broadcaster does not mean Americans should treat her as a serious representative of domestic public opinion.

RELATED: Can we have online safety without total surveillance? Yes. Here’s how.

Deagreez/Getty Images

So what can be done?

First, every social media platform should follow X’s lead and display a user’s country of origin. The method is not foolproof, but it is better than nothing. For accounts above a certain size, platforms should also show a breakdown of the audience’s countries of origin.

Second, platforms should consider allowing users to region-lock their accounts. A region-locking feature would let users prevent people outside approved countries from seeing or engaging with their posts. Such a tool would reduce engagement, but many users would gladly trade raw reach for the ability to discuss contentious domestic issues with their countrymen without being swarmed by foreign accounts.

These measures would mitigate some of the downsides of an increasingly non-Western internet. But the problem cannot be solved entirely through platform policy.

What conservatives need most is awareness. Politically engaged Americans should understand that large online followings may not reflect genuine American support. They should be skeptical of influencers whose apparent domestic relevance depends heavily on foreign audiences.

There is no going back. The international cat is out of the bag. We cannot stop social media figures from catering to foreign audiences.

But we can stop pretending those audiences speak for America.