I'm confident that in the future it will be incomprehensible how elected politicians and governments decided that Instagram was the best place to make official statements about national security.

"Was it like a news channel?"
"No, it was a photo sharing site."
"For politicians?"
"Well, not really. It was really popular among young adults and influencers. But it could be used for anything, like selling items, messaging, or just blogging about travel experiences. "
"Ah, so it became a well-respected and trustworthy actor for information publishing of its time?"
"Well, uhm, no. Most research showed what a truly negative impact it had on the mental health of young people. And there was a ton of misinformation on there."
"Hang on, so politicians promoted a commercial platform that was proven to be detrimental to wellbeing… and a platform for deception?"
"Yeah, and it ran ads…"
"It ran ads!?!? You mean the prime minister’s message on national security could be published alongside a diaper commercial?"
"Yeah, or next to an influencer urging you to try out a new diet."
"Wow, that’s dystopian. But citizens could at least subscribe to these messages and get them as soon as they were published?"
"Well.. people could express a wish to follow a politician, but that didn't mean they necessarily saw all posts from that politican in their feed. There was this thing called an algorithm, you see."
"Bloody hell… why were governments promoting this!?!?"
”Funnily enough, officials who were addressing the social platforms’ negative impact on young people were using the same platforms to get their message out around completely different issues.”
”Oh my, what on earth was going through their minds?”
"Hmm. Judging by the state of the Earth… not much."
”I guess this explains why the prime minister is sponsored by Brightside Lunar Residences.”
”Wait ’til I tell you how even public radio were encouraging their listeners to connect with them on Instagram.”
”Please stop.”