How Social Media Could Threaten Democracy

Identifications

Marbury versus Madison is a legal case that occurred in the U. S. in 1803. A case is an important event in the country’s history. It introduced the principle of judicial review in the U. S. It implies that American courts have the right to prohibit laws and other forms of governmental actions, which appear to go against the United States Constitution. From this moment onwards, the U. S. Constitution became the primary source of law, rather than just a document with political ideas and principles. Moreover, the case played an essential role in setting boundaries between constitutional executives and judicial branches.

A dual court system in the United States is one of the oldest judicial structures in the world. It implies that a country has two independent court systems, including the federal courts and the state courts (Longley, 2020). The United States’ system is called federalism, and the abovementioned court systems work independently from the executive and legislative branches. Such judicial practice is known in the country since the 18^th century when each of the Thirteen Colonies had its own courts. This system was created to maintain the principle of checks and balances, as it limits the power of the federal courts while supporting the integration of the state and local courts.

Social Media and Its Dangers for Users and Democracy

Nowadays, social media is an essential part of people’s everyday life. It is clear that sometimes it can play a detrimental role for users. Moreover, it is astonishing that its power can have a negative impact on democracy. In the present essay, three dangers social media may pose to its users, and democracy will be considered and discussed. Furthermore, a reform that would help to fight these threats will be proposed.

First of all, it should be stated that social media are used for destructive purposes nowadays, which are dangerous for liberal values and democracy. As Lawson states (2019), authoritarian governments and other actors deliberately employ social media for repressive purposes. The thesis supported the findings of representative research, which focused on internet freedom in 65 countries. The results were not optimistic: in 33 countries out of 65; there was a decline in internet freedom. It was expressed in a series of users’ arrests for political, social, or religious opinions (Lawson, 2019). As can be seen from the research, social media may be dangerous for users and freedom of speech, as the central value of democracy.

It appears to be essential to consider particular threats that social media may pose for its users and democratic systems. Firstly, it is spread disinformation in favor of the interests of certain political actors. Misinformation can primarily affect democracy as people may believe in false news and adjust their behavior on that basis. The results can be detrimental for democratic institutions and the system overall (Gebelhoff, 2019).

Secondly, another danger is social media’s use to persecute people for their opinions and views expressed on the Internet. Such situations can be observed in authoritarian states, for instance, in China. People can lose their jobs, status, and even freedom for specific posts (Lawson, 2019). It is also dangerous in terms of interference in foreign states’ national affairs, which can have a negative impact on their democratic processes, such as on elections.

Last but not least is social media manipulation campaigns, which are widely employed by authoritative regimes. Such campaigns use different techniques, including micro-targeting and bots accounts, in order to convince people to support governmental elites. Lawson mentions seven states, which use those techniques in social media regularly. It includes China, India, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela (Lawson, 2019). This state of affairs demonstrates that measures should be taken to combat such destructive use of social media.

Speaking of measures that would help to fight the above-discussed dangers, it is believed that all political ads should be as transparent as possible. For this reason, it appears to be essential to propose a transparency law that would control political ads and inform people about their potential misinformation. First of all, the law will oblige all social media to label political campaigns. The label must include two following signs: “paid for” and “political ad.”

Such information would allow people to understand that a campaign has political purposes and might be potentially biased or even false. The next paragraph of this law will state that an organization must prove that it is based in the country to run a politically related ad on social media. It would prevent foreign advertising campaigns, which might be a severe threat to national democratic processes.

In conclusion, it should be stated that nowadays, social media is a powerful tool for different kinds of powers, including those who might be a threat to users and for democracy. Potential dangers include the spread of misinformation, persecuting people for their views, interference in national affairs, and social media manipulation campaigns. In order to combat the negative impact, a transparent law was proposed. The act would label political campaigns, publish all information about them, and control an organization’s location that is willing to run the political campaign.

References

Gebelhoff, R. (2019). Here’s how social media could threaten democracy – even without the help of Russians. Washington Post. Web.

Longley, R. (2020). Understanding the dual court system. ThoughtCo. Web.

Lawson, S. (2019). Evidence mounts of social media’s negative impacts for democracy. Forbes. Web.