Social Media as a Political Tool
Social media platforms are taking a significant part of human life, and they might be the main causes of arguments between people caused by diverse topics. For instance, politics is one of the common themes that arise in many negative comments and posts worldwide. “In this new media environment, politics is no longer bound by 4 traditional barriers of time and space,” shows Grove and tried to explain that the world is changing and we should follow the changing social trends (225). This essay will cover the nature of misunderstandings between individuals and how radical organizations can be built because of social media posts. Moreover, it will show that social media has a positive side that can improve the quality of life.
The foundations of civil society are still important and cannot be substituted by social media debates. The main reason for the new democracies’ collapse in the aftermath of Arab Spring is the lack of civil society. Social media’s success in organizing the protests and overthrowing the regimes overshadowed the need for political proactiveness and deliberation. Radcliffe states that “the concept [of deliberation] provides a plausible standard for evaluating democracies” (89). In other words, democracy with high marks on deliberation is ideal, and the closer the state is to this ideal, the more democratic it is. Deliberation is a core quality of civil society that takes time and effort to develop. The case of failed new democracies after the Arab Spring shows that the state lacked these qualities. It proved that social media could not facilitate the increase in the rates of deliberation in society.
Moreover, adversarial politics is on the other side of the spectrum from the deliberative one. While deliberative politics welcomes a wide range of political opinions and ideologies, adversarial gives only two sides prominence. Before the Arab Spring, except for Tunisia, the states had only two political narratives: authoritarian in government and rebellious on social media. After the collapse of the government, only one major political ideology remained. In these conditions of adversity and lack of deliberation, democracy is impossible. Therefore, the state quickly reverted toward more authoritarianism. On the other hand, Tunisia had a more developed civil society with high deliberation marks. Thus, Tunisia remained a developing democracy. Overall, social media, like in the case of Tunisia, only provided the space for deliberation but did not boost it, allowing the adversity to remain.
The evidence from the Arab Spring demonstrated the neutral nature of social media effects and predicted its possible negative applications. It proved true, as over several years after that, more evidence showed that social media could be used as a weapon of the authoritarian states’ propaganda. As Radcliffe points out one example, “the Russian government’s employing its immense digital propaganda machine to convince many Europeans that the CIA shot down the Malaysian airliner over Ukraine” (90). Social media is essentially a tool that can be used for various purposes depending on the user who has power over its use. Thus, citizens can use social media as a communication tool if they are in control. In contrast, according to Radcliffe, if the government is in control, it can be used as a weapon of propaganda (90). This evidence aligns with the previous patterns of social media’s ambitious effects.
Social Media as an Echo Chamber
Social media allowed everyone to voice their opinions, post news, and participate in conversation with incredible speed. People build communities where they share their interests, and this is called You chamber as individuals choose to follow something they like. Now anyone can broadcast their news version through YouTube from the comfort of their bedroom. It raises the question of “fake news,” information credibility, and people’s trust in it. However, Grove claims, “People tend to know what they’re getting on YouTube since the content is clearly labeled by username as to where it originated (227).” In other words, people still believe the information from established sources like newspapers, “Journalists are needed today for the work they do as much as they ever have been” (227). However, now people have an opportunity to quickly fact-check the data from journalists who can also be prone to mistakes and human errors. “Finally, reporters use YouTube as source material for their stories,” states Grove in his writing (227). This means that information posted in the internet can be available to everyone.
This sheer amount of data allowed social media to amplify political opinions and ideologies and accelerated their spread like an echo chamber. The algorithm facilitates the reach of this data. According to Crilley and Gillespie, this effect is accomplished by the algorithms that ponder the users’ preferences and suggest similar information (174). Crilley and Gillespie write that “the exploitation of user data is Facebook’s business model” (174). In other words, this exploitation allows achieving the effect of living in one closed community with identical political views and data. In extreme examples, it can mimic the person residing in the autocratic regime with the singular “propaganda machine” or children growing up in an extremist organization with a tendency for indoctrination. However, a more realistic example is the group’s divide along party lines.
Some people might become participants of extreme coordination based in the internet platforms, and they can be identified by inappropriate pictures or posts. According to Stafford, they are not necessarily this ideologically extreme in the real world, as they can just perform for the algorithm on social media. According to Holbrook and Horgan, they are not necessarily dangerous, as they can have an opportunity to express and realize themselves, compared to terrorists (9). Moreover, they are not a major influence on the general public’s opinion compared to other political factors. The nature of extremist groups could be race or gender discrimination that appears in people from their childhood. Anger in social media platforms can build different groups of like-minded people who act violently in relation to others.
Beyond the propaganda, on average, people still have access to a wealth of information, which includes the one that contradicts their views. They even encounter it frequently, but some still choose to hold onto their beliefs. Stafford writes, “This is why it is a mistake to think that you can somehow ‘correct’ people’s views on an issue by giving them more facts, since study after study has shown that people have a tendency to selectively reject facts that don’t fit with their existing views.” In other words, the issue is more about human psychology and people retaining their political views, remaining in their political groups regardless of the algorithm. It implies that the same tendency was present in people even before the age of social media.
In conclusion, people can argue that social media completely changes the nature of political discourse. However, the evidence shows the contrary. Even though some terroristic actions might be promoted, social media more often accelerates already existing political trends, leading to bigger societal changes, remaining just a neutral tool for its user. It is important to control the thoughts posted on the internet; this method may protect from political arguments.
Works Cited
Crilley, Rhys, and Marie Gillespie. “What to do about social media? Politics, populism and journalism.”Journalism vol. 20, no. 1, 2019, pp. 173-176.
Grove, Steve. “YouTube: The flattening of politics.” Nieman Reports vol. 62, no. 2, 2008, pp. 224-228.
Holbrook, Donald, and John Horgan. “Terrorism and ideology.”Perspectives on terrorism vol. 13, no. 6, 2019, pp. 2-15.
Radcliffe, Dana. “Dashed Hopes: Why Aren’t Social Media Delivering Democracy?” Pacific Council on International Policy, 2015, pp. 88-91.
Stafford, Tom. “How Curiosity Can Protect the Mind from Bias.”BBC Future, 2016.