Social Media
Page 13
Social Media: The Saviour or Saboteur of Democracy? By Kate Flood, SS Law and Business There is ample social commentary and academic dialogue surrounding the ‘Catch-22’ nature of new media structures. Social media allows for constant and pervasive communication, seamlessly connecting people across territories and time zones. Concurrently, social media has been seen to have chilling psychological ramifications for users, causing isolation, depression, and addiction for many. The manner in which society consumes both information and material goods has become more convenient and extensive, coming at the cost of robust data security and protection. As such, social media is paradoxical in nature, facilitating favourable outcomes and trouble all at once. How does this play out in relation to democracy? As is characteristic of these platforms, there are both democratic advantages and disadvantages attached to social media. However, overall, does this technology stand to facilitate or inhibit democracy, and how, if at all, can the law be employed to assuage the dangers posed by social media in this context? Facilitating Democracy The European Parliament recognises democracy as relying “on citizens’ abilities to obtain information on public matters, to understand them and to deliberate them.” From this, it is clear to see that there are various ways in which social media could potentially foster and encourage democracy. This technology has democratised access to information, enabling people from every strand of society to gain exposure to the happenings of the world, either actively or incidentally. This, coupled with the interactive nature of social media, encourages the formation and sharing of ideas, thoughts, and opinions. Thus, political expression is facilitated. Per Lupia and Sin, people can now “post, at minimal cost, messages that can be viewed instantly by global audiences.” These audiences are generally heterogeneous, which has been found to encourage expression in and of itself. Moreover, the perceived accessibility, convenience, and variety of social media means that people can express themselves in different ways, depending on their motivations. For example, someone could tweet about a political incident, in real-time, so-called ‘second-screening,’ in order to vocalise an opinion or instigate a discussion. Alternatively, someone could ‘like’ or otherwise engage with content simply to indicate their support for particular groups or persons. In turn, this facilitation of political expression has been seen to give rise to political participation. The latter could not come about without the former, as political discourse foregoes political action. A multitude of studies have shown social media to be capable of encouraging political participation. The technology operates to expand social networks, thus increasing the likelihood of one’s being exposed to mobilising information, and content that moves one to engage and participate in politics. Such participation could remain within the virtual realm, in the form of online petitions or contributions, but also has the potential to extend into the real world, as people are motivated to participate in demonstrations. Inhibiting Democracy While the foregoing observations are indicative of a technology that could foster a better-informed society, such optimism has been dulled by recent studies, suggesting that the opposite is true. It seems intuitive that political learning would be positively served by social media, as it encourages engagement with political content. However, this ignores the reality of how the material is presented to the user on these platforms. Social media preys on the preferences of its users, creating feedback loops where the attitudes, preferences, and interests of the user are reflected in the content they are exposed to. This works to create and sustain ‘echo chambers,’ wherein individual views are reinforced. In this way, social media operates to advance political entrenchment as opposed to political learning, limiting users’ capacity to form balanced and informed opinions.
