Social Media: The Saviour or Saboteur of Democracy?

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.

There is then the much-maligned issue of ‘fake-news.’ The use of media to spread disinformation is not old; indeed it is at least as old as the newspaper. However, the ease with which material can be created and distributed through this technology has exacerbated the spread of misinformation (any form of false information spread, regardless of intent) and disinformation (material spread with the intention to mislead and manipulate). This is because the focus is on attaining and maintaining engagement, with no regard for quality or journalistic ethics. False information can be used to confuse people, or persuade people to vote, or indeed not to vote, such that electoral outcomes are distorted. Such electoral distortion can also arise from microtargeting – the profiling and selling of user data for targeted advertising. This type of advertising can operate to re-engage citizens in the run up to elections or referendums, however, it can also be used for political manipulation, undermining the ability of voters to make their own political decisions. The prevalence and impact of microtargeting on electoral outcomes remain uncertain. Nonetheless, the risks it poses are likely to increase given the ever-growing prevalence of technology, and the high political and economic interests at stake.

Restraining the Saboteur

When it comes to easing the democratic deficit created by social media, one of the difficulties is that many of the issues attached to technology are by-products of the business model upon which the platforms operate.

Social media is predicated on a simple premise: capture attention, and monetise that attention through advertising.

Therefore, there is an inherent incentive for these platforms to facilitate echo chambers and the dissemination of fake news. To counter this incentive, there need to be laws and policies put in place to address the risks posed to democracy. Attention has been given to enhancing transparency and accountability on the part of media platforms for filtering and moderating content. This could prove to be a risky strategy: media moderation could exacerbate entrenchment by inciting anger or disillusionment or work to justify political censorship, and by extension control over public discourse. With regard to the protection of personal data, the introduction of more robust digital privacy and data protection measures could operate to protect users and safeguard the democratic process. However, the efficacy of these measures will rely on the empowerment of citizens to better understand the democratic risks attached to social media. Such empowerment could be achieved through the support of independent media, and investment in improved digital literacy.

Social media is a double-edged sword, presenting as both a potential saviour and saboteur of democracy. Through the guise of political expression and participation, social media presents itself as a useful and inclusive tool; one which chimes nicely with democracy as envisioned by the European Parliament. However, the indifference of this technology to the upholding of democracy is startling, and contrasts significantly with its appreciable and ever-growing impact on democracy. Therefore, it is contended that the saboteur edge is considerably sharper, but can be dulled if the requisite legal quagmire is navigated. Given the business aims of social media platforms, it is submitted that the law must intervene to save democracy from sabotage by social media.