Read on Twitter
For anyone interested in the larger context behind social media’s impact on yesterday’s events specifically, and democracy generally, I’m reupping this post from 2017.
A quick thread:
https://wapo.st/3nrXTDQ
1/
A quick thread:
https://wapo.st/3nrXTDQ
1/
The post summarizes a @JoDemocracy article by me @mollyeroberts @p_barbera @Yannis_Theo entitled “From Liberation to Turmoil: Social Media and Democracy”:
https://bit.ly/3hYcgyD
2/
https://bit.ly/3hYcgyD
2/
We argue that if you make two assumptions, you can explain why social media can be both “Liberation Technology” (i.e., help pro-democracy movements in authoritarian countries) and “Can Democracy Survive the Internet?” (i.e., embolden those who threaten democratic states)
3/
3/
Assumption 1: Social media gives voice to those lack access to mainstream media
Assumption 2: Social media — despite democratizing access to information — is also a tool that can be used for censorship.
4/
Assumption 2: Social media — despite democratizing access to information — is also a tool that can be used for censorship.
4/
In authoritarian regimes, social media then allows pro-democracy forces to have access to organizing tools they wouldn’t have had prior to the advent of social media. Thus “Liberation Technology” (it can also help other opposition, not pro-democracy, forces to do the same) 5/
5/
5/
However, authoritarian leaders inevitably react, including creating tools (e.g., bots, trolls, paid internet armies, etc.) that can be used to try to control the online information environment.
6/
6/
In democracies, those “excluded from access to mainstream media” can include progressive voices (think #BLM or #OccupyWallStreet), but they can also include extremist forces opposed to liberal democracy.
6/
6/
Social media can provide the same value to these would be opponents of liberal democracy in democratic systems that it provides to pro-democracy activists — a place to meet like minded people, to organize action, and to coordinate during action:
https://nyti.ms/3hSxWwf
8/
https://nyti.ms/3hSxWwf
8/
Moreover, extremist, anti-democratic forces can also use the tools of authoritarian leaders to amplify their voice, to try to seem more popular than they are (bots, trolls, etc.)
9/
9/
The main take away is that social media itself is neither inherently good nor bad for democracy — it is tool that can be used by political actors to try to achieve goals. Understanding how actors can do this is therefore the key to understanding its impact:
10/
10/
One final point - different platforms have different features (what scholars call “affordances”). It’s important to note not all social media are the same, and different affordances of different platform allow tools to be used differently.
11/
11/
There will be a lot of talk about different platforms in the coming days, and the key to understanding the different roles these platforms can play in anti-democratic activity is to understand their affordances. The same goes for policy responses.
12/12
12/12
