"It's a dialogue, not a monologue, and some people don't understand that. Social media is more like a telephone than a television."
- Amy Jo Martin
Social media has changed the way people think, act and react. The veil of anonymity allows people to have strong opinions on sensitive issues. With so many ideas and opinions put forth publicly, how much of it affects public opinion?
Introduction:
On an individual level, I believe there are two kinds of emotions that need to be addressed. First, the sentiment of the person posting and second, the sentiment of those receiving information from social media. Ultimately, we have to look at the relevance of all this on governance. It’s found that people who don’t care about what others think are more likely to engage in politics on social media.[1] That might influence what they say online and contribute to the vitriolic tone , putting so many off engaging in public online conversations. But for many people, politics is a sensitive issue, and they care about their audience. So even if you are interested in politics and you’re sensitive to social rejection, the chances are that you will stay away from posting unless you’re sure that it is uncontroversial in your social circle.
Now let’s talk about the receiving end of social media. Many people believe that we increasingly live in online filter bubbles that only expose us to the ideas we already agree with. Anytime we're surrounded only by views and opinions we agree with while being sheltered from opposing perspectives, we find ourselves in a filter bubble. They tend to distort our understanding of the world and hamper our ability to make balanced decisions. This is consistent with a broader psychological literature on confirmation bias, which says that we are likely to seek out and agree with views that align with our own pre-existing beliefs.[2] Generally, it is easier to listen to individuals or groups that share or validate our worldviews, a huge factor that contributes to political polarization. The share of Americans who express consistently conservative or consistently liberal opinions has doubled over the past two decades, from 10% to 21%.[3] As a result, the ideological overlap between the two parties has decreased. Based on these studies, I believe social media doesn’t really affect voter behaviour. That being said, social media still plays a significant role in governance.
Social Media and Governance:
Social media has a potential to be used for governance. There is promising evidence that suggests social media improves the transparency of organisations and government ministries; but there is less evidence on whether this improves accountability. Various governments have provided online platforms for citizens to report crimes, comment on policies, and petition for change. Largely these online channels are restricted to particular users. These websites don’t sit well with the people pushing them towards social media to organise rallies, protests, and activism. Social media opens a dialogue between the people and the government, forming a mutual trust. People often forget there are actual people behind government offices. Transparency builds public trust and also increases engagement. An example of this is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who leverages Instagram to give her followers a behind-the-curtain look at how Congress operates. And not only does her social media engagement soar with each post, but it’s making her appear more authentic to people across the world.
Since there is ample freedom to express our opinions and beliefs, some regulation is required to prevent abuse. Legislation and regulation of social media have always been a controversy. Currently, only a few cases have been prosecuted globally, and there are no clear precedents. Cases involve hate speech, defamation of character, protection of human rights, and protection of the safety of citizens.
The impact of Social Media in Kenya:
Social media has played a vital role in democratizing Kenya. On 30th December 2007, after Kibaki was proclaimed winner, the Kenyan internal security minister, John Michuki, announced the ban of the live broadcast. The ban had been ordered, “in the interest of public safety and tranquillity”. Both presidential parties claimed they had won the polls. The opposition claimed that the Electoral Commission had doctored the results. The media blackout meant that the Kenyans had to rely on other modes for relaying information. Citizen journalists and bloggers took it in their hands to provide swift and subjective updates via social media. The issue was resolved after two months when both party leaders agreed to sign a power-sharing agreement. Since then, the number of users on social media in Kenya has significantly grown.[4]
A key aspect of governance is coming into power which brings us to campaigning. Social media is a good platform for parties to share their manifesto. But considering the case of India, the majority of voters are from rural areas where social media’s presence has not yet penetrated but it is only a matter of time.
In conclusion, although social media doesn’t affect voter behaviour too much, its implications on democracy are significant – from peacebuilding to transparency. Social media is constantly evolving and so are its regulations, but the role it plays in governance will always remain huge.
Article by,
Pranav Sasikumar
Comments