Introduction
You or someone you know may have social media, a digital platform that enables users to engage in social networking by facilitating content creation and sharing. Some popular applications include Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. Recently there has been controversy concerning the spread of fake news through social media. Fake news, or misinformation, is untrue information spread with the intent to deceive and profit from it. In fact “There’s a study, an MIT study, that fake news on Twitter spreads six times faster than true news.”(The Social Dilemma, 2020). Governments and political leaders also utilize social media to further their agenda. This can change the course of an election by altering how the public views certain topics based on what is posted online. Thus, threatening not only democracy, but also national security because a country can manipulate another country from across the globe without actually invading its physical borders. While some argue that social media promotes political discussion and activism, it instead leads to polarization, the division of political attitudes to the extremes. It is evident that this all is taking a toll on the general public: “The sense of exhaustion rather than excitement over seeing political content on social media holds true across political parties” (Anderson & Auxier, 2020). Which prompts the question: Do the positive impacts of social media on society outweigh the negative? From a political lens yes ,because it can be seen that social media mediates the increased spread of fake news, polarization, and threatens national security.
The Age of Misinformation
One of the main sources people get their news from is social media, which makes it easier to be susceptible to fake news. Even Dan Scavino, the White House director of social media, fell victim to it. On August 30, 2020 Scavino posted a video of Joe Biden falling asleep during an interview on twitter, without knowing that it was edited. “At least 24 hours after the video had started circulating on the platform thanks to tweets from other users -- it had roughly 1.3 million views”(O'Sullivan & Dale, 2020) And by the time Twitter confirmed that it was fake news, it was 2.4 million views too late. This comes to show that even people of high authority are not immune to fake news. If even the people of highest authority cannot distinguish fake news, how can the general public? A scientific journal supports this by stating “two studies of social fact-checking on Twitter found that citizens’ attempt to debunk rumors are generally ineffective” (Tucker et al., 2018, #19). From the White House to the general public, fake news is ‘educating’ people based on false pretenses, which makes people less inclined to make accurate political decisions, such as during elections.
In addition, information shared on social media does not tell the full story. During the summer of 2020, Facebook and Instagram users reposted a chart claiming that human trafficking arrests under President Donald Trump have increased 200%, in comaprison to the period that President Barack Obama was in office. However, expert testimonies suggest arrest figures are not the best scale to access the federal government’s action on human trafficking. Instead prosecutions by the Department of Justice are better because the charges are verifiable. According to annual reports, the number of trafficking prosecutions under Obama rose from 103 in 2010 to 241 in 2016. While Trump’s declined in 2018 (230) and 2019 (220) (Fichera, 2020). In other words, this viral chart did not take scale of analysis and all information into account. Graphs and charts posted on social media oftentime exaggerate statistics, like this example, in favor of what the creator is trying to convey. Although these examples are from different social media platforms, they all limit the public’s ability to obtain accurate political information.
A Threat to National Security and Democracy
A legal report expresses concerns in Argentina, India, Israel, Mexico, and Sweden ahead of national elections because specific instances of disinformation by Iran were detected by Facebook (Levush & Ruth, 2019). This gives emphasis to how foreign countries utilize social media with the motive of swaying elections, and this isn't the first time. For example, according to the Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election, Russia created 61,500 Facebook posts, 116,000 Instagram posts, and 10.4 million tweets specifically targeting African Americans to sign petitions and share personal information (Mueller, 2019, #7). Sinan Aral, MIT’s director of initiative on the digital economy, goes on to evaluate that these posts aimed to suppress voters by expressing that Americans should not vote because both candidates don't meet standards (Wired, 03:06-04:14, 2020). Voter suppression goes against the definition of democracy, in which the people have the power to choose their governing legislation. In making this comment, Aral urges us to be cautious of future foregn intervention on social media because if it happened in the past it can happen again in the future, especially with the current circumstances of a global pandemic and social movement. In fact, “more than 80% of the disinformation accounts in our election maps are still active ..” (Mueller, 2019, #8). Foreign countries' ability to suppress voters demonstrate social media’s threat to democracy, and consequently national security. Whether it be by domestic misinformation or foregin intervention, they both impact who people vote for in elections because it changes their views based on false acquisitions. Ultimately, what is at stake here is the public’s ability to objectively vote.
Counterclaim: Polarization
In the discussion of the impacts of social media, one might believe that it promotes political discussion, “we look at Facebook for the communication of citizens because this platform allows the nonelitist many-to-many communication of citizens who participate in online discussions on societal issues” (Hameleers, 2020) However, one must question to what extent is that type of environment healthy. Evidence shows that social media cultivates high tension polarization. Tools on social media enable politicians to change their public perception, thus sparking partisan dispute and further polarizing, or dividing parties. A study by Michael Hameleers, an assistant professor at The University of Amsterdam found a connection between what politicians post and polarization, “in the Netherlands in both election and routine periods, Wilders blamed both the media and political elites in his populist discourse—emphasizing the societal divide between the ordinary people and the corrupt elites”(Hameleers, 2020, #11). Hameleers expresses that when politicians selectively discredit information on social media to bring down their opponents, it fosters voter distrust, and consequently polarization. Politicians are provoking partisans to argue on social media and heighten tensions between people with opposing views. Which is evident in a study by Pew Research Center, “71% of Republican users say in this new survey they have found it frustrating and stressful to talk politics with others on social media that they disagree with, while a similar share of Democratic users (69%) feel the same way.”(Anderson & Auxier, 2020). People with opposing views are finding themselves more likely to argue online than listen to one another and come to an understanding. Both studies display how social media creates an intolerant environment for political discussion that further divides society. Therefore, social media creates an unhealthy environment for political discussion.
Conclusion
All in all, social media negatively affects politics by creating tools such as fake news, to prevent people from obtaining accurate political information and consequently resulting in them to vote based on this information. Additionally, foreign countries are using social media to spread fake news and threaten the integrity of other countrie’s democratic processes. A possible solution to this would be government funded programs to educate the public about social media. The Library of Congress states, “Digital educational programs including the issuance of handbooks and social media advertising campaigns raise awareness of the responsible and critical use of online election information…” (Levush & Ruth, Other Government Action, 2019). By implementing this, the public would be more careful about looking toward social media for political information and discussion. A limitation would be not all governments would be willing to put in the money needed to fund these programs.
Works Cited
Anderson, M., & Auxier, B. (2020, August 19). 55% of U.S. social media users say they are ‘worn out’ by political posts and discussions. Pew Research Center. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/19/55-of-u-s-social-media-users-say-they-are-worn-out-by-political-posts-and-discussions/
Levush, & Ruth. (2019, August 31). Government Responses to Disinformation on Social Media Platforms. www.loc.gov/law/help/social-media-disinformation/compsum.php
Michael Hameleers My Reality Is More Truthful Than Yours- Radical Right-Wing Politicians' and Citizens' Construction of "Fake" and "Truthfulness" on Social Media--Evidence From the United States and The Netherlands..pdf.
O'Sullivan, D., Dale, D., & Business, C. (2020, September 1). Republicans are flooding the internet with deceptive videos and Big Tech isn't keeping up. www.cnn.com/2020/09/01/tech/trump-facebook-twitter-fact-check/index.html
Robert S. Mueller. Report_Volume2.pdf. Retrieved October 15, 2020, from https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf
Tucker, A.G, Barberá, C.V, Siegel, S.S, Stukal, & B.N Social-Media-Political-Polarization-and-Political-Disinformation-Literature-Review.pdf. Retrieved October 17, 2020, from https://www.hewlett.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Social-Media-Political-Polarization-and-Political-Disinformation-Literature-Review.pdf
Larissa Rhodes, & Jeff Orlowski (2020) The Social Dilemma [Documentary]. USA
Angelo Fichera. Viral Chart Distorts Human Trafficking Statistics - FactCheck.org. Retrieved October 14, 2020, from https://www.factcheck.org/2020/08/viral-chart-distorts-human-trafficking-statistics/
Wired. (2020, October 23). Debunking Election & Social Media Myths [YouTube video] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsaoI8Nrivg
Written by Heidi Tse from New York City
Comments