Can we truly have democracy with today's tech?

[Guest lydiahardwood]

Brace yourselves, this is somewhat a heavy topic.

I read a book a few years back called Tech vs Democracy. It was written around the time of a UK election, where Cambridge Analytica got a lot of attention for using harvested Facebook data for political advertising.

As a result, paid targeting options on social media have been changed so you can no longer target people with certain political opinions (although, let's face it, there are still ways to do that) but now I've been thinking about algorithms, and how social media platforms are very good at keeping us in our little bubbles. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing; it means we get shown content we are actually interested in. But can it be dangerous in that it restricts us from other opinions? Or lulls us into a false sense of security? As an example, I get shocked when I see misogynistic, anti-SW content, but that's only because I never engage with that kind of stuff. It's very much there, but I forget because I rarely get exposed to it.

Another thought I had (sorry, really gone down a rabbit hole here) is that some political parties get more sponsorship, therefore have a bigger marketing budget. Is that fair? Is it democratic? Working in marketing, I have seen many an impressive campaign that would tempt people to buy into things they never normally would. An example is how the Brexit campaign in the UK used a bus to tell citizens that leaving the UK would mean an additional £350million for the NHS. It played into people's emotions and patriotism, despite not being factual. 

So, over to you. Do you think that social media and tech is creating a bigger divide between "left and right"? Or do you think it's opening us up to more content and more opinions? Do you think there should be some kind of regulation over using advertising platforms for political reasons? And if so, who/how should this be regulated?

 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, lydiahardwood said:

As a result, paid targeting options on social media have been changed so you can no longer target people with certain political opinions (although, let's face it, there are still ways to do that) but now I've been thinking about algorithms, and how social media platforms are very good at keeping us in our little bubbles. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing; it means we get shown content we are actually interested in. But can it be dangerous in that it restricts us from other opinions? Or lulls us into a false sense of security? As an example, I get shocked when I see misogynistic, anti-SW content, but that's only because I never engage with that kind of stuff. It's very much there, but I forget because I rarely get exposed to it.

     We simply need to look at the U.S. elections to see the evolution of social media and politics. In 2008 Obama was the first to take advantage of it with a message of hope and unity. In 2016, Trump weaponized it with misinformation and propaganda from inside and outside the country. This pressured tech companies to control the spread of misinformation/content. But the threat was only taken seriously after the 2020 election, when domestic terrorists and seriously misguided Trump followers stormed the U.S. Capitol. This forced many social media platforms to change their policies in regard to misinformation, hate speech and use as a communication tool for illegal activities.

     There still work to do, but at least they know where the problems are.

     

3 hours ago, lydiahardwood said:

Another thought I had (sorry, really gone down a rabbit hole here) is that some political parties get more sponsorship, therefore have a bigger marketing budget. Is that fair? Is it democratic? Working in marketing, I have seen many an impressive campaign that would tempt people to buy into things they never normally would.

     There laws in regard to disclosure and how much can be spent. More money help, but not always a guaranteed victory. When there's a demand for change, no amount of marketing will change that. In 2015, Harper/Conservatives spent much more. But the ridiculously long campaign based on negative ads ended up burning him and his entire party. As for the "Brexit campaign in the UK", the problem was more than just money. The Labour Party seemed more busy with internal conflicts than dealing with the actual campaign.

[OldandNerdy 1304]

As far as the impact to politics, I feel that at this point in time, there aren't too many politicians that don't have access to significant funding, depending of course on what level of politician we are talking about.

 

This somewhat levels the playing field when it comes to access to media (traditional and tech oriented / social media).  Where the difference comes in would be how the team's use these tools.

 

Outside of politics, social media does tend to guide peoples opinions. I think all of us have been victim to this at some point on either side of the equation.

 

Generally we as a society will take what we see on various online platforms as "truth" until it's proven to be false.  This is the real problem IMHO.

 

It's very difficult to change someones opinion after its been ingrained into them for a period of time.   People don't want to feel "stupid" for believing something for so long and so strongly that it's hard to get them to switch gears.

 

As for a bigger divide, I think that the divide has always been there, but now everyone has access to the same platforms.  If I have an opinion on something - say..  oxygen is causing more deaths than ever before! - within 5 minutes, I can share that opinion worldwide across multiple social media platforms.  I think it's pretty much given that more controversial statements are spread more quickly as shock sells and everyone is chasing likes/upvotes for validation. 

 

I often think of a line from Letterkenny when this type of topic comes up.

"Bad gas travels fast in a small town". 

 

Our small town is now the world.  We do have a responsibility to stop letting ridiculousness spreading widely, but the release of chemicals in our bodies that we get from someone validating us online is addictive so we just can't stop.  

 

Access to these tools is very democratic.   What we do with this access a lot of the time is not.

[Guest lydiahardwood]

55 minutes ago, Greenteal said:

As for the "Brexit campaign in the UK", the problem was more than just money. The Labour Party seemed more busy with internal conflicts than dealing with the actual campaign.

You're not wrong there. If they had taken a stronger stance against Brexit they'd have done much better in the election, I think. Alas, what is done is done.

[Guest lydiahardwood]

49 minutes ago, OldandNerdy said:

Our small town is now the world.  We do have a responsibility to stop letting ridiculousness spreading widely, but the release of chemicals in our bodies that we get from someone validating us online is addictive so we just can't stop.  

 

Access to these tools is very democratic.   What we do with this access a lot of the time is not.

I hadn't thought of this, from the validation perspective at least. I've worked in social media for many years now and I've witnessed strategies that involve the promotion of "click bait" titles, due to them receiving the most interaction. I've also seen companies then targeting people with opposing viewpoints, to increase the engagement. It's good that social media giants seem to be cracking down on this, but sensationalism has always been there and I can't see it going away any time soon.

 

Your last line: Access to these tools is very democratic. What we do with this access a lot of the time is not.

That hits the nail on the head for me. I can't really think of any answers other than encouraging critical thinking from a young age and encouraging healthy debate with opposing viewpoints, whilst citing accurate sources. It's a minefield, really.

[OldandNerdy 1304]

1 hour ago, lydiahardwood said:

I hadn't thought of this, from the validation perspective at least. I've worked in social media for many years now and I've witnessed strategies that involve the promotion of "click bait" titles, due to them receiving the most interaction. I've also seen companies then targeting people with opposing viewpoints, to increase the engagement. It's good that social media giants seem to be cracking down on this, but sensationalism has always been there and I can't see it going away any time soon.

 

Your last line: Access to these tools is very democratic. What we do with this access a lot of the time is not.

That hits the nail on the head for me. I can't really think of any answers other than encouraging critical thinking from a young age and encouraging healthy debate with opposing viewpoints, whilst citing accurate sources. It's a minefield, really.

Sensationalism sells.  It always has, all you have to do is look back 40 years ago to the "National Enquirer" .  Everyone with any sense knew it was primarily "click bait BS" sitting there at the grocery store checkout, but as a society we enjoy relishing in others' misery, especially if they seem to have more than we do.  It validates us.

 

Fast forward to now, and anyone can say anything they want with whatever proof they can come up with, and then later redact it if someone proves them wrong.  Unfortunately their original statements live on publicly instead of ending up in the trash and forgotten about like people did with the enquirer. 

 

As an online society we chase validation from a global audience, we evaluate our self worth based on how many people "see us" and "like" what we have done.  

 

I think large swaths of the younger generation "know" how to tell if something is BS or not, but they don't care when they can gain followers online by sharing BS.  They tend to not understand the impact this has in influcing others. 

 

Remember, in traditional media, reputable publications needed to have at least 2 reputable confirmations before printing a news story that could be negatively impactful.

 

In new media, those confirmations are becoming more and more "I saw it on Twitter, Tik Tok and Facebook...  so IT MUST BE TRUE". Even if all 3 of those sources were originating from a single source.

[Phaedrus 209521]

We can still have democracy with today's tech. It's just that it looks very different now.

Winning political campaigns using misinformation is... not new. What has changed is the speed at which the lies can spread, and the speed at which other people make up new lies to reinforce the old ones, and they way in which our social media bubbles tend to feed us stuff we already agree with whether it's true or not. We all have whatever beliefs we have, and we simply don't get the pushback on them any more. We aren't forced to defend our beliefs because we only talk to people who already agree with them.

I'm not sure how we change that, because... people like to be comfortable, and like to feel smart, and exposure to people who tell you that you're wrong about something runs contrary to that so we tend to avoid it. That's just human nature; the problem is that social media, by the nature of the way it works, tends to reward some of the bits of human nature that do a lot of long-term damage.