The rise of social media in the last couple decades has spawned many issues, with some benefits as well. Since it is a relatively new phenomenon, these issues have not been apparent until recently. At the individual level, issues of privacy and the adverse psychological effects of it have been well-researched and documented. But I believe its effect on society and international relations has not been properly realized yet, possibly because it has not been around long enough. I will attempt to divulge these effects based on a constructivist viewpoint.
Constructivism is a theoretical framework that helps explain international relations. It posits that the identities and norms of a state play the most crucial role in its behavior with others. Ideas, beliefs, and even languages can feed off social interactions in the nation to establish a political identity with its own set of behavioral parameters. For example, the U.S. is uniquely equipped to respond to issues or the behavior of other states by its status as a wealthy, aggressive democracy. Thus, it is more likely to negotiate or make alliances with similar nations due to their shared identity and interests. Constructivism as a theoretical tool to explain international relations is a relatively recent one, not entering political science discussions until the 1980s. Since then, it has evolved to rival the liberal and realist methods, which are more traditional and originated centuries ago.
Social media has arguably become the greatest tool for individuals to affect the values of a state through constructivist modes than any other. Its political impact cannot be understated. As a threat to any authoritarian regime that does not regulate it, social media quickly became a megaphone for individual activism. This happened during the Arab Spring, when a group of private citizens organized a Facebook and YouTube campaign to oust former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak from power (Mingst, McKibben, Arreguin-Toft, 2019:143). Other groups in the movement were similarly mobilized by social media, though the extent to which it was effective is not agreed upon by scholars. Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) have provided another vehicle through which social media can spread information about the crimes of an authoritarian leader and call people to action. In 2012, Invisible Children, an NGO aimed at exposing the crimes of Ugandan leader Joseph Kony, released a video to Western audiences that went viral, effectively spreading awareness of it (Mingst, McKibben, Arreguin-Toft, 2019:382), with the result of expanding protection and recovery programs in Uganda.
In these respects, social media has a tremendous impact on reshaping the cultural identities of people in authoritarian nations. Not only do they export awareness of human rights abuses to other states, but they import information about life in democracies they wouldn’t otherwise have access to, infusing new values and norms that would ideologically threaten their leaders. This is likely why authoritarian regimes like North Korea, China, Iran, and Thailand have either banned or regulated social media use in their countries (Comparitech, 2021). The leaders in these countries understand how powerful a tool it is for individuals and NGOs to extend their influence, threatening their power like it did to states in the Arab Spring.
What is not often understood is the reverse effect social media has on democracies, which can also pose a threat to their existence. Populism has recently resurfaced around the world, mostly in democracies where social media is unregulated. These movements combine fervent nationalism with a type of resistance to established institutions involving the use of social media as an alternative to mainstream news, which they associate with elitists in the political order (Flew, Iosifidis, 2019). Significantly, they can attract many more people than traditional media can because of the mass cultural appeal of social networking. They also allow exponential interaction compared to traditional media, because news stories, videos, and tweets that go viral can be shared at ultra-high rates across the globe. Furthermore, most social media apps are free, attracting many users who are disenchanted with the political state of their nation, regardless of whether it is a dictatorship or democracy.
Social media creates a fertile breeding ground for populism because people are easily able to channel their anger through it. This has been compounded by the recent news of Facebook’s algorithm, where posts with anger as the most common reaction were five times more likely to appear higher in news feeds than others (Merrill, Oremus, 2021). To make matters worse, many of the news stories that inflame people are not even real. The writers of fake news seek to profit from the prolific sharing of misinformation, manipulating social values in alarming ways, like the way propaganda does when misinformation is spread by a government. This creates a recipe for tremendous social upheaval, accentuating the norms and values of all groups of people- but mostly the disenchanted masses, who are more likely to be uneducated and thus more vulnerable to the spread of misinformation. Social media does not encourage calculated, rational debate as it does on mainstream news, where journalistic integrity is at stake. Rather, it magnifies an irrational public mood that is shaped and reinforced by narrow worldviews (Flew, Iosifidis, 2019). It takes things a step further by allowing people to interact “in isolation with those who already think what we think” (Sunstein, 2009). When political emotions become mobilized by social media, they influence a pool of radicalized users whose social identities are unwittingly reinforced by the platform they are using. Populist leaders can then use it to their advantage by posting hateful, conspiratorial, or controversial comments, inciting radical reactions to their grandiose claims. Flew and Iosifidis (2019) state that Brexit, the election of Donald Trump, and the election of Bolsanaro in Brazil in 2018, are all thought to have been populist movements fueled by radical claims or fake news on social media: “In parallel with Trump’s sensational victory, the vote for Brexit was secured in what has been dubbed the era of ‘post-truth politics’ largely based on fake news, the misuse of statistics and appeals to emotion rather than policies and facts”. Thus, we can imagine the full range of social media’s effect on constructivist identities: that just as authoritarian regimes are threatened by the greater public exposure it creates, democratic regimes open to free speech can become threatened by the distorted views of would-be dictators.
While social media does spread valuable information and ideas that can benefit humanity, including those about climate change, migration, and other hardships in addition to dictatorships and human rights abuses, it also does the opposite by institutionalizing the use of disinformation to further the agendas of profiteers. The overall effect this has on the future of national identities is that authoritarian regimes may shift toward more democratic norms, while democracies may shift toward more authoritarian ones. Since constructivism is defined by the fluidity of identities, norms, and values, social media provides one of the greatest tools for social transformation ever conceived.
The debate now is over whether social media serves the public and should therefore be nationalized as a public utility with more regulation. In the U.S., this proposition may run into trouble with the first Amendment, which establishes freedom of speech so long as it does not endanger others. But at what point does unregulated social media produce enough disinformation that it would pose a risk to democracy, requiring an exception to the first Amendment? On January 6th, 2021, the most influential democracy in the world was threatened by a mob of radicalized protestors, an event that was largely coordinated through social media. Free speech has its limits, and we may be overdue for a new one. I am more in favor of the stricter regulation of social media and not full censorship, because it is important to limit the spread of disinformation while supporting the spread of true information. An international agency that would enforce penalties for fake news on social media platforms is an excellent way to protect people from the damaging effects of disinformation. If states got involved by writing laws to protect people from it, this may ensure that the companies who created the platforms are conducting proper regulation of user activity themselves. Just as authoritarian nations regulated social media use, so too must democracies if they want to stay strong. This is a primary constructivist dilemma we are facing in the world, where national identities can so easily be reshaped by new technological developments like social media.
References:
Bischoff, Paul. 2021. “Internet Censorship 2021: A Global Map of Internet Restrictions.” Comparitech.com. Retrieved November 17, 2021, https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/internet-censorship-map/
Flew, Terry, Petros Iosifidis. 2019. “Populism, Globalisation, and Social Media.” SAGE Journals. Retrieved November 17, 2021, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1748048519880721
Mingst, Karen A., Heather Elko McKibben, Ivan M. Arreguin-Toft. 2019. Essentials of International Relations, 8th ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Merrill, Jeremy B, Will Oremus. 2021. “Five Points for Anger, one for a “Like”: How Facebook’s Formula Fostered Rage and Misinformation.” Washington Post. Retrieved November 17, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/26/facebook-angry-emoji-algorithm/
Sunstein, Cass R. 2009. Republic.com 2.0. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment