In an ideal democratic world, all citizens are invited to debate political necessities and possibilities to the best of their knowledge and to forge their country\u2019s future in this way. In an ideal democratic world, political debate is, in other words, both inclusive and evidence-led. In a dystopian world, by contrast, political debate is exclusive and ignores available evidence on politically important matters. The rich and powerful few are able to manipulate political debate just for the sake of becoming even richer and even more powerful.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Countries such as the UK and the US are at risk of moving closer and closer to the dystopian world and the rise of social media has no small role to play in this. What is happening and what can stop this dystopian threat?<\/p>\n
At first, starting with the Arab spring, the rise of social media was hailed as the beginning of a more radically democratic age. After all, social media drastically lowers the cost of participating in political debate \u2013 anyone with access to the internet can blog or tweet their political views or post political videos on Youtube. Social media thus has the potential of making political debate much more inclusive and we have seen the positive effects of this with movements such as \u201cMe Too\u201d or \u201cBlack Lives Matter\u201d.<\/p>\n
The inclusivity of social media provides an important check-point for democratic debates that are inevitably always at risk of excluding important perspectives. Democratic debates can be high-jacked by influential lobbyists, for example. Similarly, experts that are in the pockets of lobbyists or that are biased towards their privileged social background may also be more influential than their views merit. Political debate needs evidence-led contributions and on some issues, there are people who know more than others. But it\u2019s not always easy to protect political debate from undue influence, including from false experts.<\/p>\n
But inclusivity also has a dark side. It has become evident that political debates on social media can easily get out of hand and facilitate hate speech of all sorts. While there is nothing wrong with negative emotions such as anger or fear in the right place, social media appears to be a fertile ground for overshooting emotions. The business model of social media companies that relies on facilitating more \u2018likes\u2019 and \u2018shares\u2019 has some role to play in this. It forces political debate on social media into a what we may call a boo-hooray structure: EU\u2014boo!, MAGA\u2014hooray!, for example.<\/p>\n
Relatedly, evidence-led contributions often struggle to get a hold on social media. The boo-hooray structure of political debate on social media is not conducive to scrutinise the evidence that supports \u2013 or fails to support \u2013 particular political claims. In this way, social media facilitates, and even invites, the spread of fake news and other false information. This puts political debate on social media at risk of ignoring evidence about politically relevant matters.<\/p>\n
Even more concerning is the possibility that the boo-hooray structure of social media can be exploited by those already in power to intentionally spread disinformation and to undermine the critical role of inclusive political debate in this way. It has been commented on several time already (here<\/a> and here<\/a>, for example) that we might be witnessing a concerted effort to destabilise the functioning of democracy in precisely this way. The more dysfunctional and evidence-ignoring debates on social media are, the better for the powerful who want to circumvent scrutiny in order to further advance their own ends.<\/p>\n A new regulatory framework for social media is needed to stop the ongoing erosion of democratic institutions and practices before it\u2019s too late. In light of the above, restoring the key democratic function of political debate, namely to allow for the informed, critical scrutiny of all political claims from all relevant perspectives, is particularly important.<\/p>\n How can this be achieved? That\u2019s obviously a difficult question. But focusing on political advertising campaigns and on social media contributions by influential politicians is a good start, I want to suggest. Of particular importance is limiting the influence of obviously false information on political debate as such contributions can only serve to derail political debate. This can be achieved by not allowing political advertising campaigns to include obviously false information \u2013 contrary to Facebook\u2019s own policy, for example \u2013 and by imposing a similar restriction on social media contributions by influential politicians. I emphasise that only obviously false information should be regulated in this way, to avoid worries of undue censorship or limitations on free speech.<\/p>\n In sum, the inclusivity of social media is a good thing, but the boo-hooray structure it imposes on political debate is not. The boo-hooray structure needs to be replaced by a structure that facilitates the informed scrutiny of political claims from all relevant perspectives and that thus hast the potential to bring political debate closer again to the democratic ideal.<\/p>\n Picture from Norwood Themes on Unsplash<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"In an ideal democratic world, all citizens are invited to debate political necessities and possibilities to the best of their knowledge and to forge their country\u2019s future in this way. […]","protected":false},"author":1319,"featured_media":854,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"A new post 'Political Debate in the Digital Age' by Fabienne Peter on Open for Debate","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[19],"tags":[5,65,7,44],"custom_author":[217],"class_list":["post-852","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-open-for-debate","tag-debate","tag-fake-news","tag-politics","tag-social-media","custom_author-peter-fabienne"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8KPlM-dK","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":249,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/good-democracy-needs-good-questions\/","url_meta":{"origin":852,"position":0},"title":"Good Democracy Needs Good Questions","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"September 25, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cIf you were president, what would you do about Syria and the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo?\u201d This question was asked to both candidates at the second U.S. presidential debate, during the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. As per the \u2018town-hall\u2019 format of the debate, the question was asked by\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Changing Attitudes"","block_context":{"text":"Changing Attitudes","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/changing-attitudes\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/09\/questions.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/09\/questions.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/09\/questions.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":921,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/ethicists-hold-your-horses-part-2\/","url_meta":{"origin":852,"position":1},"title":"Ethicists, hold your horses (Part 2)","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"June 1, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Fleur Jongepier\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Karin Jongsma In Part 1 we have argued that it\u2019s better if ethicists do not publish their takes on triage at this moment. A democratic\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/05\/lego.2_0_image003-300x169.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":516,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/why-even-bother-with-political-debate\/","url_meta":{"origin":852,"position":2},"title":"Why even bother with political debate?","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"October 8, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Debates about politics, whether in public forums or in private conversations, often seem to go nowhere. This is particularly true when the participants have diametrically opposed perspectives on how the world works and how it should work. Even when people manage to stay civil, which of course is not always\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/10\/laid-table-1317457.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/10\/laid-table-1317457.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/10\/laid-table-1317457.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/10\/laid-table-1317457.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/10\/laid-table-1317457.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/10\/laid-table-1317457.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1625,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/truth-and-the-facebookians\/","url_meta":{"origin":852,"position":3},"title":"Truth and the Facebookians","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"February 6, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Imagine a community\u2014call them the \u201cFacebookians\u201d\u2014whose politics is deeply polarized. Their political discourse reflects this divisiveness, but to a very unusual extent. For in making political claims, Facebookians are guided by just one rule: only say (or post) what is liked by your friends and which you are willing defend\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Neon sign with zero \"likes\"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/02\/prateek-katyal-xv7-GlvBLFw-unsplash.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/02\/prateek-katyal-xv7-GlvBLFw-unsplash.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/02\/prateek-katyal-xv7-GlvBLFw-unsplash.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/02\/prateek-katyal-xv7-GlvBLFw-unsplash.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/02\/prateek-katyal-xv7-GlvBLFw-unsplash.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/02\/prateek-katyal-xv7-GlvBLFw-unsplash.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":217,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/the-ethics-of-linguistic-plurality\/","url_meta":{"origin":852,"position":4},"title":"The Ethics of Linguistic Plurality","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"September 11, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"A guest post from co-authors Matteo Bonotti (Cardiff University) and Yael Peled (McGill University) How we think about language tends to significantly influence, if not shape, how we think about the political ethics of language, namely how we theorize language when considering the empirical and normative dimensions of political life.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/09\/font-705667_1920.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/09\/font-705667_1920.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/09\/font-705667_1920.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/09\/font-705667_1920.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/09\/font-705667_1920.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/09\/font-705667_1920.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":793,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/how-to-build-a-safer-internet\/","url_meta":{"origin":852,"position":5},"title":"How To Build A Safer Internet","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"November 18, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Earlier this year, the UK government consulted on an Online Harms White Paper that proposes a new model of social media regulation. The response to the consultation was lukewarm at best, and a consistent theme is that the white paper lacks a robust theoretical underpinning. The Carnegie UK Trust identify\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/11\/blog-header.jpeg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/11\/blog-header.jpeg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/11\/blog-header.jpeg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/11\/blog-header.jpeg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/11\/blog-header.jpeg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"meta_box":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/02\/nordwood-themes-cNXqmO0Z24U-unsplash-scaled.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/852","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1319"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=852"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/852\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":855,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/852\/revisions\/855"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/854"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=852"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=852"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=852"},{"taxonomy":"custom_author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/custom_author?post=852"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}