tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/social-media-politics-39928/articlessocial media politics – The Conversation2023-09-10T13:04:15Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2123222023-09-10T13:04:15Z2023-09-10T13:04:15ZCan ❤️s change minds? How social media influences public opinion and news circulation<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/547064/original/file-20230907-19-un9dpz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=35%2C8%2C5955%2C3979&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">To maximize the benefits of social media while minimizing its harms, we need to better understand how it works and how it affects us. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100px; border: none; position: relative; z-index: 1;" allowtransparency="" allow="clipboard-read; clipboard-write" src="https://narrations.ad-auris.com/widget/the-conversation-canada/can-s-change-minds-how-social-media-influences-public-opinion-and-news-circulation" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>Social media use has been shown to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20211218">decrease mental health</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20190658">and well-being, and to increase levels of political polarization</a>. </p>
<p>But social media also provides many benefits, including facilitating access to information, enabling connections with friends, serving as an outlet for expressing opinions and allowing news to be shared freely.</p>
<p>To maximize the benefits of social media while minimizing its harms, we need to better understand the different ways in which it affects us. Social science can contribute to this understanding. I recently conducted two studies with colleagues to investigate and disentangle some of the complex effects of social media.</p>
<h2>Social media likes and public policy</h2>
<p>In a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231177899">recently published article</a>, my co-researchers (Pierluigi Conzo, Laura K. Taylor, Margaret Samahita and Andrea Gallice) and I examined how social media endorsements, such as likes and retweets, can influence people’s opinions on policy issues.</p>
<p>We conducted an experimental survey in 2020 with respondents from the United States, Italy and Ireland. In the study, we showed participants social media posts about COVID-19 and the tension between economic activity and public health. Pro-economy posts prioritized economic activities over the elimination of COVID-19. For instance, they advocated for reopening businesses despite potential health risks.</p>
<p>Pro-public health posts, on the other hand, prioritized the elimination of COVID-19 over economic activities. For example, they supported the extension of lockdown measures despite the associated economic costs.</p>
<p>We then manipulated the perceived level of support within these social media posts. One group of participants viewed pro-economy posts with a high number of likes and pro-public health posts with a low number of likes, while another group viewed the reverse.</p>
<p>After participants viewed the posts, we asked whether they agreed with various pandemic-related policies, such as restrictions on gatherings and border closures.</p>
<p>Overall, we found that the perceived level of support of the social media posts did not affect participants’ views — with one exception. Participants who reported using Facebook or Twitter for more than one hour a day did appear to be influenced. For these respondents, the perceived endorsements in the posts affected their policy preferences. </p>
<p>Participants that viewed pro-economy posts with high number of likes were less likely to favour pandemic-related restrictions, such as prohibiting gatherings. Those that viewed pro-public health posts with high number of likes were more likely to favour restrictions.</p>
<p>Social media metrics can be an important mechanism through which online influence occurs. Though not all users pay attention to these metrics, those that do can change their opinions as a result. </p>
<p>Active social media users in our survey were also more likely to report being politically engaged. They were more likely to have voted and discussed policy issues with friends and family (both online and offline) more frequently. These perceived metrics could, therefore, also have effects on politics and policy decisions.</p>
<h2>Twitter’s retweet change and news sharing</h2>
<p>In October 2020, a few weeks before the U.S. presidential election, <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/09/twitter-retweet-changes-quote-tweet-election-misinformation/">Twitter changed the functionality of its retweet button</a>. The modified button prompted users to share a quote tweet instead, encouraging them to add their own commentary. </p>
<p>Twitter hoped that this change would encourage users to reflect on the content they were sharing and to slow down the spread of misinformation and false news.</p>
<p>In a recent <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1M1Vl07pqq2lDLS-9FUMfW7TnpO4OxCO3/view">working paper</a>, my co-researcher Daniel Ershov and I investigated how Twitter’s change to its user interface affected the spread of information on the platform.</p>
<p>We collected Twitter data for popular U.S. news outlets and examined what happened to their retweets after the change was implemented. Our study revealed that this change had significant effects on news diffusion: on average, retweets for news media outlets fell by over 15 per cent.</p>
<p>We then investigated whether the change affected all news media outlets to the same extent. We specifically examined whether media outlets where misinformation is more common were affected more by the change. We discovered this was not the case: the effect on these outlets was not greater than for outlets of higher journalistic quality (and if anything, the effects were slightly smaller).</p>
<p>A similar comparison revealed that left-wing news outlets were affected significantly more than right-wing outlets. The average drop in retweets for liberal outlets was more than 20 per cent, but the drop for conservative outlets was only five per cent. This occurred because conservative users changed their behaviour significantly less than liberal users.</p>
<p>Lastly, we also found that Twitter’s policy affected visits to the websites of the news outlets affected, suggesting that the new policy had broad effects on the diffusion of news.</p>
<h2>Understanding social media</h2>
<p>These two studies underscore that seemingly simple features can have complex effects on user attitudes and media diffusion. Disentangling the specific features that make up social media and estimating their individual effects is key to understanding how social media affects us. </p>
<p>Like Instagram, Meta’s new Threads platform allows users to hide the number of likes on posts. X, formerly Twitter, <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2023/08/31/x-formerly-twitter-is-now-letting-paid-users-hide-their-likes/">has just rolled out a similar feature</a> by allowing paid users to hide their likes. These decisions can have important implications for political discourse within the new social network. </p>
<p>At the same time, subtle changes to platforms’ design can have unintended consequences which depend on how users respond to these policies. Social scientists can play an important role in furthering our understanding of these nuanced effects of social media.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/212322/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Study 1 was approved by University College Dublin Office of Research Ethics (reference numbers: HS-E-20-110-Samahita and HS-E-20-134-Samahita) and funded by University College Dublin, Collegio Carlo Alberto, and the Einaudi Institute for Economics and Finance. Data for Study 2 was accessed through the Academic Research Twitter API. The author has no direct relevant material or financial interest that relate to the research described.</span></em></p>Two recent studies shed light on how seemingly simple social media features can have complex effects on user attitudes and beliefs.Juan S. Morales, Assistant Professor of Economics, Wilfrid Laurier UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1972922023-01-09T11:12:09Z2023-01-09T11:12:09ZThe online ‘hierarchy of credibility’ that fuels influencers like Andrew Tate<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/503427/original/file-20230106-15-h4wf1m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=93%2C40%2C3800%2C2913&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The arrest of influencer Andrew Tate in Romania on charges of sex trafficking and sexual abuse will <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jan/01/fans-andrew-tate-king-of-toxic-masculinity-flood-web-arrest">do little to deter his supporters</a>. For some time now, those outside his sphere of influence have looked on bemused as to how he appears to have accumulated so much power over young people. </p>
<hr>
<iframe id="noa-web-audio-player" style="border: none" src="https://embed-player.newsoveraudio.com/v4?key=x84olp&id=https://theconversation.com/the-online-hierarchy-of-credibility-that-fuels-influencers-like-andrew-tate-197292&bgColor=F5F5F5&color=D8352A&playColor=D8352A" width="100%" height="110px"></iframe>
<p><em>You can listen to more articles from The Conversation, narrated by Noa, <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/audio-narrated-99682">here</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>The fact is that Tate, like many others, has tapped into the understanding that people who feel disenfranchised seek leadership, guidance, and hope via the internet. He is part of a new social hierarchy that is forming around people who feel let down by conventional leaders. </p>
<p>Within my research, I argue that the legitimacy and credibility of the British and US governments has corroded since the turn of the century. Trust in the British government <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/survey-trust-in-british-government-dropped-to-record-low/">dropped to an all-time low in 2021</a>. </p>
<p>There have been many controversial issues and political indignities such as the <a href="https://www.democraticaudit.com/2017/07/07/long-read-public-opinion-legitimacy-and-tony-blairs-war-in-iraq/">invasion of Iraq</a>, the British <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6499657/MPs-expenses-scandal-a-timeline.html">parliamentary expenses scandal</a>, the Edward Snowden leaks of government surveillance, economic austerity, failed Brexit promises, and, most recently, <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/7a2093f8-55f8-400f-9176-2225b9193e05">COVID PPE deals</a> that have subsequently come under scrutiny. Every example of unethical government behaviour undermines any illusion that political elites are morally and intellectually superior to the people they lead and contributes to a decline in public faith.</p>
<p>The internet and social media have exacerbated this problem. We, the public, can share information like never before and critique the people who sit at the top of a long-standing <a href="https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780199683581.001.0001/acref-9780199683581-e-1006%3Bjsessionid=0EF68E5AB5773383BA9F6C9FE0637B44#:%7E:text=A%2520concept%2520introduced%2520by%2520Howard,at%2520the%2520bottom%2520less%2520so.">hierarchy of credibility</a>.
Politicians have fewer stones under which to hide, <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/bulletins/trustingovernmentuk/2022">fuelling the erosion of their leadership credentials</a>. </p>
<p>Sociologist Howard Becker’s <a href="https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780199683581.001.0001/acref-9780199683581-e-1006;jsessionid=0EF68E5AB5773383BA9F6C9FE0637B44">hierarchy of credibility</a> suggests a way to determine who defines reality and what the truth should be. It is grounded in the principle that those belonging to the highest-ranking social groups have the authority and the credibility to define and decipher events. </p>
<p>Other sociologists, such as <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/089124167300200308">Stanley Cohen</a>, <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/29766074">Stuart Hall</a> and <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/02673231070220030707">Chas Critcher</a> have added the idea that social actors such as political leaders, police and the media occupy high positions in the mainstream hierarchy. They frame phenomena on behalf of the rest of us at the grassroots level.</p>
<p>One part of this hierarchy is the <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosm122#:%7E:text=A%2520moral%2520entrepreneur%2520is%2520an,own%2520ardently%2520held%2520moral%2520beliefs.">moral entrepreneur</a>. This is a person or organisation occupying the middle rungs of society, often campaigning in favour of a particular social issue within the mainstream social system. They strive to challenge narratives and gain support for their causes.</p>
<p>Finally, at the bottom of the mainstream hierarchy are “laymen”, whose knowledge and understanding of world events is given to them by those at the top. </p>
<h2>The ‘alt-moral entrepreneur’</h2>
<p>Just as social media has enabled us to witness more elite scandal and unethical behaviour than ever before, it has also made it possible for alternative hierarchies to emerge. It is within these hierarchies that people like Tate thrive. </p>
<p>The internet has provided platforms for the fringes of society to voice their discontent and connect with like-minded others. And these new hierarchies are the perfect environment for people who have lost faith in the mainstream social ordering and in the willingness of conventional leaders to hold their best interests at heart. Or, as is often the case with Andrew Tate’s followers, those who are <a href="https://www.collectiveshout.org/andrew_tate_a_grade_poison_what_parents_and_teachers_need_to_know_about_his_indoctrination_of_boys">too young and impressionable</a> to understand the difference. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aiPmQIMxlKs?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Tate’s arrest explained.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>At the most extreme tip of this hierarchy, populist political figures such as Donald Trump and conspiracy theorists such as Alex Jones hold strong credulity and high positions. Their distorted takes on world events are eagerly digested by disenfranchised followers who believe that they hold the answers to ongoing issues. These figures assume leadership roles, talk expertly on issues with little or flawed information, and profess populist remedies to such issues. </p>
<p>Tate slots in as what might be described as an “alt-moral entrepreneur” within this alternative online global hierarchy. His messages are projected as advice and guidance for “lost men” rather than being presented as full-blown conspiracy theories. Online videos disseminated by followers often portray Tate as an advice giver and a solver of men’s issues, akin to the moral entrepreneurs of the mainstream hierarchy. </p>
<p>Like many others, I have been bombarded via YouTube with videos of Tate’s preaching on various podcasts, shared by like-minded influencers (male and female) espousing similar views. He professes cures for men feeling lost in a system portrayed as oppressive to them, managed by political figureheads lacking moral credibility. </p>
<p>Tate and his brother, Tristan, often talk of their difficult “brokie” days, and how they rose to fame and attained wealth, suggesting such a route as achievable to others with the right mindset. Tate’s road map of how to go from “rags to riches” via the unethical treatment of women will have serious repercussions for today’s youth. </p>
<h2>A conundrum for the mainstream</h2>
<p>Mainstream leaders are yet to work out how to deal with these emerging online hierarchies. During a cost of living crisis where social and economic resources are being stretched to their limits, it is inevitable that some will suffer more than others. </p>
<p>If elected leaders can’t help the most disadvantaged, its natural that those same people will seek out help elsewhere to alleviate their hardship. It is here that political leaders fall short, failing to understand the sway that figures such as Tate have, and how such sway actively harms both the legitimacy of their elected leadership, and the democratic process itself. </p>
<p>Tate and others like him are a warning to the mainstream elite hierarchy that social changes are needed to prevent his kind from targeting and corrupting young men and women. People have moved beyond accepting political rhetoric with no end product, and the internet provides a means for people to step outside the mainstream hierarchy in search of alternatives. </p>
<p>It isn’t just a matter of silencing harmful rhetoric through cancellation. Political leaders need to meaningfully instil changes that lead to a renewed faith in their ability to create real prosperity. The alternative is Andrew Tate.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/197292/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul TJ French does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Those who feel disenfranchised from mainstream leaders are vulnerable to falling for the promises of online ‘leaders’ and ‘alt-moral entrepreneurs’.Paul TJ French, PhD Candidate in Criminal Law & Criminology; Lecturer of Criminology, University of Chester, Liverpool John Moores UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1577122021-03-24T11:21:41Z2021-03-24T11:21:41ZTrump is building a social media platform – but keeping it online will be a challenge<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/391224/original/file-20210323-18-1xwc8t6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=16%2C147%2C5070%2C3489&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/us-president-donald-trump-first-lady-1132563770">Alexandros Michailidis/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Having spent the early months of 2021 exiled from social media, Donald Trump may be set to make a return, circumventing his <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/08/tech/trump-twitter-ban/index.html">Twitter ban</a> by creating a social media platform of his own. Jason Miller, the Trump aide who announced the news, has said the platform could be ready in “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/21/trump-twitter-ban-social-media-own-platform">two or three months</a>”.</p>
<p>While the announcement might seem ambitious, building a social media platform is actually relatively easy. In 2004, a rudimentary form of Facebook was developed in just <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/the-true-story-of-how-mark-zuckerberg-founded-facebook-2016-2?r=US&IR=T#:%7E:text=D%C3%B6pfner%3A%20How%20long%20did%20the,three%20hundred%20billion%20dollar%20company%3F">two weeks</a>. Since then, advances in software development and cloud computing have made it far easier to create a social media platform in a short space of time.</p>
<p>But keeping the new platform online after its release could prove difficult. It’ll have to avoid the fate of “free speech” social media platforms favoured by Trump’s supporters. One such platform, Parler, found itself <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/parler-ceo-says-dropped-every-200411770.html">dropped from app stores</a> and forced offline after being accused of hosting content linked to the violence at the January 6 Capitol riot. </p>
<p>The platform will also likely become a target of hackers and “trolls” opposed to Trump’s brand of politics, who may look to find ways to shut it down or cause disruption. Trump’s new social media platform may well go live in two to three months – but keeping it online and free from disruption will be the real challenge.</p>
<h2>Trump deplatformed</h2>
<p>Trump’s plan comes after Twitter and Facebook decided to “<a href="https://theconversation.com/donald-trump-social-media-ban-shows-corporate-responsibility-can-win-out-over-profit-155531">deplatform</a>” him in response to the January 6 Capitol riot. Twitter’s Trump ban is permanent. Facebook’s ban is currently <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2021/01/21/facebook-oversight-board-trump-facebook-suspension/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAALY5s-KeV5H5az7JWN73k-QxIkY2ZkC_9kuDph82II8RyR2jI_CTxsis7EEVYHCpHVSOuPkjyxZlEnBPgTwDIals_Qn2SOwbOMLFDVSFImurUW09zfmFfkkDB8wfJeNAqa_fObxHDx8nTkHY-ufZaW_hrb0eNnG15soll2JlXXEP">under review</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/parler-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-free-speech-twitter-alternative-142268">Parler: what you need to know about the 'free speech' Twitter alternative</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Along with the suspension of Parler, these moves have forced millions, including many Trump supporters, onto a smattering of <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/donald-trump-supporters-flock-to-niche-social-media-sites/a-56233761">niche social media platforms</a>. Many of these people are likely to flock to a platform created by Trump, guaranteeing it a large user base at the very least. As Miller emphasised in his statement: “It is going to be big.”</p>
<h2>Building a platform</h2>
<p>Technically speaking, the new social media platform could be built and launched in a matter of weeks. Software developers have access to <a href="https://www.techradar.com/uk/best/best-mobile-app-development-software">easy-to-copy coding templates</a> that mean it needn’t be built from scratch.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/donald-trump-social-media-ban-shows-corporate-responsibility-can-win-out-over-profit-155531">Donald Trump: social media ban shows corporate responsibility can win out over profit</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But to support millions of potential users, the new platform will require the <a href="https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2968216">infrastructure to scale quickly</a>. If the correct infrastructure isn’t in place to support growth, Trump’s platform will simply crash under the strain of new users after its launch. The cloud computing infrastructure necessary to avoid crashing is typically provided by tech giants like Amazon’s AWS, Microsoft’s Azure, or Google’s Cloud. </p>
<p>Trump’s platform may be developed as a smartphone app that features in app stores, a website accessible through web browsers, or both. An app would be especially vulnerable to the whims of leading app stores – those run by Google and Apple – which could refuse to host the app if activity on it was seen to violate their terms of use.</p>
<p>One of the biggest challenges for Trump is whether all these providers, who are essentially the gatekeepers of the web, will agree to support his platform. Even if they do, the Parler precedent could see them withdraw their hosting at any time if users’ violent rhetoric goes unpoliced.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A thumb hovers over a phone screen featuring the icons for Twitter and Parler" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/391157/original/file-20210323-19-1aygib3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/391157/original/file-20210323-19-1aygib3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391157/original/file-20210323-19-1aygib3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391157/original/file-20210323-19-1aygib3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391157/original/file-20210323-19-1aygib3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391157/original/file-20210323-19-1aygib3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391157/original/file-20210323-19-1aygib3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Some Trump supporters moved from Twitter to Parler, only for it to be forced offline.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/parler-twitter-apps-finger-tip-above-1851904309">Ascannio/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Privacy and security</h2>
<p>Meanwhile, Trump’s platform will need to protect user privacy if it’s to avoid the attention of <a href="https://inews.co.uk/news/technology/donald-trump-social-media-platform-new-regulations-supporters-924229">data regulators</a>. If the platform is to be made available for EU citizens, for example, it’ll fall under <a href="https://gdpr.eu/fines/">EU data regulations</a>, which can impose huge fines – 4% of annual turnover or €20 million (£17.2 million), whichever is greater – if data on the app is misused. </p>
<p>Running parallel to privacy concerns, the security of Trump’s platform will also come under scrutiny after its release. The <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-53428304">hacking of Twitter</a> in 2020 proved that even the largest social media firms have security deficiencies. Meanwhile, the <a href="https://uk.pcmag.com/social-media/132163/gab-social-network-briefly-shut-downs-after-hacker-strikes-again">hacking of Gab</a> – a “free speech” platform similar to Parler – by a single “hacktivist” earlier this year showed how hacks motivated by political views could also pose a threat to Trump’s platform. </p>
<p>The strength of feeling against Trump suggests that no effort will be spared in attempts to humiliate him, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/21/trump-tulsa-rally-scheme-k-pop-fans-tiktok-users">TikTok users</a> did when they bought up tickets to Trump’s Tulsa rally in June 2020, only to leave their seats conspicuously empty for the event. As well as hackers, then, so-called “trolls” could set up profiles of their own to disrupt activity on Trump’s platform. </p>
<p>A number of Trump’s supporters were displaced from mainstream social media platforms after being linked with violent rhetoric, including the sharing of <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2056305117733226">white supremacist, racist and fascist tropes</a>. If those same views are shared on Trump’s platform, his latest social media adventure could quickly descend into toxic farce – prompting tech companies like Apple, Google and Amazon to intervene once again to stop the spread of violent speech online.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/157712/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>If it hosts the same violent rhetoric that saw Parler forced offline, Trump’s platform may be a short-lived adventure.Mohamed Mostafa, Senior Lecturer in Data Science, Cardiff Metropolitan UniversityChaminda Hewage, Reader in Data Security, Cardiff Metropolitan UniversitySimon Thorne, Senior Lecturer in Computing and Information Systems, Cardiff Metropolitan UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1472612020-10-01T20:05:45Z2020-10-01T20:05:45ZFacebook is merging Messenger and Instagram chat features. It’s for Zuckerberg’s benefit, not yours<p>Facebook Messenger and Instagram’s direct messaging services will be integrated into one system, Facebook has <a href="https://about.instagram.com/blog/announcements/say-hi-to-messenger-introducing-new-messaging-features-for-instagram">announced</a>. </p>
<p>The merge will allow shared messaging across both platforms, as well as video calls and the use of a range of tools drawn from both platforms. It’s currently being rolled out across countries on an opt-in basis, but hasn’t yet reached Australia.</p>
<p>Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg <a href="https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/a-privacy-focused-vision-for-social-networking/10156700570096634/">announced</a> plans in March last year to integrate Messenger, Instagram Direct and WhatsApp into a unified messaging experience. </p>
<p>At the crux of this was the goal to administer end-to-end encryption across the whole messaging “ecosystem”. </p>
<p>Ostensibly, this was part of Facebook’s renewed focus on privacy, in the wake of several highly publicised scandals. Most notable was its poor data protection that allowed political consulting firm <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election">Cambridge Analytica</a> to steal data from 87 million Facebook accounts and use it to target users with political ads ahead of the 2016 US presidential election.</p>
<p>In a <a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2020/09/new-messaging-features-for-instagram/">statement</a> released yesterday on the new merge, Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri and Messenger vice president Stan Chudnovsky wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… one out of three people sometimes find it difficult to remember where to find a certain conversation thread. With this update, it will be even easier to stay connected without thinking about which app to use to reach your friends and family.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>While that may seem harmless, it’s likely Facebook is actually attempting to make its apps inseparable, ahead of a <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-15/ftc-said-to-prepare-possible-antitrust-lawsuit-against-facebook">potential anti-trust lawsuit</a> in the US that may try to see the company sell Instagram and WhatsApp. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="InstagramEmbed" data-react-props="{"url":"https://www.instagram.com/p/CFxRG23pZXV","accessToken":"127105130696839|b4b75090c9688d81dfd245afe6052f20"}"></div></p>
<h2>Together, with Facebook, 24/7</h2>
<p>The Messenger/Instagram Direct merge will <a href="https://mashable.com/article/facebook-messenger-instagram/">extend to</a> features rolled out during the pandemic, such as the “<a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2020/09/introducing-watch-together-on-messenger/">Watch Together</a>” tool for Messenger. As the name suggests, this lets users watch videos together in real time. Now, both Messenger and Instagram users will be able to use it, regardless of which app they’re on.</p>
<p>With the integration, new privacy challenges emerge. Facebook has <a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2020/09/privacy-matters-cross-app-communication/">already acknowledged</a> this. And these challenges will present despite Facebook’s overarching privacy policy applying to every app in its app “family”. </p>
<p>For example, in the new merged messaging ecosystem, a user you previously blocked on Messenger won’t automatically be blocked on Instagram. Thus, the blocked person will be able to <a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2020/09/privacy-matters-cross-app-communication/">once again contact you</a>. This could open doors to a plethora of unexpected online abuse.</p>
<h2>Why this is good for Mark Zuckerberg</h2>
<p>This first step – and Facebook’s <a href="https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/a-privacy-focused-vision-for-social-networking/10156700570096634/">full roadmap</a> for the encrypted integration of WhatsApp, Instagram Direct and Messenger – has three clear outcomes.</p>
<p>Firstly, end-to-end encryption means Facebook will have <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1207081/download">complete deniability</a> for anything that travels across its messaging tools. </p>
<p>It won’t be able to “see” the messages. While this might be good from a user privacy perspective, it also means anything from bullying, to <a href="https://milwaukeenns.org/2014/05/21/special-report-diploma-mill-scams-continue-to-plague-milwaukees-adult-students/">scams</a>, to illegal drug sales, to <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-ednc/pr/jacksonville-man-sentenced-child-pornography-case">paedophilia</a> can’t be policed if it happens via these tools. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/facebooks-push-for-end-to-end-encryption-is-good-news-for-user-privacy-as-well-as-terrorists-and-paedophiles-128782">Facebook's push for end-to-end encryption is good news for user privacy, as well as terrorists and paedophiles</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This would stop Facebook being blamed for hurtful or illegal uses of its services. As far as moderating the platform goes, Facebook would effectively become “invisible” (not to mention moderation is <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2056305120948186">expensive and complicated</a>). </p>
<p>This is all great news for Mark Zuckerberg, especially as Facebook stares down the barrel of <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/29/21335706/antitrust-hearing-highlights-facebook-google-amazon-apple-congress-testimony">potential anti-trust litigation</a>.</p>
<p>Secondly, once the apps are merged, functionally they will no longer be separate platforms. They will still <em>exist</em> as separate apps with some separate features, but the vast amount of personal data underpinning them will live in one giant, shared database. </p>
<p>Deeper data integration will let Facebook know users more intimately. Moreover, it will be able to leverage this new insight to target users with more advertising and expand further.</p>
<p>Finally, and perhaps most concerning, is that by integrating its apps Facebook could legitimately respond to <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/ftc-preparing-possible-antitrust-suit-against-facebook-11600211840">anti-trust lawsuits</a> by saying it can’t separate Instagram or WhatsApp from the main Facebook platform – because they’re the same thing now. </p>
<p>And if they can’t be separated, there’s no way Facebook could sell Instagram or WhatsApp, even if it wanted to. </p>
<h2>100 billion messages a day</h2>
<p>The messaging traffic across Facebook’s platforms <a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2020/09/new-messaging-features-for-instagram/">is vast</a>, with more than 100 billion messages sent daily. And this has <a href="https://www.warc.com/newsandopinion/news/pandemic-lifts-social-media-use-but-for-how-long/43552">only</a> <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/07/technology/coronavirus-internet-use.html">increased</a> during the COVID-19 pandemic.</p>
<p>With the sheer size of its user database, Facebook continues to either purchase, or squash, its competition. Concerns about the company being a monopoly aren’t without merit. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/4/17816572/tim-wu-facebook-regulation-interview-curse-of-bigness-antitrust">Researchers</a> and <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/9/18538106/facebook-co-founder-chris-hughes-breakup-regulation-ftc-us-government">founding Facebook employees</a> have called to have the company split up – and for Instagram and Whatsapp to become separate again.</p>
<p>Just a few months ago, Facebook released its Instagram-housed tool <a href="https://about.instagram.com/blog/announcements/introducing-instagram-reels-announcement">Reels</a> which bears a striking resemblance to TikTok, another social app sweeping the globe. </p>
<p>It seems this is just another example of Facebook trying to use the sheer size of its network to stifle growing competition, aided (perhaps unwittingly) by Donald Trump’s anti-China sentiment.</p>
<p>If competition is important to encouraging innovation and diversity, then the newest development from Facebook discourages both these things. It further entrenches Facebook and its services into the lives of consumers, making it harder to pull away. And this certainly isn’t far from monopolistic behaviour.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/trumps-tiktok-deal-explained-who-is-oracle-why-walmart-and-what-does-it-mean-for-our-data-146566">Trump's TikTok deal explained: who is Oracle? Why Walmart? And what does it mean for our data?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/147261/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tama Leaver receives funding from Australian Research Council (ARC); he is currently a Chief Investigator in the ARC Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child.</span></em></p>Having an end-to-end encrypted messaging ‘ecosystem’ is a great way for Facebook to evade the full wrath of the law. It has come at a convenient time, too.Tama Leaver, Associate Professor in Internet Studies, Curtin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1422682020-07-13T20:04:21Z2020-07-13T20:04:21ZParler: what you need to know about the ‘free speech’ Twitter alternative<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/346812/original/file-20200710-6739-nv7bx1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=11%2C11%2C2402%2C1115&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wikimedia</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Amid claims of social media platforms stifling free speech, a new challenger called Parler is <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnscottlewinski/2020/07/04/social-media-platform-parler-becomes-hot-political-topic-between-conservaties-progressives/#4a38b95c20ea">drawing</a> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/28/the-uk-social-media-platform-where-neo-nazis-can-view-terror-atrocities">attention</a> for its anti-censorship stance. </p>
<p>Last week, Harper’s Magazine <a href="https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/">published</a> an open letter signed by 150 academics, writers and activists concerning perceived threats to the future of free speech.</p>
<p>The letter, signed by Noam Chomsky, Francis Fukuyama, Gloria Steinem and J.K. Rowling, among others, reads:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Debates surroundings free speech and censorship have taken centre stage in recent months. In May, Twitter <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52843986">started adding</a> fact-check labels to tweets from Donald Trump. </p>
<p>More recently, Reddit <a href="https://theconversation.com/reddit-removes-millions-of-pro-trump-posts-but-advertisers-not-values-rule-the-day-141703">permanently removed</a> its largest community of Trump supporters. </p>
<p>In this climate, Parler <a href="https://home.parler.com/about/">presents itself</a> as a “non-biased, free speech driven” alternative to Twitter. Here’s what you should know about the US-based startup.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/is-cancel-culture-silencing-open-debate-there-are-risks-to-shutting-down-opinions-we-disagree-with-142377">Is cancel culture silencing open debate? There are risks to shutting down opinions we disagree with</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What is Parler?</h2>
<p>Parler reports more than <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/27/parler-ceo-wants-liberal-to-join-the-pro-trump-crowd-on-the-app.html">1.5 million users</a> and is <a href="https://news.yahoo.com/social-media-tumult-startup-parler-draws-conservatives-041427679.html">growing in popularity</a>, especially as Twitter and other social media giants crackdown on <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Business/twitters-fact-checking-labels/story?id=70903715">misinformation</a> and <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-socialmedia/u-s-social-media-firms-say-they-are-removing-violent-content-faster-idUSKBN1W329I">violent content</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/346777/original/file-20200710-22-102xppk.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/346777/original/file-20200710-22-102xppk.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=331&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/346777/original/file-20200710-22-102xppk.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=331&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/346777/original/file-20200710-22-102xppk.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=331&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/346777/original/file-20200710-22-102xppk.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=416&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/346777/original/file-20200710-22-102xppk.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=416&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/346777/original/file-20200710-22-102xppk.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=416&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Parler appears similar to Twitter in its appearance and functions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">screenshot</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Parler is very similar to <a href="https://twitter.com/">Twitter</a> in appearance and function, albeit clunkier. Like Twitter, Parler users can follow others and engage with public figures, news sources and other users. </p>
<p>Public posts are called “parleys” rather than “tweets” and can contain up to 1,000 characters.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/346780/original/file-20200710-87076-1w6201f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/346780/original/file-20200710-87076-1w6201f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/346780/original/file-20200710-87076-1w6201f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=137&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/346780/original/file-20200710-87076-1w6201f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=137&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/346780/original/file-20200710-87076-1w6201f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=137&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/346780/original/file-20200710-87076-1w6201f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=172&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/346780/original/file-20200710-87076-1w6201f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=172&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/346780/original/file-20200710-87076-1w6201f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=172&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Users can comment, ‘echo’ or ‘vote’ on parleys.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">screenshot</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Users can search for hashtags, make comments, “echo” posts (similar to a retweet) and “vote” (similar to a like) on posts. There’s also a direct private messaging feature, just like Twitter. </p>
<p>Given this likeness, what actually is unique about Parler?</p>
<h2>Fringe views welcome?</h2>
<p>Parler’s main selling point is its claim it <a href="https://www.kusi.com/parler-ceo-john-matze-wants-the-growing-social-media-platform-to-embrace-free-speech/">embraces freedom of speech and has minimal moderation</a>. “If you can say it on the street of New York, you can say it on Parler”, founder John Matze <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/27/parler-ceo-wants-liberal-to-join-the-pro-trump-crowd-on-the-app.html">explains</a>. </p>
<p>This branding effort capitalises on allegations competitors such as Twitter and Facebook <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/25/ted-cruz-joins-parler-339811">unfairly censor content</a> and <a href="https://apnews.com/5e761263c5324fe3b450b2cbb53d15c8">discriminate against</a> right-wing political speech.</p>
<p>While other platforms often employ <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Business/twitters-fact-checking-labels/story?id=70903715">fact checkers, or third-party editorial boards</a>, Parler <a href="https://legal.parler.com/documents/guidelines.pdf">claims to moderate</a> content based on American Federal Communications Commission guidelines and Supreme Court rulings.</p>
<p>So if someone shared demonstrably false information on Parler, Matze said it would be up to other users to fact-check them “<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/tech/social-media-alt-parler-censorship">organically</a>”.</p>
<p>And although Parler is still dwarfed by Twitter (330 million users) and Facebook (2.6 billion users) the platform’s anti-censorship stance continues to attract users turned off by the regulations of larger social media platforms. </p>
<p>When Twitter recently hid tweets from Trump for “<a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/23/twitter-labeled-another-trump-tweet-for-violating-its-policies.html">glorifying violence</a>”, this <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-campaign-weighs-alternatives-to-big-social-platforms-11593003602?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1">partly prompted</a> the Trump campaign to consider moving to a platform such as Parler.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/346770/original/file-20200710-54-2r5i38.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/346770/original/file-20200710-54-2r5i38.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/346770/original/file-20200710-54-2r5i38.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/346770/original/file-20200710-54-2r5i38.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/346770/original/file-20200710-54-2r5i38.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/346770/original/file-20200710-54-2r5i38.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/346770/original/file-20200710-54-2r5i38.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/346770/original/file-20200710-54-2r5i38.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Far-right American political activist and conspiracy theorist Lara Loomer is among Parler’s most popular users.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">screenshot</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Matze also claims Parler <a href="https://www.kusi.com/parler-ceo-john-matze-wants-the-growing-social-media-platform-to-embrace-free-speech/">protects users’ privacy</a> by not tracking or sharing their data. </p>
<h2>Is Parler really a free speech haven?</h2>
<p>Companies such as Twitter and Facebook have denied they are <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/may/27/trump-we-will-regulate-or-close-down-social-media-/">silencing conservative voices</a>, pointing to blanket policies against hate speech and content inciting violence. </p>
<p>Parler’s “free speech” has resulted in various American Republicans, including Senator Ted Cruz, promoting the platform.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1276200378296664066"}"></div></p>
<p>Many conservative influencers such as <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/parler-katie-hopkins-and-laurence-fox-flee-to-twitters-anything-goes-rival-9kkm2d58m">Katie Hopkins</a>, <a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/right-wing-activist-laura-loomer-handcuffs-herself-to-twitters-nyc-office/#ftag=MSF491fea7">Lara Loomer</a> and <a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/infowars-alex-jones-test-the-limits-of-free-speech-on-twitter-facebook-youtube-apple/">Alex Jones</a> have sought refuge on Parler after <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-20/katie-hopkins-permanently-suspended-from-twitter-for-27abuse-a/12376352">being banned</a> from other platforms. </p>
<p>Although it brands itself as a bipartisan safe space, Parler is mostly used by <a href="https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/parler-user-numbers-john-matze">right-wing media, politicians and commentators</a>. </p>
<p>Moreover, a closer look at its <a href="https://legal.parler.com/documents/useragreement.pdf">user agreement</a> suggests it moderates content the same way as any platform, <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/parler-free-speech-alternative-twitter-user-agreement_n_5ef660fdc5b6acab28419a5d">maybe even more</a>.</p>
<p>The company states: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Parler may remove any content and terminate your access to the Services at any time and for any reason or no reason.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Parler’s <a href="https://legal.parler.com/documents/guidelines.pdf">community guidelines</a> prohibit a range of content including spam, terrorism, unsolicited ads, defamation, blackmail, bribery and criminal behaviour. </p>
<p>Although there are no explicit rules against hate speech, there are policies against “fighting words” and “threats of harm”. This includes “a threat of or advocating for violation against an individual or group”.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/346767/original/file-20200710-38-1qirjp5.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/346767/original/file-20200710-38-1qirjp5.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/346767/original/file-20200710-38-1qirjp5.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/346767/original/file-20200710-38-1qirjp5.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/346767/original/file-20200710-38-1qirjp5.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/346767/original/file-20200710-38-1qirjp5.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/346767/original/file-20200710-38-1qirjp5.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/346767/original/file-20200710-38-1qirjp5.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Parler CEO John Matze clarified the platform’s rules after banning users, presumably for breaking one or more of the listed rules.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There are rules against content that is obscene, sexual or “lacks serious literary, artistic, political and scientific value”. For example, visuals of genitalia, female nipples, or faecal matter are barred from Parler. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, <a href="https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/media-policy">Twitter</a> allows “consensually produced adult content” if its marked as “sensitive”. It also has no policy against the visual display of excrement.</p>
<p>As a private company, Parler can remove whatever content it wants. Some users have already been <a href="https://screenrant.com/parler-free-speech-censorship-users-banned/">banned</a> for breaking rules.</p>
<p>What’s more, in spite of claims it does not share user data, Parler’s <a href="https://legal.parler.com/documents/privacypolicy.pdf">privacy policy</a> states data collected can be used for advertising and marketing.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-twitter-and-the-way-of-the-hashtag-141693">Friday essay: Twitter and the way of the hashtag</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>No marks of establishment</h2>
<p>Given its limited user base, Parler has yet to become the “<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/tech/social-media-alt-parler-censorship">open town square</a>” it aspires to be. </p>
<p>The platform is in its infancy and its user base is much less representative than larger social media platforms.</p>
<p>Despite Matze saying <a href="https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/parler-user-numbers-john-matze">“left-leaning” users</a> tied to the Black Lives Matter movement were joining Parler to challenge conservatives, Parler lacks the diverse audience needed for any real debate. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/346765/original/file-20200710-50-i3ygby.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/346765/original/file-20200710-50-i3ygby.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/346765/original/file-20200710-50-i3ygby.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=759&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/346765/original/file-20200710-50-i3ygby.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=759&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/346765/original/file-20200710-50-i3ygby.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=759&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/346765/original/file-20200710-50-i3ygby.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=954&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/346765/original/file-20200710-50-i3ygby.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=954&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/346765/original/file-20200710-50-i3ygby.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=954&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Upon joining the platform, Parler suggests following several politically conservative users.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">screenshot</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Matze also said he doesn’t want Parler to be an “<a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/27/parler-ceo-wants-liberal-to-join-the-pro-trump-crowd-on-the-app.html">echo chamber</a>” for conservative voices. In fact, he is offering a US$20,000 “<a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/27/parler-ceo-wants-liberal-to-join-the-pro-trump-crowd-on-the-app.html">progressive bounty</a>” for an openly liberal pundit with 50,000 followers on Twitter or Facebook to join. </p>
<p>Clearly, the platform has a long way to go before it bursts its conservative bubble.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/dont-just-blame-echo-chambers-conspiracy-theorists-actively-seek-out-their-online-communities-127119">Don't (just) blame echo chambers. Conspiracy theorists actively seek out their online communities</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/142268/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Audrey Courty does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Here’s what you need to know about the largely right-wing social media platform creeping into headlines.Audrey Courty, PhD candidate, School of Humanities, Languages and Social Science, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1396602020-05-29T08:24:24Z2020-05-29T08:24:24ZTrump’s Twitter tantrum may wreck the internet<p>US President Donald Trump, who <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/02/us/politics/trump-twitter-presidency.html">tweeted more than 11,000 times</a> in the first two years of his presidency, is very upset with Twitter.</p>
<p>Earlier this week Trump tweeted complaints about mail-in ballots, alleging voter fraud – a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/article/mail-in-voting-explained.html">familiar Trump falsehood</a>. Twitter attached a label to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/28/trump-draft-order-could-expose-twitter-and-facebook-to-more-lawsuits">two of his tweets</a> with links to sources that <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/27/app-politics-section/donald-trump-mail-in-voter-fraud-fact-check/index.html">fact–checked</a> the tweets, showing Trump’s claims were unsubstantiated.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1265255835124539392"}"></div></p>
<p>Trump retaliated with the power of the presidency. On May 28 he made an “<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/">Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship</a>”. The order focuses on an important piece of legislation: <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230">section 230 of the Communications Decency Act 1996</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/can-you-be-liable-for-defamation-for-what-other-people-write-on-your-facebook-page-australian-court-says-maybe-119352">Can you be liable for defamation for what other people write on your Facebook page? Australian court says: maybe</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What is section 230?</h2>
<p>Section 230 has been described as “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/28/trump-social-media-executive-order/">the bedrock of the internet</a>”.</p>
<p>It affects companies that host content on the internet. <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230">It provides in part</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(2) Civil liability. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of</p>
<p>(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or</p>
<p>(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This means that, generally, the companies behind Google, Facebook, Twitter and other “<a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SydLawRw/2018/19.html">internet intermediaries</a>” are not liable for the content on their platforms.</p>
<p>For example, if something defamatory is written by a Twitter user, the company <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/TWTR:US">Twitter Inc</a> will enjoy a shield from liability in the United States even if the author does not.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-push-to-make-social-media-companies-liable-in-defamation-is-great-for-newspapers-and-lawyers-but-not-you-127513">A push to make social media companies liable in defamation is great for newspapers and lawyers, but not you</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Trump’s executive order</h2>
<p>Within the US legal system, an <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/">executive order</a> is a “<a href="https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/teaching-legal-docs/what-is-an-executive-order-/">signed, written, and published directive from the President of the United States that manages operations of the federal government</a>”. It is not legislation. Under the <a href="https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution">Constitution of the United States</a>, Congress – the equivalent of our Parliament – has the power to make legislation.</p>
<p>Trump’s executive order claims to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/28/us/politics/trump-order-social-media.html">protect free speech</a> by <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/28/donald-trump-social-media-executive-order-twitter">narrowing the protection</a> section 230 provides for social media companies.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/">text of the order</a> includes the following:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It is the policy of the United States that such a provider [who does not act in “good faith”, but stifles viewpoints with which they disagree] should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider …</p>
<p>To advance [this] policy … all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230 (c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The order attempts <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/28/trump-social-media-executive-order/">to do a lot of other things</a> too. For example, it calls for the creation of new regulations concerning section 230, and what “taken in good faith” means.</p>
<h2>The reaction</h2>
<p>Trump’s action has some support. Republican senator <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/technology-52843986">Marco Rubio said</a> if social media companies “have now decided to exercise an editorial role like a publisher, then they should no longer be shielded from liability and treated as publishers under the law”.</p>
<p>Critics argue the order threatens, rather than protects, freedom of speech, thus <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/28/politics/trump-twitter-social-media-executive-order/index.html">threatening the internet itself</a>.</p>
<p>The status of this order within the American legal system is an issue for American constitutional lawyers. <a href="https://variety.com/2020/digital/news/trump-executive-order-targets-twitter-facebook-1234619250/">Experts were quick to suggest</a> the order is unconstitutional; it seems contrary to the separation of powers enshrined in the US Constitution (which <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/FedLawRw/1987/10.pdf">partly inspired Australia’s Constitution</a>).</p>
<p>Harvard Law School constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe has <a href="https://www.marketwatch.com/story/totally-absurd-and-legally-illiterate-harvard-law-prof-on-trumps-charge-twitter-is-stifling-free-speech-2020-05-27">described the order</a> as “totally absurd and legally illiterate”.</p>
<p>That may be so, but the constitutionality of the order is an issue for the US judiciary. Many judges in the United States <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/28/donald-trump-judges-create-new-conservative-america-republicans">were appointed by Trump</a> or his ideological allies.</p>
<p>Even if the order is legally illiterate, it should not be assumed it will lack force.</p>
<h2>What this means for Australia</h2>
<p>Section 230 is part of US law. It is not in force in Australia. But its effects are felt around the globe.</p>
<p>Social media companies who would otherwise feel safe under section 230 may be more likely to remove content when threatened with legal action.</p>
<p>The order might cause these companies to change their internal policies and practices. If that happens, policy changes could be implemented at a global level.</p>
<p>Compare, for example, what happened when the European Union introduced its <a href="https://gdpr-info.eu/">General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)</a>. Countless companies in Australia <a href="https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/guidance-and-advice/australian-entities-and-the-eu-general-data-protection-regulation/">had to ensure</a> they were meeting European standards. US-based tech companies such as Facebook changed their privacy policies and disclosures globally – <a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/as-the-gdpr-turns-2-big-tech-should-watch-out-for-big-sanctions/">they did not want to meet two different privacy standards</a>.</p>
<p>If section 230 is diminished, it could also impact Australian litigation by providing another target for people who are hurt by damaging content on social media, or accessible by internet search. When your neighbour defames you on Facebook, for example, you can sue both the neighbour and Facebook. </p>
<p><a href="https://bennettandco.com.au/areas/defamation/google-as-publisher-of-everything-defamatory-on-the-internet-defteros-v-google-llc-2020-vsc-219/">That was already the law</a> in Australia. But with a toothless section 230, if you win, the judgement could be enforceable in the US.</p>
<p>Currently, suing certain American tech companies is not always a good idea. Even if you win, you may not be able to enforce the Australian judgement overseas. Tech companies are aware of this. </p>
<p>In 2017 litigation, <a href="https://inforrm.org/2017/10/04/australia-the-exorbitant-injunction-in-x-v-twitter-michael-douglas/">Twitter did not even bother</a> sending anyone to respond to litigation in the Supreme Court of New South Wales involving leaks of confidential information by tweet. When tech companies like <a href="https://theconversation.com/protecting-google-from-defamation-is-worth-seriously-considering-98252">Google have responded to Aussie litigation</a>, it might be understood as a weird brand of corporate social responsibility: a way of keeping up appearances in an economy that makes them money.</p>
<h2>A big day for ‘social media and fairness’?</h2>
<p>When Trump made his order, he called it a big day for “fairness”. This is standard Trump fare. But it should not be dismissed outright.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1265985660898459655"}"></div></p>
<p>As our own Australian Competition and Consumer Commission recognised last year in its <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/inquiries-ongoing/digital-platforms-inquiry">Digital Platforms Inquiry</a>, companies such as Twitter have enormous market power. Their exercise of that power does not always benefit society. </p>
<p>In recent years, social media <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/04/24/716712161/global-effort-begins-to-stop-social-media-from-spreading-terrorism">has advanced the goals of terrorists</a> and <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/22/18177076/social-media-facebook-far-right-authoritarian-populism">undermined democracy</a>. So if social media companies can be held legally liable for some of what they cause, it may do some good.</p>
<p>As for Twitter, the inclusion of the fact check links was a good thing. It’s not like they deleted Trump’s tweets. Also, they’re a private company, and Trump is not compelled to use Twitter. </p>
<p>We should support Twitter’s recognition of its moral responsibility for the dissemination of information (and misinformation), while still leaving room for free speech.</p>
<p>Trump’s executive order is legally illiterate spite, but it should prompt us to consider how free we want the internet to be. And we should take that issue more seriously than we take Trump’s order.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/139660/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Douglas is a consultant at Bennett + Co, a litigation firm with a defamation practice. He is a member of the ALP.</span></em></p>Trump’s recent executive order may limit section 230 of the Communications Decency Act - the ‘bedrock of the internet’. What does that mean for Australia?Michael Douglas, Senior Lecturer in Law, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1294462020-01-09T04:54:52Z2020-01-09T04:54:52ZAs fires rage, we must use social media for long-term change, not just short-term fundraising<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/308955/original/file-20200108-107204-1rv6ofj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=452%2C18%2C766%2C570&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Comedian Celeste Barber's fundraising efforts have gained monumental support. But we need to think of long-term engagement in climate action too.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.facebook.com/donate/1010958179269977/">Facebook</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>With 26 fatalities, half a billion animals impacted and 10.7 million hectares of land burnt, Australia faces a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2020/jan/08/nsw-fires-live-updates-victoria-bushfires-south-australia-fire-sa-australian-bushfire-near-me-rfs-cfa-latest-news-wednesday">record-breaking bushfire season</a>. </p>
<p>Yet, amid the despondency, moving stories have emerged of phenomenal fundraising conducted through social media. </p>
<p>At the forefront is Australian comedian Celeste Barber, whose <a href="https://www.facebook.com/donate/1010958179269977/">Facebook fundraiser</a> has raised more than AUD$45 million - the <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com.au/celeste-barber-facebook-bushfires-fundraiser-2020-1">largest amount in the platform’s history</a>. </p>
<p>Presenting shocking visuals, sites such as Instagram, Twitter and Facebook have been monumental in communicating the severity of the fires. </p>
<p>But at a time when experts predict worsening climate conditions and longer fire seasons, short bursts of compassion and donations aren’t enough. </p>
<p>For truly effective action against current and future fires, we need to use social media to implement lasting transformations, to our attitudes, and our ability to address climate change.</p>
<h2>Get out of your echo-chamber</h2>
<p>Links between social media and public engagement are complex. Their combination can be helpful, as we’re witnessing, but doesn’t necessarily help solve problems requiring long-term attention.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-bringing-a-new-world-of-bushfires-123261">Climate change is bringing a new world of bushfires</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Online spaces can cultivate <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/05/why-social-media-ruining-political-discourse/589108/">polarising, and sometimes harmful, debate</a>.</p>
<p>Past research indicates <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0206841">the presence of online echo chambers</a>, and users’ tendency to <a href="https://theconversation.com/dont-just-blame-echo-chambers-conspiracy-theorists-actively-seek-out-their-online-communities-127119">seek interaction</a> with others holding the same beliefs as them.</p>
<p>If you’re stuck in an echo chamber, Harvard Law School lecturer Erica Ariel Fox <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericaarielfox/2017/10/26/how-to-escape-the-echo-chamber/#53f1f6f14d10">suggests</a> breaking the mould by going out of your way to understand diverse opinions. </p>
<p>Before gearing up to disagree with others, she recommends acknowledging the contradictions and biases you yourself hold, and embracing the opposing sides of yourself.</p>
<p>In tough times, many start to assign blame – often with political or personal agendas.</p>
<p>In the crisis engulfing Australia, we’ve seen this with repeated accusations from conservatives claiming the Greens party <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/is-more-prescribed-burning-the-answer-to-bushfire-threat/11844766">have made fire hazard reduction more difficult</a>.</p>
<p>In such conversations, larger injustices and the underlying political challenges are often forgotten. The structural conditions underpinning the crisis remain unchallenged. </p>
<h2>Slow and steady</h2>
<p>We need <a href="https://insidestory.org.au/slow-burn/">to rethink our approach</a> to dealing with climate change, and <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/global-warming-effects/">its harmful effects</a>.</p>
<p>First, we should acknowledge there is no quick way to resolve the issue, despite the immediacy of the threats it poses. </p>
<p>Political change is slow, and needs steady growth. This is particularly true for climate politics, an issue which <a href="https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199566600.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199566600-e-1">challenges the social and economic structures we rely on</a>.</p>
<p>Our values and aspirations must also change, and be reflected in our online conversations. Our dialogue should shift from blame to a culture of appreciation, and growing concern for the impact of climate degradation. </p>
<p>Users should continue to explore and learn online, but need to do so in an informed way. </p>
<p>Reading Facebook and Twitter content is fine, but this must be complemented with <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/12/05/503581220/fake-or-real-how-to-self-check-the-news-and-get-the-facts">reliable news sources</a>. Follow authorised user accounts providing fact-based articles and guidance. </p>
<p>Before you join an online debate, it’s important you can back your claims. This helps prevent the spread of misinformation online, which is unfortunately rampant.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2018-02/Measuring%20the%20reach%20of%20fake%20news%20and%20online%20distribution%20in%20Europe%20CORRECT%20FLAG.pdf">2018 Reuters Institute report</a> found people’s interaction (sharing, commenting and reacting) with false news from a small number of Facebook outlets “generated more or as many interactions as established news brands”.</p>
<p>Also, avoid regressive discussions with dead-ends. <a href="https://sproutsocial.com/insights/social-media-algorithms/">Social media algorithms</a> dictate that the posts you engage with set the tone for future posts targeted at you, and more engagement with posts will make them more visible to other users too. Spend your time and effort wisely. </p>
<p>And lastly, the internet has made it easier than ever to contact political leaders, whether it’s <a href="https://twitter.com/ScottMorrisonMP">tweeting at your prime minister</a>, or reaching out to <a href="https://www.facebook.com/SussanLeyMP/">the relevant minister</a> on Facebook.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/listen-to-your-people-scott-morrison-the-bushfires-demand-a-climate-policy-reboot-129348">Listen to your people Scott Morrison: the bushfires demand a climate policy reboot</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Tangible change-making</h2>
<p>History has proven meaningful social and political progress requires sustained public awareness and engagement.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/309178/original/file-20200109-138677-1e9h83o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/309178/original/file-20200109-138677-1e9h83o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/309178/original/file-20200109-138677-1e9h83o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=1300&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/309178/original/file-20200109-138677-1e9h83o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=1300&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/309178/original/file-20200109-138677-1e9h83o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=1300&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/309178/original/file-20200109-138677-1e9h83o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1634&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/309178/original/file-20200109-138677-1e9h83o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1634&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/309178/original/file-20200109-138677-1e9h83o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1634&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Australian comedian Celeste Barber started fundraising with a goal of $30,000.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.facebook.com/donate/1010958179269977/1015653102133818/">Celeste Barber/Facebook</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Consider Australia’s recent legislation on <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-year-that-marriage-equality-finally-came-to-australia">marriage equality</a>, or the historical transformation of <a href="https://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/WIC/Historical-Essays/No-Lady/Womens-Rights/">women’s rights</a>. </p>
<p>These issues affect people constantly, but fixing them required debate over long periods.</p>
<p>We should draw on the awareness raised over the past weeks, and not let dialogue about the heightened threat of bushfires fizzle out. </p>
<p>We must not return to our practices of <a href="http://sourcesofinsight.com/13-negative-motivation-patterns/">do-nothingism</a> as soon as the immediate disaster subsides. </p>
<p>Although bushfire fundraisers have collected millions, a <a href="http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/findings/ESS8_toplines_issue_9_climatechange.pdf">European Social Survey</a> of 44,387 respondents from 23 countries found that – while most participants were worried about climate change – less than one-third were willing to pay higher taxes on fossil fuels.</p>
<p>If we want climate action, we must expect more from our governments but also from ourselves.</p>
<p>Social media should be used to <em>consistently</em> pressure government to take principled stances on key issues, not short-sighted policies geared towards the next election.</p>
<h2>Opening the public’s eyes</h2>
<p>There’s no denying social media has successfully <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/gallery/2020/jan/01/new-years-disaster-full-horror-of-australias-bushfires-begins-to-emerge-in-pictures">driven home the extent of devastation</a> caused by the fires.</p>
<p>A clip from Fire and Rescue NSW, viewed 7.8 million times on Twitter alone, gives audiences a view of what it’s like fighting on the frontlines.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1211943881790509056"}"></div></p>
<p>Images <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/gallery/2020/jan/08/scorched-earth-the-bushfire-devastation-on-kangaroo-island-in-pictures">of burnt, suffering animals</a> and destroyed homes, resorts, farms and forests have signalled the horror of what has passed and what may come.</p>
<p>Social media can be a formidable source of inspiration and action. It’s expected to become even more pervasive in our lives, and this is why <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/3/20980741/fake-news-facebook-twitter-misinformation-lies-fact-check-how-to-internet-guide">it must be used carefully</a>. </p>
<p>While showings of solidarity are incredibly helpful, what happens in the coming weeks and months, after the fires pass, is what will matter most.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/129446/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Emma Hutchison receives funding from the Australian Research Council and from a University of Queensland Foundation Research Excellence Award. These grants are enabling research into the roles emotions play in shaping local and global politics. </span></em></p>Celeste Barber’s $45 million fundraiser is amazing, but battling Australia’s fires should be an ongoing effort. With the help of social media, it can be.Emma Hutchison, Associate Professor and ARC DECRA Fellow, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1274312019-11-28T19:09:23Z2019-11-28T19:09:23ZOn the Battle of Seattle’s 20th anniversary, let’s remember the Aussie coders who created live sharing<p>Twenty years ago, a group of Australian activists invented open source online publishing, by creating a website that went on to be pivotal in the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-LfN3V3id8">Battle of Seattle</a> protests. </p>
<p>The violent clash, which took place on November 30, 1999, between anti-globalisation activists and Seattle police, caught the world’s attention. It was also the first large-scale use of technology that allowed anyone to upload stories, photos, and video in a live feed to a website.</p>
<p>Today, online publishing allows multiple people to post text and multimedia content simultaneously to websites in real time, and have others comment on posts. </p>
<p>But this format, used on sites like Facebook and Twitter, was first conceptualised, coded and adopted by a handful of Sydney-based activists back in the 1990s. </p>
<p>These individuals were pioneers in kickstarting the digital disruption of mainstream media, and their actions enabled the world to openly and easily share content online.</p>
<h2>Street-based activism</h2>
<p>Just days before the events in Seattle, two software programmers, Matthew Arnison in Sydney and Manse Jacobi in Colorado, posted a <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20141203013029/http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/1999/11/2.shtml">message</a> on indymedia.org, a new website they had developed. </p>
<p>It read:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The resistance is global… a trans-pacific collaboration has brought this web site into existence. The web dramatically alters the balance between multinational and activist media.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Seattle Independent Media Centre (Indymedia) website coordinated the protest and allowed reporters to share events to the world, live. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/304163/original/file-20191127-176624-1sh78q1.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/304163/original/file-20191127-176624-1sh78q1.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/304163/original/file-20191127-176624-1sh78q1.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=78&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304163/original/file-20191127-176624-1sh78q1.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=78&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304163/original/file-20191127-176624-1sh78q1.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=78&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304163/original/file-20191127-176624-1sh78q1.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=98&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304163/original/file-20191127-176624-1sh78q1.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=98&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304163/original/file-20191127-176624-1sh78q1.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=98&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The original Indymedia logo used on the website in 1999, in all its 90s low-pixel glory.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Matthew Arnison</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The site received 1.5 million hits that week. Arnison had <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZptFu7DC64">created a movement</a>. </p>
<h2>The lead-up</h2>
<p>Indymedia’s model was developed by activists in Sydney, several months before it went live on November 30 from a small shopfront in Seattle.</p>
<p>Activist collectives Reclaim the Street and Critical Mass <a href="https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/230437836">regularly took over public spaces</a> in Sydney during the 1990s.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/304220/original/file-20191128-178083-hxh3ni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/304220/original/file-20191128-178083-hxh3ni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/304220/original/file-20191128-178083-hxh3ni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=885&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304220/original/file-20191128-178083-hxh3ni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=885&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304220/original/file-20191128-178083-hxh3ni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=885&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304220/original/file-20191128-178083-hxh3ni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1112&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304220/original/file-20191128-178083-hxh3ni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1112&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304220/original/file-20191128-178083-hxh3ni.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1112&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A Reclaim the Streets protest on November 6, 1999, at the corner of King and Wilson streets at Newtown, Sydney.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Private collection)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It was the protest-related needs of these collectives that spurred coders’ efforts to find solutions. Programmers including Arnison began writing code that allowed the sharing of stories, images, and live webcasting.</p>
<p>They built a website (<a href="https://webarchive.nla.gov.au/awa/20020524154900/http://j18.cat.org.au/">j18.cat.org.au/</a>) to allow global coordination and sharing of live video – what Arnison at the time called “<a href="http://purplebark.net/maffew/cat/imc-rave.html">frozen media nuggets</a>”.</p>
<p>When the adapted and fine-tuned model went live in Seattle on November 30, word got out. </p>
<p>Wired Magazine <a href="https://www.wired.com/1999/11/taking-media-to-the-wto-streets/">covered a scene</a> that foreshadowed the digital newsrooms of today. Arnison and his colleagues had created the first <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20000818021603/http:/www.active.org.au/sydney/">open sharing internet platform</a>. </p>
<p>Arnison told me that before then, “it was very difficult to share photos and post text and stories online, it was impossible to do in real time and without technical skill and special type of access”. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/death-on-smartphones-in-a-world-of-live-streamed-tragedy-what-do-we-gain-62769">Death on smartphones: in a world of live streamed tragedy, what do we gain?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0mg9DxvfZE">Imagine a world</a> where sharing a photo or a story online required complex computer skills and often took up to a day. And a “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e3HXrDm8sw">Kids Guide to the Internet</a>” (in VHS) was required for “all that cybernet stuff”. </p>
<h2>The start of Active Sydney</h2>
<p>Arnison was also part of the groups Community Activist Technology (CAT) and Active Sydney, which prompted the development of software code that let people upload multimedia media stories, links, photos, video or sound material anywhere, anytime, to go live.</p>
<p>In January 1999, the <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20000511092436/http:/www.active.org.au:80/">Active Sydney</a> website was launched. </p>
<p>Active Sydney inspired the Seattle site in the way it created an online space for activists to share information about events and actions, using open source code that Arnison made available to anyone around the world wishing to do the same.</p>
<p>Sydney resident and cofounder Gabrielle Kuiper described the site at an Amsterdam conference in March that year as: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>…an online interactive forum for information and inspiration about social change in Sydney… It’s the only website which is linked to an email list operating at a city scale.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Political motives</h2>
<p>These days we’re used to the idea of information as a commodity owned and exploited by global online corporations. </p>
<p>In the pioneering days of the internet, the beginnings of data commercialisation existed alongside the notion that “information wants to be free”. Hackers and cyberpunks created open source software that enabled the free flow of online content.</p>
<p>In a <a href="http://purplebark.net/maffew/cat/openpub.html">post</a> written just two months after Wikipedia went live in 2001, Arnison said: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Open publishing is the same as free software. They’re both (r)evolutionary responses to the privatisation of information by multinational monopolies. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Looking back <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/global-rebellions-inequality/">today</a>, this seems ironic. But in 1999 there was a feeling that information and self-expression would tip the scales towards protesters.</p>
<p>Arnison notes there’s “a different type of asymmetry” at play now. He echoed theorist <a href="https://www.versobooks.com/books/3056-capital-is-dead">McKenzie Wark</a> by saying that in today’s world, political economies rely on the asymmetry of information as a form of control.</p>
<p>Twenty years after the Seattle clashes, the roles of protester and politician are reversed. </p>
<p>In 1999, protesters used new online tools to challenge free trade. They deployed a form of citizen journalism that countered mainstream reporting, in a bid to share and obtain authentic messages.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-punishing-of-anonymous-11824">The Punishing of Anonymous</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Today, populist politicians want to be perceived as authentic, so they use live platforms like Twitter to get messages out directly and avoid the filter of mainstream media. </p>
<p>Back then, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-globalization_movement">protesters challenged</a> world leaders beholden to the decision-making power of multinational free trading bodies. Now, some leaders seek to exit large trading blocks and pursue nationalist trade wars.</p>
<h2>What we didn’t see coming</h2>
<p>When Arnison spoke to me, he noted that one thing early activist communities didn’t predict was the proliferation of online trolling and hate speech. </p>
<p>Hateful and toxic posts were rare in those eventful early days, when a core activity drove content sharing. </p>
<p>Kuiper said at the time they “had no problems with people writing inappropriate or even boring news”. </p>
<p>“Twenty years ago we didn’t envisage how (the internet) could be corporatised or how personal data could be monetised,” she said.</p>
<p>Perhaps the internet will continue to mature and flip on its head yet again. </p>
<p>Arnison hopes so: “I am hoping … there will be a third stage … where we figure out how to manage that toxic behaviour which made this network so wonderful in the first place.”</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-facebook-and-google-changed-the-advertising-game-70050">How Facebook and Google changed the advertising game</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/127431/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tom Sear does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In 1999, ahead of World Trade Organisation protests, a group of Australian activists created the first open internet publishing platform. This technology is the basis of the internet we know today.Tom Sear, Industry Fellow, UNSW Canberra Cyber, Australian Defence Force Academy, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1275132019-11-22T02:08:04Z2019-11-22T02:08:04ZA push to make social media companies liable in defamation is great for newspapers and lawyers, but not you<p>At his Wednesday <a href="https://www.attorneygeneral.gov.au/media/speeches/address-national-press-club-canberra-20-november-2019">address to the National Press Club</a>, Attorney-General Christian Porter said the federal government is pursuing “immediate” defamation law reform.</p>
<p>The announcement seemed a bit odd, as defamation is a subject for state and territory governments to legislate on. A NSW-led law reform process has been ongoing for years.</p>
<p>Last June, the NSW Department of Justice <a href="https://www.justice.nsw.gov.au/justicepolicy/Documents/defamation-act-statutory-review-report.pdf">released a report</a> on its statutory review of the NSW legislation. In February, a further <a href="https://www.justice.nsw.gov.au/justicepolicy/Documents/review-model-defamation-provisions/Final-CAG-Defamation-Discussion-Paper-Feb-2019.pdf">discussion paper was published</a> by a NSW-led Defamation Working Party. </p>
<p>The theme of these documents, and the various <a href="https://www.justice.nsw.gov.au/defamationreview">public submissions that followed</a>, is that Australian defamation law is not suited to the digital age.</p>
<h2>Holding social media companies responsible as publishers</h2>
<p>Porter suggests we should “level the playing field” by <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/law-should-treat-social-media-companies-as-publishers-attorney-general-20191120-p53cch.html">holding social media companies responsible for defamation</a>. </p>
<p>Under current laws, liability depends on an entity being a “publisher” of defamatory content. A publisher is not the same as an author. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/can-you-sue-someone-for-giving-you-a-bad-reference-70520">Can you sue someone for giving you a bad reference?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>For example, a newspaper can be held liable for publishing a defamatory letter to the editor. This is why they have lawyers on staff, to ensure defamatory content is filtered. </p>
<p>Porter’s proposal seems to be that Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies be held to the same standards as traditional media companies such as <a href="https://www.newscorpaustralia.com/brands/">News Corp</a>.</p>
<p>This means, if you write something defamatory on Facebook, not only could you be sued, but Facebook could be too. </p>
<p>One way the government could make this happen is by amending the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2004A04989">Broadcasting Services Act 1992</a>. The Act essentially provides that state and territory laws have no effect to the extent they make “internet content hosts” liable. </p>
<p>This could mean “<a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLJ/2014/2.html">internet intermediaries</a>”, including social media companies, have some protection from defamation law.</p>
<h2>The potential hurdles</h2>
<p>The proposal to make social media companies responsible for defamation is problematic for a few reasons. </p>
<p>First, it assumes these companies cannot currently be held responsible. If the recent <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/2019/06/25/court-rules-favour-voller-defamation-case-brought-against-media-outlets">Dylan Voller case</a> is anything to go by, perhaps they can. </p>
<p>In June, the <a href="https://jade.io/article/649085">NSW Supreme Court held</a> media companies such as Nationwide News (a News Corp subsidiary) could be responsible in defamation for posts by users on the Facebook pages of newspapers such as The Australian. The <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/facebook/11267410">contentious decision</a> is currently <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/push-for-overhaul-of-national-defamation-laws-to-weed-out-trivial-claims-20191120-p53cf5.html">being appealed</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/can-you-be-liable-for-defamation-for-what-other-people-write-on-your-facebook-page-australian-court-says-maybe-119352">Can you be liable for defamation for what other people write on your Facebook page? Australian court says: maybe</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Second, even if Australian defamation law allowed Facebook and Twitter to be held liable, how would you enforce such a judgement? </p>
<p>The companies behind these platforms are based overseas. Some are based in the United States, where <a href="https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230">section 230 of the Communications Decency Act</a> states “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider”. </p>
<p>Relying on this law, a US company subject to an Australian defamation judgement may simply ignore it. Or worse, it may get an order from an American court declaring it doesn’t have to comply. Google <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321417379_Douglas_M_2017_Google_challenges_the_Supreme_Court_of_Canada's_global_injunction_in_the_United_States_Gazette_of_Law_Journalism">has done this before</a>.</p>
<p>Third, a common theme of defamation reform rhetoric is that current laws are harsh on freedom of speech. If this reform goes through, plaintiffs will have high incentive to litigate: they’ll be able to reach into the deep pockets of tech companies. </p>
<p>Defamation lawyers will be licking their lips. Meanwhile, the change wouldn’t stop the average citizen who posts defamatory content from being sued. It may actually increase litigation against members of the public, sued in tandem with tech companies. </p>
<h2>Less trivial defamation claims</h2>
<p>Another reform flagged by Porter is the introduction of a threshold of serious harm, inspired by <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/section/1/enacted">UK legislation introduced in 2013</a>. This means people who aren’t actually <a href="https://inforrm.org/2017/03/25/twitter-defamation-and-serious-harm-david-rolph/">seriously harmed</a> by defamation would no longer be able to sue.</p>
<p>This may see fewer petty claims clogging up the courts, which is good.</p>
<p>Disputes between regular people over social media mudslinging <a href="https://www.uts.edu.au/sites/default/files/article/downloads/Trends%20in%20Digital%20Defamation.pdf">form an increasing share of courts’ defamation work</a>. The law should assume we have thicker skin.</p>
<p>But arguably, we don’t need it. <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SydLawRw/2017/15.html">A few cases have already held</a> a publication that doesn’t cause serious harm is not “defamatory”. This proposal’s value is largely symbolic.</p>
<h2>More substantive reforms to look out for</h2>
<p>Porter flagged some other reforms that could have consequences. The way current legislation “caps” defamation damages, theoretically preventing huge awards of money, <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3285857">is controversial</a>. If that is changed, smaller damages awarded will mean less incentive to sue.</p>
<p>Porter also flagged a “public interest defence”, protecting responsible communication on a matter of public interest.</p>
<p>But <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/push-for-overhaul-of-national-defamation-laws-to-weed-out-trivial-claims-20191120-p53cf5.html">we kind of already have one</a>, called “qualified privilege”. How a new defence interacts with what we already have could pose tricky issues even lawyers may struggle with. When it comes to law reform, trickiness is not a virtue.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/defamation-in-the-digital-age-has-morphed-into-litigation-between-private-individuals-93739">Defamation in the digital age has morphed into litigation between private individuals</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In my view, the biggest issue to address is corporate defamation. Currently <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-20/before-you-write-that-scathing-online-review-beware-defamation/9566400">only small companies can sue</a>. This means McDonald’s can’t sue you for defamation over a harsh happy meal review. If this changes, freedom of speech could be massively curtailed.</p>
<h2>Getting the balance right is not easy</h2>
<p>There’s a lot of technical detail in defamation law, reflecting centuries of development. </p>
<p>Even Chief Justice Susan Kiefel <a href="https://sydney.edu.au/law/news-and-events/news/2016/10/03/the-definitive-book-on-australian-defamation-law.html">describes it as complex</a>. We all agree this area of law needs an update, but disagree on the best way forward. </p>
<p>In my view, enhancing media freedom is an important goal of the reform process. But that doesn’t mean we should get rid of defamation altogether.</p>
<p>In an environment where media power is dangerously concentrated in the hands of a few, defamation law is one of the few tools people have to protect themselves from destructive media commentary.</p>
<p>As Porter acknowledged, striking a balance between competing values, like freedom of speech and reputation, can be difficult. Whether these reforms will get it right remains to be seen.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/127513/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Douglas is a consultant at Bennett + Co, a defamation litigation firm in Perth, and editor of the Media & Arts Law Review, published by LexisNexis. He is a member of the ALP.</span></em></p>Defamation law reform is on the horizon. Social media companies may be held more liable for what they publish. But this could come at the expense of everyday users.Michael Douglas, Senior Lecturer in Law, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1269432019-11-19T15:05:32Z2019-11-19T15:05:32ZFacebook’s not a threat to the UK election<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/302407/original/file-20191119-111630-19t52al.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/washington-dc-usa-october-20-2019-1546069160?src=93bfd7ba-5eff-4dc2-bfd4-34c9706be816-1-14">Aaron Schwartz/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/cambridge-analytica-51337">Cambridge Analytica scandal</a> of March 2018 changed the status of Facebook forever. The revelation that a political consultancy had illicitly gained access to the data of millions of Facebook users forced the company to change its approach to privacy, including its rules and algorithms. The scandal also started a debate about the influence of social media on democracy. This led to several measures to increase the transparency of political campaigning on Facebook and to limit foreign interference in elections.</p>
<p>Eighteen months on and Facebook is <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50300846">under fire again</a> for refusing to more strictly police or even ban political ads. Campaigners are warning the site will have a negative effect on upcoming elections <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/09/facebook-voters-used-as-lab-rats-targeted-political-advertising">in the UK</a> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/11/facebook-sri-lanka-election-fake-news">and Sri Lanka</a>. Yet while many of the changes Facebook has made since 2016 are superficial, there’s good reason to believe the actual threat to democratic processes is limited.</p>
<p>Facebook’s “pivot to privacy” has included increased user control over their data and algorithmic changes that prioritise posts from users’ personal connections over news and public pages. There are also tougher rules for external developers who want to plug their applications into the platform and researchers who want to evaluate collected data.</p>
<p>But <a href="https://www.computerweekly.com/feature/Facebooks-privacy-U-turn-how-Zuckerberg-backtracked-on-promises-to-protect-personal-data">several</a> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/mar/17/the-cambridge-analytica-scandal-changed-the-world-but-it-didnt-change-facebook">investigations</a> have shown the site still gathers extensive information about its users that <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/mnunez/2019/11/05/facebook-is-still-leaking-data-more-than-one-year-after-cambridge-analytica/#1404f4e46180">continues to leak</a> out through third parties. There is also a lack of transparency and scrutiny over exactly what data the company holds. This makes a joke of Mark Zuckerberg’s new motto, “<a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/30/18524188/facebook-f8-keynote-mark-zuckerberg-privacy-future-2019">the future is private</a>”.</p>
<p>One of the most publicised changes was the <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/28/facebook-ads-library/">creation of</a> a searchable political advertisement database, recording every ad posted, who funded it and some data on who it was shown to. While this <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?active_status=all&ad_type=all&country=GB&impression_search_field=has_impressions_lifetime">Ad Library</a> is a laudable idea, the information provided <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/technology/facebook-ad-library.html">is limited</a> or unreliable. </p>
<p>Some political issue ads <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-blocks-ad-transparency-tools">aren’t included</a> and some organisations have found ways to <a href="https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/platform-ad-archives-promises-and-pitfalls">obscure their ads’ origins</a>. The library also doesn’t tell you what groups an ad was trying to reach or how it may have been targeted at and viewed by people in different electoral constituencies.</p>
<p>The company has also ramped up its use of fact-checkers, now partnering with <a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2019/11/how-facebook-has-prepared-for-the-2019-uk-general-election/">over 50 organisations</a> around the world. But these only review news stories posted to the site, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-49827375">not political ads</a>, and the process has <a href="https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/facebook-fact-checking.php">been criticised</a> for not being transparent or detailed enough to really be useful.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/302409/original/file-20191119-111690-1xxgh4t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/302409/original/file-20191119-111690-1xxgh4t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/302409/original/file-20191119-111690-1xxgh4t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/302409/original/file-20191119-111690-1xxgh4t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/302409/original/file-20191119-111690-1xxgh4t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/302409/original/file-20191119-111690-1xxgh4t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/302409/original/file-20191119-111690-1xxgh4t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Facebook has changed its algorithms and introduced fact-checkers to limit the effects of fake news.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Denys Prykhodov/Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>However, when it comes to problems that lend themselves to technical solutions, Facebook has been effective. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/14/russia-us-politics-social-media-facebook">Investigations have shown</a> how Russia used fake and automated (bot) accounts to influence American public opinion during the 2016 US election campaign. In response, Facebook developed a <a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2018/05/removing-content-using-ai/">system</a> that uses artificial intelligence to remove 99% of all fake accounts, as soon as they are created. </p>
<p>More generally, <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/social-media-bots-trolls-canadian-election-2019-1.5343210">research has found</a> that fears of foreign interference have been overblown. In the few proven instances of foreign interference, <a href="https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780190923624.001.0001/oso-9780190923624">there isn’t sufficient evidence</a> that they swayed voters one way or the other. It’s not even been shown that the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which involved companies in the US, Canada and the UK, made a decisive impact on the 2016 US election or the Brexit vote, despite <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/cambridge-analytica-chris-wylie-brexit-trump-britain-data-protection-privacy-facebook/">alleged links to both</a>.</p>
<p>Of course, political manipulation can still come from within a country, which is why people are <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/04/facebook-and-google-asked-to-suspend-political-ads-before-general-election">calling on Facebook</a> to ban or at least fact-check political ads, worried that they will spread false information. But voters are often already saturated with political information of varying accuracy from other sources.</p>
<p>In the UK, <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk-election-2019-partisan-press-is-pulling-out-all-the-stops-against-labour-127133">much of the media</a> is <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313953046_Does_the_Information_Source_Matter_Newspaper_Readership_Political_Preferences_and_Attitudes_Towards_the_EU_in_the_UK_France_and_the_Netherlands">highly partisan</a>, especially on the matter of European integration, and many voters are already consuming “propaganda” from TV, radio, newspapers and news websites. The willingness of journalists to <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/british-journalists-have-become-part-of-johnsons-fake-news-machine/">report politicians’ lies</a>, even while <a href="https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/09/10/donald-trump-liar-dont-help-his-lies-go-viral-column/1215197002/">highlighting inaccuracies</a>, means it’s still just as easy and cheap to use press releases, news conferences and public statements as Facebook ads to spread misleading or fake news.</p>
<h2>Microtargeting</h2>
<p>One thing Facebook does provide is a way to send out highly targeted ads that allow campaigns to say one thing to some voters and another, perhaps even the opposite, to other voters. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/06/cambridge-analytica-how-turn-clicks-into-votes-christopher-wylie">One of the claims</a> about Cambridge Analytica’s work was that it used psychological profiling and microtargeted ads to manipulate a relatively small number of crucial voters. (Although, again, <a href="https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/3/23/17152564/cambridge-analytica-psychographic-microtargeting-what">it’s unclear</a> that this can make a decisive difference to political campaigns.)</p>
<p>To combat the negative effects of microtargeting, several watchdog organisations, such as the campaign <a href="https://whotargets.me/en/">Who Targets Me</a>, track and expose online political ads and potential manipulations. This reduces the incentive for campaigns to use them, because it risks exposing parties that send different, perhaps even contradictory, messages to different groups of voters. These parties would lose authenticity, the ultimate currency in digital political communication. On top of this, Facebook is now considering <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/07/facebook-targeted-campaign-ad-limits-067550">limiting political microtargeting</a>.</p>
<p>There’s still a debate to be had about Facebook’s responsibility to police political messages and fake news. But the actual threat of interference and manipulation in campaigns, such as the upcoming UK election, is rather limited. We should be more concerned about the continued lack of privacy and transparency from Facebook’s data-gathering activities. Without significant new regulation or a mass exodus of users, neither of which look likely any time soon, Facebook’s data-based business model means it’s unlikely to radically reform itself in these areas.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/126943/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anamaria Dutceac Segesten does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Privacy and fact-checking are still big issues but risks from bots and foreign influence have been overblown.Anamaria Dutceac Segesten, Senior Lecturer in European Studies, Lund UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1081962018-12-12T13:45:26Z2018-12-12T13:45:26ZMemes are taking the alt-right’s message of hate mainstream<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/250215/original/file-20181212-76974-6rnkbq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Alt-right forums are turning the heads of mainstream social networks.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/disloyal-man-walking-his-girlfriend-looking-297886754?src=jDbtlOvRixeUv-ldJOyVfg-1-0">Antonio Guillem/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Think of an internet meme and you’ll probably smile. The most memorable viral images are usually funny, from <a href="https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/distracted-boyfriend">Distracted Boyfriend</a> to classics like <a href="https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/grumpy-cat">Grumpy Cat</a>. But some memes have a much more sinister meaning. They might look as innocuous <a href="https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/pepe-the-frog">as a frog</a>, but are in fact <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-an-ancient-egyptian-god-spurred-the-rise-of-trump-72598">symbols of hate</a>. And as memes have become more political, these hateful examples have increasingly found their way onto mainstream social media platforms. </p>
<p>My colleagues and I <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.12512">recently carried out</a> the largest scientific study of memes to date, using a dataset of 160m images from various social networks. We showed how “fringe” web communities associated with the alt-right movement, such as 4chan’s <a href="https://boards.4chan.org/pol/">“Politically Incorrect”</a> board (/pol/) and Reddit’s “<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/thedonald/">The_Donald</a>” are generating a wide variety of racist, hateful, and politically charged memes – and, crucially, spreading them to other parts of the internet.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="InstagramEmbed" data-react-props="{"url":"https://www.instagram.com/p/BKMtdN5Bam5/?hl=en","accessToken":"127105130696839|b4b75090c9688d81dfd245afe6052f20"}"></div></p>
<p>We started by looking at images posted on Twitter, Reddit, 4chan, and Gab. The latter is a Twitter-like social network positioning itself as a “champion” of free speech, providing shelter to users banned from other platforms. You might have heard of it <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/pittsburgh-synagogue-shooting-gab-tree-of-life/">in the context</a> of the recent Pittsburgh synagogue shooting.</p>
<p>We grouped visually similar images from this collection using a technique called <a href="https://www.phash.org/">perceptual hashing</a>, which involves creating a unique fingerprint-style way to identify each image based on its features. Then we identified groups of images that belonged to the same meme and annotated them using metadata obtained from <a href="https://knowyourmeme.com/">Know Your Meme</a>, a comprehensive online encyclopedia of memes. This allowed us to analyse different social networks just by looking at the memes that appeared on them. What we found was very revealing (and, at times, disturbing). </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/248751/original/file-20181204-34131-1aghk3a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/248751/original/file-20181204-34131-1aghk3a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/248751/original/file-20181204-34131-1aghk3a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=439&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/248751/original/file-20181204-34131-1aghk3a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=439&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/248751/original/file-20181204-34131-1aghk3a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=439&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/248751/original/file-20181204-34131-1aghk3a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=552&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/248751/original/file-20181204-34131-1aghk3a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=552&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/248751/original/file-20181204-34131-1aghk3a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=552&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Memes obtained from /pol/, The_Donald, and Gab. Red labels indicated racist memes, green labels indicate political ones.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://memespaper.github.io/">Emiliano De Cristofaro</a>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Fringe social networks like /pol/ and Gab share hateful and racist memes at an impressive rate, producing countless variants of antisemitic and pro-nazi memes such as the <a href="https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/happy-merchant">Happy Merchant</a> caricature of a “greedy” Jewish man with a large nose, or those including some version of Adolf Hitler in another image. Memes like Pepe the Frog (and its variants) are often used in conjunction with other memes to incite hate or influence public opinion on world events, such as Brexit or the advance of Islamic State.</p>
<p>Also, fringe web communities have the power to twist the meaning of specific memes, change their target context, and make them go viral on mainstream communities. A perfect example is the <a href="https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/npc-wojak">NPC Wojak</a> meme, which refers to non-playable characters in video games that are controlled by computers. In September 2018, 4chan and Reddit users began <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/16/us/politics/npc-twitter-ban.html">creating fictional accounts</a>, mocking liberals by referring to them as NPCs, meaning people with no critical thinking, bound by unchangeable programming, and manipulated by others. </p>
<h2>Measuring influence</h2>
<p>However, looking at web communities in isolation only provides a limited view of the meme ecosystem. Communities influence each other and memes posted on one site are often reposted on another. To measure the interplay and influence of different web communities, we turned to statistical models called <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.02822">Hawkes processes</a>, which let us say with confidence whether a particular event is caused by a previous event.</p>
<p>This lets us determine, for example, whether someone posting a meme on 4chan results in the same meme being posted on Twitter. In this way we were able to model how the more niche platforms were influencing the mainstream ones and the wider web.</p>
<p>We found that /pol/ was by far the most influential disseminator of memes, in terms of the raw number of images originating there. In particular, it was more influential in spreading racist and political memes. However, The_Donald subreddit is actually the most “efficient” at spreading these memes onto other fringe social networks as well as mainstream ones such as Twitter.</p>
<h2>Looking ahead</h2>
<p>Negative or hateful memes generated by fringe communities have become a tool of political and ideological propaganda. Shedding light on their origins, spread and influence provides us with a better understanding of the dangers they pose. As such, we hope that making our data and methods <a href="https://github.com/memespaper/memes_pipeline">publicly available</a> will allow more researchers to monitor how weaponised memes might influence elections and broader political debate.</p>
<p>For example, we worked with Facebook to help the social network’s efforts to mitigate manipulation campaigns during the 2018 US midterm elections, providing them with real-time examples of politically-motivated memes that originated from fringe communities. This allowed them to gain a better understanding of dangerous memes and monitor their spread through the platform in politically relevant contexts. Overall, this line of work can help mainstream social networks identify hateful content, for example by improving automatic detection of hateful variants of popular memes, and hopefully remove it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/108196/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Emiliano De Cristofaro currently receives funding from the EU Commission, EPSRC, GCHQ, Nokia Bell Labs, and Google.</span></em></p>Hateful images are making their way from niche sites onto popular social networks at an alarming speed. Here’s how it works.Emiliano De Cristofaro, Associate professor, UCLLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/986702018-09-12T10:52:08Z2018-09-12T10:52:08ZSavvy social media strategies boost anti-establishment political wins<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/234862/original/file-20180904-45135-s9d86l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=46%2C0%2C5184%2C3453&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Mexican President-elect Andrés Manuel López Obrador.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Mexico-President-Elect/1d394dd563b843a09ee9561f74c97a13/69/0">AP Photo/Marco Ugarte</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/estas-estrategias-eficaces-en-redes-sociales-impulsan-victoria-de-los-politicos-anti-establishment-103191"><em>Leer en español</em></a>.</p>
<p>Mexico’s anti-establishment presidential candidate, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, faced <a href="http://thehill.com/opinion/international/395682-lessons-from-mexicos-election-anti-establishment-politics-is-our-new">opposition from the mainstream media</a>. And he <a href="https://www.animalpolitico.com/2018/05/gastos-de-campana-anaya-el-que-reporta-mayor-gasto-meade-el-que-mas-eventos-ha-encabezado/">spent 13 percent less on advertising</a> than his opponents. Yet the man commonly known by his initials as “AMLO” went on to win the Mexican presidency in a landslide with <a href="https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2018/07/02/the-victory-of-andres-manuel-lopez-obrador-starts-a-new-era-in-mexico">over 53 percent of the vote</a> in a four-way race in July.</p>
<p>That remarkable victory was at least partly due to <a href="https://www.forbes.com.mx/ellos-son-los-creativos-que-dieron-un-vuelco-a-la-campana-de-amlo/">the social media strategies</a> of the political activists who backed him. Similar strategies appeared in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/making-europe-great-again-trumps-online-supporters-shift-attention-to-the-french-election-74130">2017 French presidential race</a>. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.saiph.org/">Our</a> <a href="https://humancomputerinteraction.wvu.edu/">lab</a> has been <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.00429v1">analyzing these social media activities</a> to understand how they’ve worked to threaten – and topple – establishment candidates. By analyzing more than 6 million posts from Reddit, Facebook and Twitter, we identified three main online strategies: using activist slang, attempting to “go viral” and providing historical context. </p>
<p><iframe id="z0EOa" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/z0EOa/6/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Some of these strategies might simply be online adaptations of long-standing strategies used in traditional offline campaigning. But others seem to be new ways of connecting and driving people to the polls. Our lab was interested in understanding the dynamics behind these online activists in greater detail, especially as some had crossed over from being merely supporters – even anonymous ones – not formally affiliated with campaigns, to being <a href="https://www.forbes.com.mx/la-gestion-de-amlo-debe-incluir-una-nueva-forma-de-comunicar-asesor/">officially incorporated in campaign teams</a>.</p>
<h2>Integrating activist slang</h2>
<p>Some political activists pointedly used slang in their online conversations, creating a dynamic that elevated their candidate as an opponent of the status quo. Trump backers, for instance, called themselves “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables">Deplorables</a>,” supporting “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/reddit-and-the-god-emperor-of-the-internet.html">the God Emperor</a>” Trump against “<a href="https://old.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/8qwedk/wise_words_from_killary/">Killary</a>” Clinton.</p>
<p>AMLO backers called themselves <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chairo_(slang)">“AMLOVERS” or “Chairos,”</a> and had nicknames for his opponents, such as calling the other presidential candidate, Ricardo Anaya, “<a href="https://www.dallasnews.com/news/donald-trump-1/2018/05/21/mexicos-presidential-candidates-pull-together-send-trump-message">Ricky Riquin Canayin</a>” – Spanish for “The Despicable Richy Rich.”</p>
<h2>Efforts to ‘go viral’</h2>
<p>Some political activists worked hard to identify the material that was most likely to attract wide attention online and get media coverage. Trump backers, for instance, <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/trump-supporters-and-neo-nazis-are-using-secret-chat-rooms-t">organized on the Discord chat service</a> and Reddit forums to see which variations of edited images of Hillary Clinton were most likely to get shared and go viral. They became so good at getting attention for their posts that Reddit actually <a href="https://gizmodo.com/reddit-is-finally-fixing-its-trump-spam-problem-1792061056">changed its algorithm to stop Trump backers</a> from filling up the site’s front page with pro-Trump propaganda.</p>
<p>Similarly, AMLO backers were able to keep pro-AMLO hashtags trending on Twitter, such as #AMLOmania, in which <a href="http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/elecciones-2018/asi-es-la-amlomania">people across Mexico made promises</a> of what they would do for the country if AMLO won. The vows ranged from free beer and food in restaurants to free legal advice.</p>
<p>For instance, an <a href="https://twitter.com/EduardoFRosales/status/1013285403598753792?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">artist promised</a> to paint an entire rural school in Veracruz, Mexico, if AMLO won. A <a href="https://twitter.com/ABOGADOENCDMX/status/1012000766427615235?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">law firm</a> promised to waive its fees for 100 divorces and alimony lawsuits if AMLO won. The goal of citizen activists was <a href="https://www.animalpolitico.com/2018/07/amlomania-ciudadanos-cumplen-lo-que-ofrecieron/">to motivate others to support AMLO</a>, while doing positive things for their country.</p>
<h2>The historian-style activists</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233646/original/file-20180827-149493-fznxom.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233646/original/file-20180827-149493-fznxom.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233646/original/file-20180827-149493-fznxom.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233646/original/file-20180827-149493-fznxom.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233646/original/file-20180827-149493-fznxom.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233646/original/file-20180827-149493-fznxom.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233646/original/file-20180827-149493-fznxom.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Historian-style activists created explanatory materials to share on social media: a) backing AMLO with a visual description of his economic plan; b) Helping Trump backers ‘red-pill liberals,’ waking them up to a conservative reality.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Saiph Savage and Claudia Flores-Saviaga</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Some anti-establishment activists were able to recruit more supporters by providing detailed explanations of the political system as they saw it. Trump backers, for instance, created <a href="https://old.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/524fk5/how_to_red_pill_someone_version_20/">electronic manuals advising supporters</a> how to explain their viewpoint to opponents to get them to switch sides. They compiled the <a href="http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/">top WikiLeaks revelations about Hillary Clinton</a>, assembled explanations of what they meant and asked people to <a href="https://www.reddit.com/comments/59sh7p">share it</a>.</p>
<p>Pro-AMLO activists did even more, creating <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GQgu7iT-fGn-HTFNJY9WyAXgeBuAu0jo/view">a manual</a> that <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-election-leftist/mexican-leftist-candidate-answers-business-critics-with-pejenomics-plan-idUSKBN1IB2YH">explained Mexico’s current economics</a> and how the proposals of their candidate would, in their view, <a href="https://www.forbes.com.mx/lo-que-amlo-quiso-decir-en-economia-un-vistazo-a-pejenomics/">transform and improve Mexico’s economy</a>. </p>
<p>Our analysis identified that one of the most effective strategies was taking time to explain the sociopolitical context. Citizens responded well to, and engaged with, specific reasoning about why they should back specific candidates.</p>
<p>As the U.S. midterm elections approach, it’s worth paying attention to whether – and in what races – these methods reappear; and even how people might use them to engage in fruitful political activism that brings the changes they want to see. You can read more about our research in our <a href="https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM18/paper/download/17877/16999">new ICWSM paper</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/98670/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Effective political campaigns use three main online strategies; research identifies which of them is most effective.Saiph Savage, Assistant Professor of Computer Science, West Virginia UniversityClaudia Flores-Saviaga, Ph.D. student in Computer Science, West Virginia UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1022732018-08-29T14:18:26Z2018-08-29T14:18:26ZSocial media mobilisation is a bright spot in Uganda’s dark Bobi Wine saga<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233857/original/file-20180828-86123-32pncx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Social media is becoming a formal political platform in Uganda.
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>President Yoweri Museveni has ruled Uganda with authoritarian firmness for the last 32 years. But even his most ardent supporters were <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-45257309">shocked by the ferocity</a> with which his security forces recently meted out violence on journalists and supporters of Robert Kyagulanyi, a musician-turned-politician popularly known as Bobi Wine. </p>
<p>Wine, an opposition MP, has emerged as a threat to Uganda’s old political order. Against many odds, including <a href="https://www.the-star.co.ke/news/2017/06/29/ugandan-mucisian-bobi-wine-wins-kyadondo-mp-seat_c1588411">systematic state intimidation</a>, in 2017 he won the Kyaddondo East constituency seat at a canter. He got nearly 80% of the vote and beating the ruling party and the main opposition’s candidates. In subsequent by-elections, the candidates he has backed have all won.</p>
<p>But the weight of this success is becoming painful for Wine. He and 11 others have been <a href="https://www.nation.co.ke/news/africa/Bobi-Wine-re-arrested-in-Gulu/1066-4725150-v92kia/index.html">charged with treason</a> after one of the vehicles in Museveni’s convoy was pelted with stones at a campaign rally. Wine was initially charged in a military court with <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/uganda-museveni-critic-bobi-wine-charged-in-military-trial/a-45082938">illegally possessing a firearm</a>. When the military dropped that charge, he was released – then immediately rearrested and charged with treason in a criminal court.</p>
<p>This shows how desperate authorities are to deal with the threat Wine poses. And the way Museveni’s government has moved to keep a lid on how the case <a href="https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2001293013/sobriety-must-prevail-to-stop-uganda-plunging-into-anarchy">is being reported is raising fears</a> that Uganda’s democratic regression is deepening. </p>
<p>In full view of the public, journalists covering protests in Kampala calling for Wine’s release were <a href="https://cpj.org/2018/08/ugandan-security-forces-attack-and-detain-journali.php">brutally assaulted</a>. Their recording equipment was either confiscated or destroyed by security forces. This has sparked <a href="https://www.article19.org/resources/uganda-vicious-crackdown-on-protest-journalism-and-opposition-around-by-election/">a national and international outcry</a>.</p>
<p>Museveni’s grip on power remains exceptionally strong. His control of the country’s civic and political institutions is nearly complete after 32 years in power. But there are pockets of dissent emerging from digital platforms whose practical political consequences are being slowly realised. </p>
<h2>Controlling information</h2>
<p>Museveni runs a brutal regime. The control of information seems key to eliminating public dissent. A number of newspapers as well as radio and TV stations have <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/ugandan-police-shut-down-media-houses-silence-radio-stations/a-16827268">been shut down over the years</a>, always at the whim of the president. </p>
<p>Individual journalists have also borne the brunt of the state’s violence. Arrests, kidnapping and torture are common. Some of Uganda’s best journalists have <a href="https://globaljournalist.org/2015/12/project-exile-fleeing-uganda-corruption-articles/">fled the country</a> over the years of Museveni’s rule to seek refuge in neighbouring countries.</p>
<p>The Ugandan government’s tight grip on the flow of information can also be seen in its various attempts to control the use of social media. It has obviously recognised this as a new platform for political expression. In 2016 the government <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/uganda-2016-social-media-shutdown-and-seven-hour-delays-jeopardize-elections-428072">shut down social media</a> during the country’s elections. Museveni <a href="https://www.news24.com/Africa/News/uganda-shuts-down-social-media-ahead-of-musevenis-inauguration-20160512-2">defended the move</a>, calling it a security measure to avert lies intended to incite violence and illegal declaration of results.</p>
<p>In July this year, Uganda introduced an <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/uganda-social-media-tax-stays-for-now/">unprecedented tax on the use of social media services</a> such as Facebook, Twitter and WhatsApp. Critics see the 200 shilling tax as being specifically targeted at the youth and intended to discourage their use of social media for communication. </p>
<p>Despite these measures, social media has become an important form of political participation – especially for young Ugandans who are institutionally excluded from <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/jan/16/uganda-unemployed-graduates-held-back-skills-gap">meaningful participation in the country’s economic and political processes</a>.</p>
<h2>New political platforms</h2>
<p>Museveni has previously dismissed social media as a platform used particularly by young people <a href="https://www.thenational.ae/world/africa/uganda-slaps-tax-on-social-media-users-to-curb-gossip-1.735862">for gossip</a>. </p>
<p>But that “gossip” has become an important form of political participation and protest vernacular. What cannot be published in the newspapers or broadcast on radio or television finds expression in tweets, memes or other forms of social media.</p>
<p>In fact, social media is becoming a formal political platform in its own right. Following Wine’s arrest social media users in Uganda and across the continent popularised the hashtag #Freebobiwine to focus attention on him and his co-accused. The hashtag quickly attracted significant interest, and led to peaceful protests in Kenya, South Africa and at Ugandan embassies around the world.</p>
<p>It’s on the back of this kind of attention that more than 80 <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/22/chris-martin-and-damon-albarn-join-campaign-to-free-uganda-star-bobi-wine">world-famous human rights activists and artists</a> – including Angelique Kidjo, Chris Martin, Wole Soyinka and Damon Albarn – expressed their support for Wine. They’ve also called for international organisations to censure Museveni. </p>
<p>This international attention prompted an <a href="https://africa.cgtn.com/2018/08/21/uganda-army-issues-rare-apology-for-attacking-journalists/">unusual climbdown</a> from Uganda’s government. The military has apologised for its brutal handling of journalists. And Wine has been given bail on the treason charges.</p>
<p>Other repressive governments are no doubt watching this story unfold, and are worried. Such transcontinental alliances forged and popularised through social media are <a href="http://africanarguments.org/2018/08/23/freebobiwine-today-pan-africanism-digital-age/">undermining many governments’ attempts to control information</a> and invalidate legitimate dissent. More importantly, the conversations enabled by hashtags like #FreeBobiWine borrow from international norms of conduct. This invests local campaigns with agency as well as legitimacy.</p>
<h2>Looking to the future</h2>
<p>Bobi Wine’s story of political intimidation by powerful government forces, <a href="https://www.voanews.com/a/reports-uganda-opposition-legislators-tortured-security-forces/4533959.html">detention and alleged torture</a>, is a dark one. Social media’s potential to organise and mobilise is a bright light in that darkness. This case may very well reveal how Uganda could look once Museveni’s iron grip on traditional media is loosened and citizens have more space to debate, discuss and dissent.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/102273/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>George Ogola does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni’s grip on power remains strong but pockets of dissent are emerging from digital platforms.George Ogola, Reader in Journalism, University of Central LancashireLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1004952018-07-26T20:53:49Z2018-07-26T20:53:49ZSocial media can be information poison when we need facts most<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/229329/original/file-20180725-194137-xam08v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Police at the scene of a shooting in Toronto's Greektown on July 23, 2018. The parents of Faisal Hussain, whose shooting spree left two people dead and 13 injured, say their son had struggled all his life with psychosis and depression, but none of the medications or therapies he tried were able to overcome his mental illness. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Christopher Katsarov</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the minutes and hours that followed of the recent <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/faisal-hussain-canadian-officials-identify-toronto-mass-shooting-suspect-greektown-2018-07-23/">mass shooting in Toronto</a>, an all-too-familiar pattern kicked into high gear on social media platforms. </p>
<p>As the events were still unfolding on the streets of the city’s Danforth neighbourhood, the initial sparse facts about the attack were <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/4352159/faisal-hussain-toronto-shooter-fake-news/">immediately drowned out</a> by a torrent of <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/ishmaeldaro/rumors-toronto-shooting-true-false-unverified?utm_term=.uwGdgm508n#.ngqe5pV8vR">unverified rumours, unsubstantiated claims and wild speculation</a> about both the identity and the motive of the attacker. </p>
<p>The response on social media abruptly confirmed two tendencies of the digital age: Speed eclipses accuracy and social media abhors an informational vacuum. These tendencies have become unfortunate truisms, played out in the aftermath of similar acts of mass violence. </p>
<p>The instantaneous nature of social media platforms — combined with the attention economy fuelling Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat — incentivizes attention-grabbing misinformation and inaccurate “scoops.” The <a href="http://www.canadalandshow.com/podcast/conspiracy-and-speculation-in-the-danforth-shooting/">inaccuracies virally spread</a> by expanding their reach and influence at a dizzying rate. One can easily witness this attention-driven virality by watching a social media post’s “like” and “retweet” counts exponentially increase in real-time. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/229332/original/file-20180725-194134-1xslaff.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/229332/original/file-20180725-194134-1xslaff.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229332/original/file-20180725-194134-1xslaff.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229332/original/file-20180725-194134-1xslaff.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=389&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229332/original/file-20180725-194134-1xslaff.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=489&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229332/original/file-20180725-194134-1xslaff.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=489&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229332/original/file-20180725-194134-1xslaff.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=489&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A police officer escorts a woman away from the scene of Toronto’s mass shooting on Danforth Avenue.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Frank Gunn</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Public officials and law enforcement displayed a justified restraint in making definitive pronouncements about the shooting. But this “gap” in information left the proverbial door open for self-styled pseudo-experts, social media influencers and random agitators to fill the vacuum with conjecture, opinions and false claims masquerading as facts. </p>
<h2>Information pollution</h2>
<p>It may be easy to dismiss this social media “noise” as the province of fools and naifs and as a small gullible minority taken in by the usual rogue gallery of conspiracy peddlers and Islamophobic hate merchants. But the noise they make is significant as they spread bad information, making it difficult to determine fact from falsehood causing public confusion.</p>
<p>Even more disconcerting is that professional journalists and columnists, employed by reputable media organizations, participated in this avalanche of misinformation on the shooting. For example, <a href="https://twitter.com/joe_warmington/status/1021347510462263296">one journalist made a quick assumption public</a> when he posted a speculative tweet about the shooter and <a href="https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/fatah-mentally-ill-the-media-or-the-murderer?video_autoplay=tru">one columnist claimed</a> that the Canadian media was covering up the fact that the attack was a “Muslim hate crime.” </p>
<p>Social media corporations continue to wash their hands of the problem, prioritizing user engagement and market share over the accuracy of information on their platforms. </p>
<p>Facebook’s <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-made-mistakes-on-fake-news-privacy-1523289089">recent half-hearted and belated acknowledgement</a> of the scourge of fake news has more to do with assuaging government regulators and public relations spin than with genuinely tackling the problem. </p>
<p>What is clear is that we live in a social environment characterized by severe information pollution, in which the well is poisoned for everyone.</p>
<p>In a setting in which — to paraphrase <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/Greshams-law">Gresham’s monetary law</a> — bad information drives out good, what are we to do? </p>
<h2>Caution is golden</h2>
<p>Our initial and overriding response must be to exercise a healthy dose of skepticism even while witnessing an incident of mass violence unfolding live on our social media feeds. </p>
<p>Caution is golden. More often than not, the first unconfirmed bits of information circulating about an incident like the tragic shooting on Toronto’s Danforth Avenue are usually found to have been erroneous or only partially accurate. </p>
<p>We should not treat on-the-spot, gratuitously formulated conjecture unburdened by the need to respect facts as serious analysis. Rather we should look at these missives as irresponsible fan fiction at best, or bigoted and ideologically driven agitprop at worst. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/229374/original/file-20180726-106499-1oqeywl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/229374/original/file-20180726-106499-1oqeywl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229374/original/file-20180726-106499-1oqeywl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229374/original/file-20180726-106499-1oqeywl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229374/original/file-20180726-106499-1oqeywl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229374/original/file-20180726-106499-1oqeywl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229374/original/file-20180726-106499-1oqeywl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">People attend a vigil to honour the victims of the mass shooting in Toronto that killed two and injured 13 others.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chris Young</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Without a shred of evidence and fuelled by pre-existing agendas and biased assumptions, many social media insta-pundits and click-starved members of the media are more than willing to jump to conclusions. </p>
<p>They do so by establishing tenuous or non-existent causal links between an attack such as that in Toronto and specific ethno-racial or religious communities, or yet, again, an alarmist narrative about the supposed crisis or decline of Western civilization. </p>
<h2>We can achieve factual advocacy in three ways.</h2>
<p>The stakes are high. This sort of social media content is not only promoting misinformation, but is often designed to foster and incite fear and mistrust of others, further stigmatizing already marginalized and racialized groups. These groups often bear the brunt of the comment and real-world backlash following a violent tragedy.</p>
<p>The kind of caution and skepticism I call for goes beyond digital literacy. I believe we need to go further. </p>
<p>Citizens are not mere passive readers or consumers of social media. We must see ourselves as factual advocates. We can achieve factual advocacy in three ways.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/229375/original/file-20180726-106505-rks0f1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/229375/original/file-20180726-106505-rks0f1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229375/original/file-20180726-106505-rks0f1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229375/original/file-20180726-106505-rks0f1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229375/original/file-20180726-106505-rks0f1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229375/original/file-20180726-106505-rks0f1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229375/original/file-20180726-106505-rks0f1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A young girl writes a message on the sidewalk at a site remembering the victims of a the shooting on Toronto’s Danforth Avenue.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Mark Blinch</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Most easily, we can starve those who seek to exploit or game the attention economy by refusing to spread their posts and thereby throttling the number of clicks, hits and views their content registers on metricized platforms. </p>
<p>Secondly, we can hold social media personalities and ordinary users accountable to norms of truthfulness and credible evidence. We must treat their unverified tweets and posts as what they are: information pollution. </p>
<p>Finally, factual advocacy demands that those in positions of authority — whether as professional journalists, academic experts or public officials — intervene in the public sphere to denounce rumours and speculation to discredit groups and rebuff individuals fomenting them. </p>
<p>As citizens, we are called upon to become participants in, and contributors to, public debate on social media platforms. We need to ensure that accuracy tempers speed and that the momentary void created in the aftermath of the mass shooting in Toronto and other incidents of mass violence not be polluted by those playing fast and loose with the facts. </p>
<p>While immersed in social media platforms, we cannot stand on the sidelines of informational struggles. Equipped with our apps and a commitment to truth, we must plunge into the social media trenches.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/100495/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fuyuki Kurasawa receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. </span></em></p>Social media abhors informational vacuums and speed eclipses accuracy. That allows pseudo-experts, agitators and even liars to circulate rumours and poisonous information when big news breaks.Fuyuki Kurasawa, York Research Chair in Global Digital Citizenship, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, York University, CanadaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/972922018-06-01T10:39:20Z2018-06-01T10:39:20ZFor NFL players, social media is key to winning PR battle over anthem protests<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221212/original/file-20180531-69484-d1idd1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The power of players extends well beyond on-field actions.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/49ers-Rams-Football/ce020ee6e401407caacb9d06458a947a/30/0">AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>As the furor over <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-surprising-connection-between-take-a-knee-protests-and-citizens-united-84645">NFL players taking a knee</a> during the national anthem rekindles, the full power of the players themselves has not yet come into play. Presidential politics and U.S. culture wars combined to make the issue a <a href="https://theconversation.com/nfl-tells-players-patriotism-is-more-important-than-protest-heres-why-that-didnt-work-during-wwi-97360">dominant subplot of the 2017 NFL season</a>. In late May, the league’s team owners reopened the debate by deciding to create a policy requiring players on the field during the playing of the national anthem to stand, under penalty of fines and on-field penalties, though players can also stay in the locker room.</p>
<p>The policy was made and passed <a href="http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/23582533/nfl-owners-approve-new-national-anthem-policy">unilaterally, without consultation of the players</a> or their labor union, the NFL Players Association. Unusually, the owners didn’t even conduct a formal vote, and <a href="https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-owners-reportedly-didnt-vote-on-the-leagues-new-national-anthem-policy/">at least two owners abstained</a> from the informal vote that was taken. President Donald Trump responded favorably and injected fresh criticism into the process by suggesting that NFL players who choose to stay in the locker room during the anthem “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/23/sports/nfl-anthem-kneeling.html">maybe … shouldn’t be in the country</a>.”</p>
<p>Having made their moves, the teams and the president have three months before the 2018 season begins, in which to wait for players to respond. What happens next is uncertain, but my background as a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=EAIytSwAAAAJ&hl=en">sports and social media researcher</a> tells me it could be both surprising and unexpected for those who have traditionally wielded the most power in the NFL. </p>
<h2>Why is this happening now?</h2>
<p>The timing of the owners’ move is both calculated and politically savvy for the NFL. The announcement did generate significant backlash from many sports media commentators, as well as <a href="http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-national-anthem-20180529-story.html">current</a> and <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/389577-former-nfl-player-donte-stallworth-labels-rule-against-anthem">former players</a> and the <a href="https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nflpa-issues-statement-in-response-to-nfls-new-national-anthem-policy/">players’ union</a>. The long Memorial Day holiday weekend <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/eagles/2018/05/29/chris-long-malcolm-jenkins-national-anthem-rule-protest-eagles/653489002/">didn’t do much to blunt those criticisms</a>, but it’s likely that the most negative reactions will dissipate by the middle of the summer.</p>
<p>If and when the issue is reignited, it will likely be viewed as the players creating the issue, rather than the owners. For instance, the players’ union is considering whether and how to respond – including potentially claiming <a href="https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/05/23/nfl-new-national-anthem-protest">violations of the collective bargaining agreement</a> under which football players work. </p>
<p>How effective their actions are will depend largely on how the players present themselves on social media – what communications scholars call “<a href="http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.25800.52482">framing</a>.”</p>
<h2>Framing the controversy</h2>
<p>The controversy began in the 2016 NFL preseason with San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick protesting <a href="http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000691077/article/colin-kaepernick-explains-why-he-sat-during-national-anthem">structural and institutional racism and bias</a> in the U.S., particularly in American police practices. </p>
<p>The NFL’s initial reaction supported Kaepernick’s right to protest, saying “<a href="http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000691077/article/colin-kaepernick-explains-why-he-sat-during-national-anthem">Players are encouraged but not required</a> to stand during the playing of the national anthem.” The 49ers organization was even more direct: “<a href="http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000691077/article/colin-kaepernick-explains-why-he-sat-during-national-anthem">In respecting such American principles</a> as freedom of religion and freedom of expression, we recognize the right of an individual to choose and participate, or not, in our celebration of the national anthem.”</p>
<p>There were initial complaints about Kaepernick’s choice not to stand for the anthem – including feedback that led to him <a href="https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/veteran-kaepernick-take-a-knee-anthem/">taking a knee rather than just sitting on the bench</a>. But the protest didn’t become a public lightning rod until President Trump and Vice President Mike Pence <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/22/politics/donald-trump-alabama-nfl/index.html">created a new frame around Kaepernick’s kneeling</a> in protest against injustice. They proclaimed he was <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/08/politics/vice-president-mike-pence-nfl-protest/index.html">disrespecting the country and its military</a>.</p>
<p>The effect was immediate and stunning. Before Trump objected, more than 60 percent of his supporters viewed the NFL “somewhat or very favorably.” In less than a month after he first spoke out against the NFL for allowing Kaepernick’s protests to continue, that <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/03/upshot/nfl-super-bowl-republicans.html">plummeted to near 30 percent</a>. That drop <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-trumps-pressure-influenced-the-nfl-to-change-its-anthem-rules-1527685321">no doubt played a part</a> in the NFL owners’ recent action to block on-field protests. </p>
<h2>Regaining control of the narrative</h2>
<p>As the players determine how to respond, they’re starting from a difficult position. Historically, NFL owners have almost always won their public relations battles, whether <a href="https://www.npr.org/2016/07/27/487577909/tv-actors-make-big-money-so-why-grumble-over-nfl-salaries">against players in collective bargaining negotiations</a> or <a href="https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/09/the-never-ending-stadium-boondoggle/403666/">against government watchdogs</a> in public stadium funding battles.</p>
<p>However, the players have a tool they can use to try and reframe the protests, and keep the focus on their message: social media. With Instagram, Facebook and Twitter, they can communicate directly with fans and provide sports media observers nationwide with cogent and reasoned justifications for their actions.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"999408653445795840"}"></div></p>
<p>Some players have already began to <a href="https://twitter.com/JOEL9ONE/status/999408653445795840">reframe the protests as a First Amendment issue</a>, which current Philadelphia Eagles defensive lineman Chris Long did on May 23. In general, <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-do-americans-feel-about-the-nfl-protests-it-depends-on-how-you-ask/">Americans support free speech</a> and object to attempts to limit it – <a href="https://theconversation.com/dont-expect-professors-to-get-fired-when-they-say-something-you-dont-like-95984">even in the workplace</a>. </p>
<p>Other players have pointed out that having players stand on the field for the national anthem is a <a href="https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/new-england-patriots/nfl-teams-being-field-anthem-relatively-new-practice">relatively new phenomenon in the NFL</a>, dating from 2009. That point could also connect with a growing backlash against <a href="https://www.npr.org/2015/11/05/454907609/how-the-pentagon-spent-millions-on-sports-teams-for-military-friendly-events">payments from the U.S. Department of Defense</a> for overt displays of national pride on the football field, such as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/12/opinion/sports-colin-kaepernick-9-11.html">staged family reunions</a> for soldiers returning from overseas.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"999326445230002176"}"></div></p>
<p>There is no guarantee of success with either approach. The hyperpartisan nature of the current political environment may mean that public opinion won’t change. But NFL players have to try and seize control of the narrative, and social media provides a better platform than any other to attempt that. </p>
<p>Connecting directly with fans is important, and venues like Facebook and Snapchat provide that opportunity. It’s perhaps even more important to connect with media members across the country, because they can influence coverage and public discourse; Twitter gives players a direct line to reporters and columnists. </p>
<p>It seems unlikely that the public debate over the protests will disappear quietly, despite what the NFL owners want. For players who find themselves in an increasingly perilous public relations battle, it will be important to control the framing, using social media to assist them – and perhaps even bringing the discussion back to where it started, with police shootings of African-American men.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/97292/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Galen Clavio does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>NFL players, historically losers in power struggles with team owners, can retake control of the kneeling-protest issue if they use social media to connect with the public.Galen Clavio, Associate Professor of Sports Media; Director of the National Sports Journalism Center, Indiana UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/910242018-02-05T14:21:30Z2018-02-05T14:21:30ZExplainer: how Facebook has become the world’s largest echo chamber<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/204616/original/file-20180202-162082-1nk3qoi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Is there an echo here?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Benoit Tessier</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>I began my research career in the last century with an analysis of how news organisations were adapting to this strange new thing called “the Internet”. Five years later I signed up for Twitter and, a year after that, for Facebook. </p>
<p>Now, as it celebrates its 14th birthday, Facebook is becoming ubiquitous, and its usage and impact <a href="https://herts.academia.edu/MeganKnight">is central</a> to my (and many others’) research. </p>
<p>In 2017 the social network had <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/241552/share-of-global-population-using-facebook-by-region">2 billion members</a>, by its own count. Facebook’s relationship with news content is an important part of this ubiquity. Since 2008 the company has courted news organisations with features like “Connect”, “Share” and “Instant Articles”. As of 2017, 48% of Americans <a href="http://www.journalism.org/2017/09/07/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2017/">rely primarily</a> on Facebook for news and current affairs information. </p>
<p>Social networks present news content in a way that’s integrated into the flow of personal and other communication. Media scholar <a href="http://alfredhermida.com/research/projects/">Alfred Hermida</a> calls this “<a href="http://alfredhermida.com/2010/05/03/ambient-journalism-paper-published/">ambient news</a>”. It’s a trend that has been considered promising for the development of civil society. Social media – like the Internet before it – has being hailed as the new “public sphere”: a place for civic discourse and political engagement among the citizenry. </p>
<p>But, unlike the Internet, Facebook is not a public space in which all content is equal. It is a private company. It controls what content you see, according to algorithms and commercial interests. The new public sphere is, in fact, privately owned, and this has far-reaching implications for civic society worldwide. </p>
<p>When a single company is acting as the broker for news and current affairs content for a majority of the population, the possibility for abuse is rife. Facebook is not seen as a “news organisation”, so it falls outside of whatever regulations countries apply to “the news”. And its content is provided by myriad third parties, often with little oversight and tracking by countries’ authorities. So civic society’s ability to address concerns about Facebook’s content becomes even more constrained.</p>
<h2>Getting to know all about you</h2>
<p>Facebook’s primary goal is to sell advertising. It does so by knowing as much as possible about its users, then selling that information to advertisers. The provision of content to entice consumers to look at advertising is not new: it’s the entire basis of the commercial media. </p>
<p>But where newspapers can only target broad demographic groups based on language, location and, to an extent, education level and income, Facebook can narrow its target market down to individual level. How? Based on demographics – and everything your “likes”, posts and comments have told it.</p>
<p>This ability to fine tune content to subsets of the audience is not limited to advertising. Everything on your Facebook feed is curated and presented to you by an algorithm seeking to maximise your engagement by only showing you things that it thinks you will like and respond to. The more you engage and respond, the better the algorithm gets at predicting what you will like.</p>
<p>When it comes to news content and discussion of the news, this means you will increasingly only see material that’s in line with your stated interests. More and more, too, news items, advertisements and posts by friends are blurred in the interface. This all merges into a single stream of information. </p>
<p>And because of the way your network is structured, the nature of that information becomes ever more narrow. It is inherent in the ideals of democracy that people be exposed to a <a href="http://www.expo98.msu.edu/innerindex.html?ideas">plurality of ideas</a>; that the public sphere should be open to all. The loss of this plurality creates a society made up of extremes, with little hope for consensus or bridging of ideas. </p>
<h2>An echo chamber</h2>
<p>Most people’s “friends” on Facebook tend to be people with whom they have some real-life connection – actual friends, classmates, neighbours and family members. Functionally, this means that most of your network will consist largely of people who share your broad demographic profile: education level, income, location, ethnic and cultural background and age. </p>
<p>The algorithm knows who in this network you are most likely to engage with, which further narrows the field to people whose worldview aligns with your own. You may be Facebook friends with your Uncle Fred, whose political outbursts threaten the tranquillity of every family get-together. But if you ignore his conspiracy-themed posts and don’t engage, they will start to disappear from your feed. </p>
<p>Over time this means that your feed gets narrower and narrower. It shows less and less content that you might disagree with or find distasteful.</p>
<p>These two responses, engaging and ignoring are both driven by the invisible hand of the algorithm. And they have created an echo chamber. This isn’t dissimilar to what news organisations have been trying to do for some time: <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/107769906704400301">gatekeeping</a> is the expression of the journalists’ idea of what the audience wants to read. </p>
<p>Traditional journalists had to rely on their instinct for what people would be interested in. Technology now makes it possible to know exactly what people read, responded to, or shared. </p>
<p>For Facebook, this process is now run by a computer; an algorithm which reacts instantly to provide the content it thinks you want. But this fine tuned and carefully managed algorithm is open to manipulation, especially by political and social interests.</p>
<h2>Extreme views confirmed</h2>
<p>In the last few years Facebook users have unwittingly become part of a massive social experiment – one which may have contributed to the equally surprising <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/26/cambridge-analytica-used-data-from-facebook-and-politico-to-help-trump">election of Donald Trump</a> as president of the US and the UK <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-brexit-robbery-hijacked-democracy">electing to leave</a> the European Union. We can’t be sure of this, since Facebook’s content algorithm is secret and most of the content is shown only to specific users. </p>
<p>It’s physically impossible for a researcher to see all of the content distributed on Facebook; the company explicitly prevents that kind of access. Researchers and journalists need to construct model accounts (fake ones, violating Facebook’s terms of use) and attempt to trick the algorithm into showing what the social network’s most extreme political users see.</p>
<p>What they’ve <a href="https://medium.com/@richgor/why-every-american-should-look-at-blue-feed-red-feed-and-why-the-nation-needs-someone-to-build-f455ef17a0f2">found</a> is that the <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.00189.pdf">more extreme the views</a> the user has already agreed with, the more extreme the content they saw was. People who liked or expressed support for leaving the EU were shown content that reflected this desire, but in a more extreme way. </p>
<p>If they liked that they’d be shown even more content, and so on, the group getting smaller and smaller and more and more insular. This is similar to how extremist groups would identify and court potential members, enticing them with more and more radical ideas and watching their reaction. That sort of personal interaction was a slow process. Facebook’s algorithm now works at lightning speed and the pace of radicalisation is exponentially increased.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91024/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Megan Knight does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>More and more, news items, adverts and posts by friends are blurred in Facebook’s interface. This all merges into a single stream of information.Megan Knight, Associate Dean, University of HertfordshireLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/908752018-01-30T15:33:45Z2018-01-30T15:33:45ZYouthquake was a ‘myth’, but social media campaigning is here to stay<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/204036/original/file-20180130-107700-1lyuamc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/andymiah/33970528723/sizes/l">Andy Miah/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It was widely believed that Labour did unexpectedly well in the UK’s 2017 general election because of a surge in youth turnout. But this notion <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42747342">has been challenged</a> by findings from the British Election Study (BES). The <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3111839">research notes</a> very little change in the turnout of 18 to 24-year-olds between the 2015 and 2017 general elections – rather, Labour’s popularity increased across most age groups. In fact, the authors of the study suggest that large shifts in young voter turnout are unlikely in future elections: voter patterns are “sticky”, so people who have voted or abstained in the past will continue to do so. </p>
<p>In the lead up to the 2017 poll, political pundits <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/09/digital-strategists-give-victory-to-labour-in-social-media-election-facebook-twitter">remarked that</a> Labour’s election campaign had something the Conservatives’ didn’t: young grassroots activists, social media and memes. Together with a manifesto <a href="http://www.nya.org.uk/2017/05/general-election-2017-party-manifestos-policies-young-people/">that pledged to</a> abolish tuition fees and restore maintenance grants, many thought Labour’s appeal to young people triggered a “<a href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/word-of-the-year/word-of-the-year-2017">youthquake</a>” – a political awakening of younger voters – which lost the Conservative party <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2017/results">13 MPs</a> and gave Labour 30 more, leaving Theresa May with a very bloody nose indeed. </p>
<h2>Winners and losers</h2>
<p>In the aftermath of the 2017 election, the Conservatives were anxious to close their social media deficit. Conservative MP Ben Bradley <a href="http://www.vogue.co.uk/article/ben-bradley-vice-chair-youth-parliament">tasked with</a> engaging young voters as Conservative vice-chair for youth, while <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017t/09/short-life-and-brutal-death-activate-tory-momentum">others in the party tried</a> (and failed) to recreate the success of Labour’s grass-roots campaign group Momentum, with a Conservative equivalent called Activate. Conservative MPs were also lectured on how to use Instagram – a way of easing them into social media by way of a platform often viewed as a kinder, gentler place for politicians, where they are less likely to attract <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-people-who-abuse-mps-online-81221">criticism or abuse</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/204035/original/file-20180130-107703-1eywans.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/204035/original/file-20180130-107703-1eywans.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/204035/original/file-20180130-107703-1eywans.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/204035/original/file-20180130-107703-1eywans.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/204035/original/file-20180130-107703-1eywans.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=733&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/204035/original/file-20180130-107703-1eywans.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=733&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/204035/original/file-20180130-107703-1eywans.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=733&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Social memedia strategy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1263871-2017-uk-election">Know Your Meme.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Labour, meanwhile, simply kept on with their social media strategy from the election, generating more posts, more videos and <a href="http://www.electionanalysis.uk/uk-election-analysis-2017/section-5-the-digital-campaign/labours-social-media-campaign-more-posts-more-video-and-more-interaction/">more interaction</a> with younger voters. Even Jeremy Corbyn’s words in the House of Commons are influenced by the party’s digital content strategy, with <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42269771">statements prepared and planted into Prime Minister’s Questions</a>, to be used later in social media videos. Despite all the action taken by the Conservatives to “up their game”, Labour is still thought to be <a href="https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/labour-posts-likelier-to-be-shared-by-social-media-users-than-those-of-tories-36469147.html">the leader on social media</a>.</p>
<p>Now, reports of the BES results have dismissed the youthquake as mere “myth”, which suggests that that the <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-social-media-strategy-attack-jeremy-corbyn-labouir-twitter-facebook-video-stormzy-akala-a7784406.html">millions of pounds</a> <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/c78c3bd0-36f8-11e7-99bd-13beb0903fa3">spent on social media</a> campaigns by both parties have failed to pay off – at least if the aim was to garner the support of young people. But that doesn’t mean the parties will stop using social media to reach out to voters – or that they should.</p>
<h2>The game continues</h2>
<p>Social media is no longer a young person’s game. <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/media-releases/2017/rise-social-seniors">A report</a> by communications regulator OfCom in June 2017 found that a record number of older people are embracing social media, with half of online baby boomers creating social media accounts. This means social media is now an important touchpoint for a generation that is much more likely to vote than than young people. We can now expect parties to start viewing social media as a way to connect with older voters, as well as younger ones. </p>
<p>In any case, social media is already routinely used by MPs and parties, so much so that it’s now the norm. In 2018, an MP without any social media presence would be viewed as out-of-touch. MPs are expected to have Twitter and Facebook pages, just as they’re expected to have a website, an email address and a telephone number. Dialling down MPs’ use of social media would therefore be a sign of defeat.</p>
<p>More to the point, social media does actually work. In the 2015 general election, the Conservative’s success was partially attributed to its spend of <a href="http://www.thedrum.com/news/2016/01/20/general-election-2015-ad-spend-conservatives-spent-over-1m-more-labour-facebook">over £1m</a> on Facebook advertising, which targeted voters with messages based on their core interests, according to Facebook’s user data. The Conservatives outspent Labour on Facebook by nearly a factor of 75 for a reason – it worked. </p>
<p>Youthquake or no youthquake, social media platforms have become the site where the battle for the national consciousness is won or lost. After all, it is where the Leave campaign successfully deployed <a href="http://www.referendumanalysis.eu/eu-referendum-analysis-2016/section-7-social-media/impact-of-social-media-on-the-outcome-of-the-eu-referendum/">emotional rhetoric to win over the online space</a> over the course of the EU referendum. And Labour’s organic approach in 2017, which relied more on supporters sharing posts than paid promotion, shows there is still a place for election campaigning on social media. </p>
<p>The dream of triggering a youthquake though social media may have been shattered, but this won’t spell an end to parties seeking to engage with audiences on social media. With newspaper <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2O80DwAAQBAJ&lpg=PT8&ots=-I6PwLUzGz&dq=Falling%20UK%20newspaper%20readership&lr&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false">readership falling</a>, and <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2005.00143.x/full">less interest in current affairs</a> content, political parties are seeking new ways to reach voters – and social media is starting to look like one of the few remaining options. So politics is here to stay on social media, and parties <a href="https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/11/politics-is-now-a-digital-arms-race-and-labour-is-winning/">are now seeking</a> to be ahead of the digital curve, with established teams waiting in the shadows for the next big internet phenomenon to jump on.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90875/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dr Liam Mcloughlin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The British Election Study results have called the notion of a 2017 ‘youthquake’ into question. But that doesn’t mean parties will abandon social media campaigning any time soon.Dr Liam Mcloughlin, PhD Researcher, University of SalfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/795002017-08-02T00:57:47Z2017-08-02T00:57:47ZMore than ‘slacktivism’: we dismiss the power of politics online at our peril<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174863/original/file-20170621-30161-12pwj92.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Political groups of all stripes recognise the enormous power of online mass persuasion, one meme at a time.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/fibonacciblue/32452974604/">Fibonacci Blue/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>This article is part of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/democracy-futures">Democracy Futures</a> series, a <a href="http://sydneydemocracynetwork.org/democracy-futures/">joint global initiative</a> between The Conversation and the <a href="http://sydneydemocracynetwork.org/">Sydney Democracy Network</a>. The project aims to stimulate fresh thinking about the many challenges facing democracies in the 21st century.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Log on to Facebook or Twitter and you’re likely to see a deluge of political posts – a humorous <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-donald-trump-won-the-2016-meme-wars-68580">meme</a> or viral video skewering politicians like Donald Trump, the latest hashtag slogan in response to breaking news, maybe even a social movement symbol as an updated profile picture. </p>
<p>The sharing of political opinion on social media is now ubiquitous. But what does it mean for democracy?</p>
<p>For years, debate has raged about the significance of symbolic, expressive political activity at the level of the everyday citizen. </p>
<p>Critics fear it is simply self-satisfying “<a href="https://theconversation.com/slacktivism-that-works-small-changes-matter-69271">slacktivism</a>”. It gives people an easy way to feel they’re contributing to a cause while substituting for more intensive political participation. </p>
<p>Conversely, optimists see a flourishing of civic engagement on the internet that gives people an accessible entry point into politics. If it helps them to develop a sense of political identity and agency, that enables more participation down the line.</p>
<p>These contrasting positions both have merit. Yet are those who take them asking the right questions in the first place?</p>
<p>By evaluating online political expression only in terms of possible impacts on traditional political activity, we risk sidestepping a far more crucial set of issues.</p>
<h2>Forget ‘slacktivism’</h2>
<p>Myriad organisations and institutions see this citizen-level expression on social media as being far from just a private or personal affair. It is increasingly valued for its aggregate promotional power. The marketing professions know this as <a href="http://www.buzztalkmonitor.com/blog/electronic-word-of-mouth-presents-a-window-of-opportunity-for-businesses/">electronic word of mouth</a>.</p>
<p>Political groups of all stripes promote social media participation to amplify the reach and credibility of their persuasive messages. Although each individual act of posting, linking, commenting and liking may look insignificant up close, at a macro level they add up to nothing less than the networked spread of ideas. </p>
<p>There is enormous power here for mass persuasion, one viral share at a time. We dismiss this power at our peril.</p>
<p>During the 2016 US presidential election cycle social media soared to new heights of <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-relationship-between-social-media-and-traditional-media-has-shaped-this-election-61585">prominence</a> in the political media landscape. It appears we are finally starting to recognise this power for what it is. </p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-the-wannabe-king-ruling-by-twiat-72269">Trump, the wannabe king ruling by twiat</a></strong></em></p>
<hr>
<p>For instance, <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook?utm_term=.sc0N0nwlP#.laLN2PYkM">controversy over fake news on sites like Facebook</a> has drawn attention to how peer-to-peer sharing can influence public opinion and even the course of elections (in this case by spreading false and defamatory messages about Hillary Clinton that consolidated her image problems). New <a href="https://datasociety.net/output/media-manipulation-and-disinfo-online/">research</a> has highlighted how:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… far-right groups develop techniques of ‘attention hacking’ to increase the visibility of their ideas through the strategic use of social media, memes and bots.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174873/original/file-20170621-30211-16o258g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174873/original/file-20170621-30211-16o258g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174873/original/file-20170621-30211-16o258g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174873/original/file-20170621-30211-16o258g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174873/original/file-20170621-30211-16o258g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174873/original/file-20170621-30211-16o258g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174873/original/file-20170621-30211-16o258g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Fake news stories from websites like End The Fed are designed to go viral on social media.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">End The Fed</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The so-called alt-right celebrates its “<a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/memes-4chan-trump-supporters-trolls-internet-214856">meme magic</a>” in propagating white nationalist ideology online in service of Trump. The pro-Clinton <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/correct-the-record-online-trolls/484847/">“Correct the Record” political action committee</a> admits to paying people to post on social media during her primary battle with Bernie Sanders. We are seeing the persuasive value of citizen-level political media coming into sharp focus.</p>
<p>We need to reflect on how we each use this power. That involves thinking through the consequences of what we share online and how it can both strengthen and harm democratic values.</p>
<h2>The citizen marketer</h2>
<p>Sharing political opinion on social media must be understood in no small part as participation in political <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-citizen-marketer-9780190658069?lang=en&cc=us">marketing</a>. Its practitioners have long circulated persuasive media messages to shape the public mind and influence political outcomes. </p>
<p>This understanding calls for a new kind of media literacy. It requires individuals to acknowledge their own position in circuits of media influence and take seriously their capacity to help shape the flow of political ideas across networks of peers. </p>
<p>We should no longer think of political marketing — or its conceptual forebear, propaganda — as something only powerful elites do. We must recognise that we are all now complicit in this process every time we spread political messages via media platforms that we personally control.</p>
<p>Many citizens are keenly aware of their capacity to persuade their peers through their online posting. They have embraced the role of social media influencer. Most often, they focus on trying to rally the like-minded or undecided, rather than winning over converts from the other side.</p>
<p>This <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-citizen-marketer-9780190658069?lang=en&cc=us">citizen marketer</a> approach to political action can be seen as an outgrowth of the more established concept of the citizen consumer. A citizen consumer deliberately uses their spending power as another way to influence the political sphere. </p>
<p>They may, for instance, buy only environmentally friendly products, or boycott companies whose CEOs donate to campaigns and causes that the consumer opposes. Similarly, we are seeing citizens use their power as micro-level agents of viral media promotion and word-of-mouth endorsement to advance a wide range of political interests and agendas.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ry-hqi9zRuM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">#BlackLivesMatter forced America to confront racism once more using the power of social media.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There is an enormous opportunity to democratise the flow of political media messages and publicise causes that lie outside the mainstream. </p>
<p>Consider recent activist movements, often built around viral hashtags like #occupywallsteet and #blacklivesmatter. Here, citizens are co-opting the tools and logics of social media marketing to advocate for political ideas that are typically poorly represented in the corporate mass media.</p>
<p>By recognising the potential value of our own grassroots political marketing power, we can gain a foothold in a political media landscape that elite interests traditionally dominated. </p>
<p>Perhaps even more importantly, cultivating a sense of responsibility for what we share on social media puts us in a better position to navigate the emerging digital ecosystem in which these elite actors are capitalising upon — at times even exploiting – our electronic word of mouth.</p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/not-so-grassroots-how-the-snowflake-model-is-transforming-political-campaigns-54166">Snowflake model is transforming political campaigns</a></strong></em></p>
<hr>
<h2>Know what you are posting, and who you are posting for</h2>
<p>Nowadays, major election campaigns and large-scale issue advocacy organisations have professional digital marketing teams. One of their tasks is to spur the promotional labour of everyday citizens to maximise the virality of their messages, whether these people are truly aware of their participation in political marketing or not. </p>
<p>In addition, for-profit political news sites like Breitbart and The Daily Kos have become dependent on social media shares to boost clicks and advertising revenue, as well as to advance their proprietors’ often-partisan agendas.</p>
<p>In this environment, it is crucial that we make informed decisions when we lend our promotional labour and word-of-mouth endorsement to institutional actors and the interests and agendas they represent. </p>
<p>At times we may be eager to act as “<a href="https://www.ignitesocialmedia.com/social-media-strategy/how-to-build-brand-evangelists-with-3-winning-examples/">brand evangelists</a>” for candidates, parties, advocacy groups or news agencies whose political goals align with our own. At other times developing media literacy might cause us to pause and reflect before we amplify the latest trending political message.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174864/original/file-20170621-30177-1k2nd9j.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174864/original/file-20170621-30177-1k2nd9j.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174864/original/file-20170621-30177-1k2nd9j.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174864/original/file-20170621-30177-1k2nd9j.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174864/original/file-20170621-30177-1k2nd9j.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174864/original/file-20170621-30177-1k2nd9j.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174864/original/file-20170621-30177-1k2nd9j.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Human Rights Campaign logo that made the rounds on Facebook.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">The Human Rights Campaign</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Back in 2013, Facebook users <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2013/03/what-is-that-red-equal-sign-on-facebook-all-about/">posted a red equal sign</a> as their profile picture to express their support for same-sex marriage. Some had <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-citizen-marketer-9780190658069?lang=en&cc=us">no idea</a> the symbol was the logo of the <a href="http://www.hrc.org/">Human Rights Campaign</a>. This organisation has had a <a href="http://transgriot.blogspot.com/2013/04/why-trans-community-loathes-hrc.html">controversial</a> status in the LGBT movement because of its past treatment of transgender issues.</p>
<p>Would these citizens still have posted the image if they knew they were participating in a viral marketing campaign for an organisation that was not universally supported by the LGBT community, and whose message of equality has drawn criticism for emphasising assimilation over radical structural change? </p>
<p>Or would they have chosen instead to amplify an image and an organisation with a different shade of meaning?</p>
<p>These kinds of important conversations can only be opened up if we start to develop a critical literacy of the citizen marketer approach and how it is transforming what it means to be an active participant in our media-dominated, postmodern political reality.</p>
<p>If we see our online political expressions as mere “slacktivism”, a simple private matter, or just having fun with friends, then we become more vulnerable to manipulation by forces that seek to exploit our citizen marketing power to serve agendas that we may not share.</p>
<p>If we become more aware of our position in these circuits of power, we will be better equipped to resist this manipulation. </p>
<hr>
<p><em>Joel Penney’s new book, <a href="https://www.citizenmarketer.org">The Citizen Marketer</a>, is available from <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-citizen-marketer-9780190658069?lang=en&cc=us">Oxford University Press</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79500/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joel Penney does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Each individual act of posting, linking, commenting and liking may look insignificant up close, but they add up. There is enormous power here for mass persuasion, one viral share at a time.Joel Penney, Professor of Communication and Media, Montclair State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/797792017-06-21T09:58:15Z2017-06-21T09:58:15ZPolitical bots are poisoning democracy – so, off with their heads<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174761/original/file-20170620-32369-5r3xnj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Bottery and aggravated assault. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/robot-typing-on-computer-keyboard-automation-400106332?src=OFoZqT_-z1pUokCzwqNNew-1-7">Mopic</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Propaganda bots posing as people are increasingly being used on social media to sway public opinion around the world. So says <a href="http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/2017/06/19/computational-propaganda-worldwide-executive-summary/">new research</a> from the University of Oxford’s Internet Institute, which found automated accounts and other forms of social media propaganda are rife in Russia, the US and Germany among other countries. </p>
<p>This follows a flurry of material about bots and the UK election. One <a href="http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/2017/05/31/junk-news-and-bots-during-the-2017-uk-general-election/">seminal work</a>, which came from the same institute, showed that Twitter traffic had been dominated by material related to Labour and that automated accounts were predominantly using hashtags associated with the party. The research did not look at whether they were for or against Labour. </p>
<p>Bots were also at work in last year’s <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/11/election-bots/506072/">US presidential election</a>, and <a href="https://ig.ft.com/social-bots-of-brexit/">during</a> the Brexit referendum – with some of the automated accounts in question graduating to pump out thousands more messages in the UK election. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://ig.ft.com/social-bots-of-brexit/">study by the FT</a> reported that during the referendum campaign, “the 20 most prolific accounts … displayed indications of high levels of automation”. This supported research last year, again from Oxford, that <a href="http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/89/2016/06/COMPROP-2016-1.pdf">found that</a> “on average 12.3% of traffic about UK politics is generated by highly automated accounts”. </p>
<h2>Bot seriously …</h2>
<p>That digital media would emerge as a tool for political campaigning is a no-brainer. At no point in history have candidates and parties had such a remarkable opportunity to reach out to such a wide audience so effectively. </p>
<p>Leaders can relay their messages in the most cost-effective manner with real evidence of interaction. Better still, social media provides a platform for two-way engagement. The average voter can boo, applaud, vent and taunt politicians and policies on their smartphones with a flick of a finger. </p>
<p>But politics is a game of one-upmanship – and not just among parties but also over the public. For all the windows of expression that digital media has opened up for people, it now threatens to make fools of them. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174762/original/file-20170620-32355-qjg8lu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174762/original/file-20170620-32355-qjg8lu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174762/original/file-20170620-32355-qjg8lu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174762/original/file-20170620-32355-qjg8lu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174762/original/file-20170620-32355-qjg8lu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174762/original/file-20170620-32355-qjg8lu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174762/original/file-20170620-32355-qjg8lu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174762/original/file-20170620-32355-qjg8lu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Drip ‘til you drop.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/internet-social-networks-brainwashing-vector-concept-496014847?src=U4EdZfOYfwMVUH_scjA4JA-1-57">MJ Graphics</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Bots with large numbers of followers are the ideal conduits for disinformation, sharing fake news within the echo chambers that have grown out of the content display logic of social media algorithms. Some of this news will be crafted specifically for political gain, but even this doesn’t always necessarily follow. </p>
<p>The US media reported, for example, <a href="http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/11/can-facebook-solve-its-macedonian-fake-news-problem.html">that</a> an army of Macedonian teenagers had been operating US political sites peddling made-up conservative news to make a quick buck on Facebook. With 44% of Americans <a href="http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/11/donald-trump-won-because-of-facebook.html">getting their news</a> from Facebook, and Donald Trump elected president, we may be paying a hefty price for such enterprises. </p>
<p>As one <a href="https://datasociety.net/pubs/oh/DataAndSociety_MediaManipulationAndDisinformationOnline.pdf">detailed report</a> put it, media manipulators trade their stories by “using the power of networked collaboration and the reach of influencers”. Even “when the misinformation is debunked, it continues to shape people’s attitudes”. Such overt mind manipulation can “ruin democracy”, warned the report.</p>
<p>Speaking of ruining democracy, algorithms are also opening the door to another kind of Facebook manipulation. During the UK election, there <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/conservative-election-adverts?utm_term=.eheYVWjJn#.hp5bkJREw">were reports</a> of “paid-for attack advertising” targeting specific voters in specific constituencies. The Conservatives have been particularly identified with this so-called “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/27/conservatives-facebook-dark-ads-data-protection-election">dark advertising</a>”. It <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-laws-cant-cope-with-data-harvesting-which-suits-politicians-fine-78044?sr=4">threatens to</a> break fundamental rules about campaign transparency and voter targeting. It also undermines the UK’s longstanding ban on political parties buying TV and radio space. </p>
<h2>Not OK, computer</h2>
<p>From radio to TV to the internet, every new medium has disrupted the political space. Each has served as a new tool to expand the audience and sharpen the dialogue. With social media, however, we find ourselves in unique territory. </p>
<p>The public has to wake up to the very real reality that fake news, junk news and automated tweets are almost certainly muddling political discourse and making different factions more and more polarised. Rhetoric and sloganeering are giving way to digital subterfuge and guerilla assaults on the public psyche. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174758/original/file-20170620-32381-1yq0tga.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174758/original/file-20170620-32381-1yq0tga.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174758/original/file-20170620-32381-1yq0tga.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174758/original/file-20170620-32381-1yq0tga.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174758/original/file-20170620-32381-1yq0tga.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174758/original/file-20170620-32381-1yq0tga.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174758/original/file-20170620-32381-1yq0tga.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174758/original/file-20170620-32381-1yq0tga.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Guerillas in the midst.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/hands-holding-political-signboards-message-social-639163210">lazyllama</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>People in the UK could console themselves <a href="http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/2017/05/31/junk-news-and-bots-during-the-2017-uk-general-election/">that they</a> are sharing “better quality information” than many US counterparts, but equally they compare poorly next to the French and Germans. In any case, favourable comparisons are beside the point.</p>
<p>It is time for a proper debate about how we respond to these developments. There is a clear argument for a system reboot, including a digital media code of conduct for political parties and campaigners. Bots need to be banned under this code and the system needs to be policed in real time during campaigns – the money it would cost would be well spent. The reality is that social media campaigning is rendering our democracy unfit for purpose. We need to do something about it quickly. </p>
<p><em>Correction: the original article said that political bots predominantly favoured Labour in the election. In fact, the Oxford research this was based on did not show whether tweets from automated accounts were promoting or criticising a particular party.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79779/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hadley Newman is Managing Director of Omobono, a specialist digital communications agency that works with global corporate brands. The company does not work in the field of politics, with political brands, parties or politicians so neither they nor their clients stand to benefit from this article.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kevin O'Gorman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Our whole system of political campaigning needs a reboot.Hadley Newman, Doctoral Researcher, Heriot-Watt UniversityKevin O'Gorman, Professor of Management and Business History, Heriot-Watt UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.