Impact Of Social Media On Democracy

“Social media platforms held the promise of being more egalitarian and democratic than mass media in a sense that all users could equally participate and contribute content” (Dijck & Poell, 6). This explains a basic purpose of social media that remains consistent with the democratic values of freedom that the U.S. is founded upon by providing citizens with a platform where they are free to speak their mind. What makes this even more interesting is the ability for people to share their opinions on a stage that has relatively no geographical boundaries. Rather than restricting the spread of individuals’ beliefs, social networking sites help spread messages and information to anyone, faster than was previously possible. According to Dijck and Poell, “social media platforms seldom deal with ‘natural’ geographically or demographically delineated audiences; instead, they expedite connections between individuals, partly allowing the formation of strategic alliances or communities through users’ initiative” (Dijck & Poell, 8). Social networking sites are naturally designed to increase connectivity and interactions among individuals with common interests or beliefs. The idea of connectivity has significantly influenced the way in which protests are held in America and around the world.

    In today’s modern time, social media has a huge impact on political environment. How the World Changed Social Media claims, “ Such political activity as there is on social media is usually at a national level and is conducted mainly by supporters…” (Miller 142,143). Social media presents a national level bias. During the last ten years, politics has gained much traction on these sites.  For example, campaigns for national

“Fake news,” like Pravda during Soviet Russia times, was used in the election to deliberately sway the political views of the voters and increase the support of one party’s side. During the election, “phony articles concerning candidates…emerged…this fake news boosted the image of…Donald Trump…” (“Fake News”). "Phony articles” or “fake news” on social media affected the candidates’ images, thus making voters more likely to vote for one candidate over the other. “Fake news” can be dangerous in spreading unreliable information and planting false accusations about a candidate in the minds of the voters. In 2016, a fake news story was leaked about Hillary Clinton that led to a shooting in a pizzeria,“Incidents such as this demonstrate how potentially dangerous fake news can be and how difficult it is to distinguish…”(“Fake News”). “Fake news” can cause people to abandon their initial beliefs about a person, like a political candidate, and align with the opposing side, destroying a person’s career over counterfeit media. "Fake news” is propaganda used to change people’s way of thinking, like both Pravda and Squealer’s role on The Farm. All of these methods of propaganda were substantial resources in changing people’s minds and feeding thoughts into their minds. They can be dangerous if they are not identified as being false or exaggerated, and can

How presidential candidates present themselves in the media can be proven to impact election results dramatically. Political figure using social media did not start to become more common until after the 2008 election because Twitter and Facebook were just recently created, but by looking at data from the past two elections it shows that the news presidential candidates put on their social media can correlate with how people will decide to vote. After researching what topics political candidates post and how they present themselves in the media with election results it can be established that a candidate’s presence in social media can have an impact on how people might vote in an election. “By 2008 candidate websites were standard and campaigns

As time goes on, social networking sites can influence millions of people without thinking about the consequences. Foer wanted the readers to understand the full impact of Facebook by mentioning that “No other company has so precisely boasted about its ability to shape democracy like this-and for good reason. It’s too much power to entrust to a corporation” (75). The author found it peculiar that Facebook wanted to boast about their success, and the amount of influence that they have. Foer meant by “the ability to shape democracy” is Mark Zuckerberg is allowing Facebook to change the Democratic Party and he does not deny this accusation. He is able to reshape democracy due to the excessive use of algorithms. The people controlling the algorithms are allowing it to pick videos or post pictures that could have social pressures which can influence a person to sway from their original stance. Algorithms should be posting videos at random and should pick related videos if the users asks for it; that way, the user knows what they want and it will be their chose if they want to continuing watching the same videos. Facebook could be sneaky and can be inhumane when it comes to human emotions. Resulting in another treacherous scenario because Facebook does not care, “Whether the information is true or concocted, authoritative reporting or conspiratorial opinion, doesn’t really seem to matter much to Facebook. The crowd gets what it wants and deserves” (Foer 76). Foer mentions something that can be tremendously petrifying to the world and it is that Facebook does not care whether or not a piece of news is genuine on their site. The word “concocted” means made up and Facebook does not filter or check out the sources that make up facts that millions of people read. By ignoring their obligation to check out news like a journalist does, they allow the crowd to get what they want, even if it is fabricated.

Out of the variety of news sources such as TV, radio, or newspapers, one of the popular sources in today’s world is social media. People are getting addicted to and can’t live without social media such as Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram. They use social media as of where they can post their status but also where they can receive a lot of different news. While social media are spreading any kinds of news such as trend, celebrity or even politics, people easily get the information that is not true called “fake news.” The fake news raises the major problem in social media as the news source. Once people see the news, they tend to believe and share it. Liking can spread out fake news in a second. When people like the news, the activity

Social media has given the human race an unprecedented amount of access to news and information. However, the validity and vetting of this information is often questionable at best. The emergence of websites such as Breitbart, Occupy Democrats, and TheBlaze have given way to a constant stream of partisan

A study conducted in 2013 by Pew Research found out that 72 percent of Americans get their news from a mobile device. This created a major concern with the credibility of the news that Americans read due to the fact that there are many websites that post news satire. News satire is a false accusation made to scheme the audience into believing some type of hoax. These stories generate major problems for those who are political figures, threatening their legitimacy and even harming their reputations. Every single day people are exposed to fake news, whether that be on Facebook, Twitter, or directly on news sites and “According to Pew Research, 66 percent of Facebook users said they get news from the site” (“Probe Reveals Stunning”…). These false

On September 26, 1960 the presidential debate was televised for the first time. Kennedy was charismatic and confident, while Nixon seemed flustered. This made Nixon seem like a bad choice for president. For Obamas's election, he used social media in his favor with the most shared thread ever. Social media is important to presidential election because it keeps people up-to-date, makes some candidates more popular, and has influenced past elections.

Overall, our theory that social media use is a cause for voter turnout was not supported through our tests. Our results from our hypothesis chi-square test, our regression analysis, and also our predicted probabilities test show that social media use does not have a significant effect on voter turnout in the 2012 presidential election. Our theory may have been flawed in thinking that less people are dependent on social media than we originally thought. This can been seen in our graphic that a majority people do not use social media at all for obtaining political information. Social media sites are still on the rise and are not as widely/frequently used as we previously anticipated. The millennial generation and generation z are the most common

Unlike previous scholars who describe the effects of social bots as possibly changing people’s views and the outcome of the election, I propose that social bots altered the course of real life events that occurred during the 2016 election, which made the election more contentious than those of previous years. This thesis differs from my draft, which was that social bots influenced the election by connecting individuals of extremist views. My current thesis actually proposes a unique idea that other scholars fail to touch upon. Other scholars mention of social bots might have changed people’s minds and the outcome of the election. However, I state that social bots changed real life events, which made the election more

It is ambiguous that the 2016 Presidential Election has been one of the most publicized elections that our country has experienced. Both Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump used media as an effort to defeat one another. The true question one should ponder upon is how media affected this year’s election. Did social media serve as the Electoral College by determining the candidate who will rule our country for the next four years? Experts have said that this previous election has utilized media more than any other election. If you took a look at Instagram and Twitter on Election Day, you would have seen Donald Trump reminding his followers to vote for him and Hilary Clinton submitting her vote at the polls. Candidates can share messages with the public as propaganda. They do have to buy access to the reach millions of people anymore, the world is simply one click away. According to Lang (2016), two-thirds of 18-29-year-olds said that social media has helped them become more educated about politics. When Trump announced his proposal to ban all Muslims from entering the United States in December, the news produced more social media involvement that any other news about the election. Trump specifically has used social media networks more than Hilary Clinton has. Social Flow quoted, “It's just going to get bigger in the main election. The number of free media exposure given to Trump -- whether that's on social media or more traditional news media -- I think is absolutely the story of the election. We've just never seen anything like it before” (Lang,

Social media has caused an uproar in recent times. Political figures such as President Trump, have used social media to embarrass himself and the country, countless people lose jobs everyday due to posts on social media, and Kids are influenced into making bad decisions because of trends. One of the major key events in all of this is the development of “Facebook”. Facebook was one of the very first platforms that allowed everyone to access it, ever since then, our modern lifestyle has been in a decline. Social media is a common tool in modern life, however, it has caused many problems, including a corruption in our political system, damaging careers, and having a negative impact on children. With social media having such a value to society today, it is crucial to correct these errors in social media.

The recent surge in popularity of social media comes with a price: fake news. Fake news is defined as news or media that has been altered or modified. Journalists have begun to analyze why that fake news exists and why it continues exist. Two authors, Eoin O’Carroll and Kevin D. Williamson, both have written articles about fake news. Eoin O’Carroll’s article “How Information Overload Helps Spread Fake News,” discusses how the media has bombarded us with news stories, blurring the distinct lines between real and fake news. Kevin D. Williamson, a journalist for the National Review, writes in his article “‘Fake News, Media and Voters: Shared Reality Must Be Acknowledged” that the news is not fake; it just does not align with one’s personal beliefs. Both authors successfully appeal to their audiences’ emotions and feelings, but O’Carroll is more likely to succeed than Williamson in persuading his audience to try and combat fake news because the writer presents himself as someone the intended readers will more readily identify with and offers evidence that his readers will find more compelling.

Social media has grown at phenomenal rates over the past decade, with its rise being easily visible in several fields such as publishing, business, and activism, among others. The rise of its use in the field of politics is well known by those who are on and off social media, as a result of increasing number of politicians using this global platform to their maximum advantage.