Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Wednesday, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez cautioned how social media could threaten democracies around the globe. He called upon European Union leaders to take action from the tech billionaires using the platform to push agendas favorable to their goals – not the masses.
“The technology that was intended to free us has become the tool of our own oppression,” Sánchez suggested. “The social media that was supposed to bring unity, clarity and democracy have instead given us division, vice and a reactionary agenda.”
He warned that while the sites had helped bring unity through causes like the #MeToo movement and encourage peaceful discussion on issues like climate change, it has provided greater power to the billionaire class.
“What truly limits democracy is the power of the elites,” Sánchez added. “It is the power of those who think that because they are rich, they are above the law and can do anything. That is why, my friends, that is why the tech billionaires want to overthrow democracy.”
A Clear And Present Danger
Sánchez is hardly the first to warn of the danger of social media, but his comments come just days after multiple tech billionaires – including those who own some of the largest social networks – were present at President Donald Trump’s inauguration.
Dr. Cliff Lampe, professor of information and associate dean for Academic Affairs in the School of Information at the University of Michigan, said we shouldn’t see it as hyperbole to say that social media is a threat to democracy, or really to any form of government that serves as a status quo.
“While there are still open questions about to what extent social media is bad for democracy, we’ve seen several instances both in the United States and globally, where it has harmed democracy,” Lampe explained. “One example is that Cambridge Analytica data was used to manipulate several global elections years ago. There’s a reason the Internet Research Agency in Russia has determined that social media is the best vector by which to attack the stability of the U.S.”
How Social Media Is A Threat To Democracy
Social media networks weren’t developed to change the world or to have such an impact. They were simply meet-up places, allowing users to share their thoughts with friends in a centralized online platform. Then the platforms became broadcast tools to reach the masses – and there is no denying that some have taken advantage of that fact.
“Overall social media has been a double-edged sword, on the one hand, boosting business efforts and facilitating international and domestic connections, and on the other hand its algorithms have contributed to echo chambers, polarization, and self-radicalization for people who spend excessive amount of time online or in self-isolation in these chambers,” suggested geopolitical analyst Irina Tsukerman, president of threat analyst firm Scarab Rising.
“However, these social media companies are incentivized by the greater output from polarized exchanges, and until these incentives change, there will not be a reason for companies to do anything different. Moreover, the more social media companies are attacked by government officials after playing a significant role in the last elections in the US and other countries, the more there is likely to be a backlash,” Tsukerman added.
Social media companies are now playing an outsized role in shaping the discourse and allowing misinformation and disinformation to spread. This is made worse by those aforementioned echo chambers, where even the most extremist views find an audience.
“It’s a vector for bad information,” said Lampe. “For a variety of reasons it tends to lead to everyone taking more extremist views which is bad for the compromise needed to make a republic work. Social media companies tend to use the algorithm to give people self-affirming views rather than views that would help promote democratic dialog.”
Moreover, the platforms can silence views as they see fit – while third-party fact-checkers who can address any misinformation/disinformation are largely a thing of the past.
“That their owners are increasingly expanding their own power through monopolistic and cartel-like practice is a legitimate concern,” said Tsukerman. “However, the popularity and feasibility of discourse offered by these platforms makes it a difficult issue to resolve in a way that does not cause a social backlash among the various parties that benefit in one way or another. What’s worse, much of the discourse around this topic is itself often subject to interference and infiltration by foreign interests who invest in pushing both the policies and the controversy in ways that maximize their benefit, contribute to chaos and polarization, and contribute to social and political distrust among users, and between users, authorities, and business owners.”
Foes Of Democracy Given A Platform
Then there is the fact that Twitter/X allowed known adversaries of the West to maintain a presence on the network.
“Both Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk have allowed accounts of Iranian leadership, Taliban leaders, and even Hezbollah leaders despite U.S. government pressure,” said Tsukerman.” Musk’s X, rebranded from Twitter, has even reportedly allowed the purchase of blue checks by Hezbollah before U.S. government pressure finally put an end to this scheme and forced X to shut down Hezbollah accounts.”
However, other extremist accounts are still operational, including those that were being funded by Russia.
“Musk has boosted extremist accounts linked to Russia and its assorted proxies, including various troll accounts who have spread extremist Russian propaganda,” warned Tsukerman. “There is no easy answer to any of these dilemmas, but perhaps, the focus should in this situation be: one, exposing the role of foreign malign influence in impacting the discourse; two, the flow of funding from these foreign interests and how it impacts US policy; and three, the conflicts of interests by governments, social media, companies, and specific interests among the users benefiting from the current regulatory framework.”
And for now, this does seem to be a problem facing democracies more than totalitarian regimes – even as social media had proven to be a vital lifeline during the 2011 Arab Spring movements. For the most part, the democracies aren’t paying attention.
“The issue that surprises me is that governments outside of China don’t see the threat as being as serious as it really is,” said Lampe. “In the U.S. at least, that danger is opposed to some extent by our commitment to free speech, which makes regulation of the social media industry hard.”
