Social media has morphed from mere communication tools to powerful platforms influencing political landscapes worldwide. Yet, as users scroll through feeds filled with memes, news, and questionable content, the real debate rages: are these platforms fostering democracy or eroding it?
Brazil is currently at the forefront of this discussion, showcasing how social media can simultaneously defend and challenge the very fabric of democracy. The Brazilian Supreme Court, echoing the sentiment of protecting democratic institutions, has expanded its powers under the pretense of safeguarding against online threats. But is this enhanced control actually bolstering democracy, or is it beginning to resemble authoritarian measures?
At the center of the controversy is Daniel Silveira, a far-right congressman who found himself at odds with Brazil’s highest court due to his inflammatory rhetoric against its justices. His remarks, captured on social media, landed him nearly nine years behind bars after the court deemed his actions as threats. The raucousness of Silveira’s video ranting against the Supreme Court showcased how the politics of fear and provocation have taken to social media as their podium.
On the flip side, this judicial action against Silveira was not taken lightly by the political right, who now see the court as the real threat to democratic discourse. According to critics, the court's aggressive stance and its perceived bias lean heavily on censorship, fueling the narrative of persecution among conservative factions.
Meanwhile, north of Brazil, the story of social media’s impact on democracy continues to unravel, especially with the tumultuous era of the platform X (formerly Twitter). Elon Musk's takeover of X has sparked dramatic changes, particularly evident during the lead-up to the 2024 presidential elections.
Initially, Musk had espoused noble goals of transforming X, proclaiming aims of creating a ‘digital town square’ where freedom of expression would reign. Yet, as regulations were relaxed, the reality began to paint a different picture. Users like Thomas Park describe how their feeds have become inundated with extreme right content, misleading advertisements, and outright disinformation. Musk’s ambitious vision has turned, some argue, toward chaos.
With Musk’s dismantling of X’s Trust and Safety Council and the introduction of Twitter Blue—a subscription model granting verification—the environment for misinformation has only worsened. This shift has sparked fears about the platform morphing from being merely volatile to dangerously deceptive, especially as political campaigns utilize the platform for unchallenged propaganda.
Park notes troubling instances where high-profile users, including Musk himself, have disseminated misleading content without facing necessary consequences. One analysis revealed nearly one-third of posts made by Musk over just five days were found false or misleading. The sheer volume of this disinformation can have far-reaching effects, especially as studies indicate younger generations rely heavily on social media for news.
Indeed, research shows over 50% of teens aged 14-19 are primarily sourcing their news from social media platforms rather than traditional outlets like newspapers or television. This shift poses significant questions surrounding the reliability of information and how platform owners wield their influence.
Kelly Greenhill, an associate professor of Political Science, highlights the normalization of spreading misinformation as part of the current media ecosystem. "That it has become normalized and far more common ... means we also see more of this garbage information on social media," she wrote. This very normalization has created echo chambers where falsehoods become truths, simply through frequency of exposure.
The intersection of powerful figures and social media has cultivated scenarios where the line between fact and fantasy is constantly blurred. Figures like Musk not only shape the narrative but become the narrative themselves. With significant influential figures engaging with AI-generated misinformation—like the deepfake video of Kamala Harris—the stakes are higher than ever.
Misinformation on social media is not merely confined to X. The current climate reflects broader issues spanning various platforms as users encounter increasing falsehoods across the board. Greenhill emphasizes this chronic lying's deep-seated problem, urging people to recognize it goes beyond just social media. "The root of the problem is not social media per se," she notes. Instead, it stems from the broader societal acceptance of deceitful practices.
Despite the challenges, some users, like Thomas Park, expressed hope in retaining social media's community aspect, even with its flaws. Park sees X as the proverbial town square—albeit problematic—where people can still engage and have dialogues, albeit under tumultuous conditions. This portrays the dual nature social media embodies as both community builder and potential threat to democracy.
The situation unveils a complex web of responsibilities for both users and platform owners. Greenhill suggests one path forward could be advocacy for users to disengage from platforms rife with disinformation. Innovations like Bluesky and Mastodon, which present themselves as alternatives to disjointed platforms like I’ve seen with X, indicate user fatigue and desire for healthier engagement.
These scenarios play out against the backdrop of events like the upcoming U.S. elections, where the intersection of social media and democracy is thrust onto the world stage. This ever-evolving narrative shows how, during pivotal moments, social media has proven both now as tools of liberation and potential conduits to authoritarianism.
With each tick of the clock toward elections, the stakes grow higher, spotlighting the urgency of this dialogue around social media’s role. Will platforms like X heed the call for stricter content moderation, or will they continue to navigate the tension between freedom and stability? The answers lie not only with tech titans but also within each user’s decision on how to engage with the specific narratives shaping our political environment.
