Social Media’s Impact on Political Systems: US and Russia Essay Example

Abstract

This work examines the case of democracies and the use of social media. Social media can have a positive and a negative impact on how democracy can be enabled. Individuals can have a sense of freedom when using the different ways media literacy can influence democracy. This work concludes that there is a need to ensure that social media is needed at the policy level to be used robustly to improve accountability and democracy. Several conclusions can be drawn from this research. The role of social media in dealing with democracy is critical to examine, as the evolution of various initiatives must be taken into account, as this can have a long-term impact on how democracy is handled. However, in nations such as the United States, promoting media freedom has increased the use of social media in elections and democratic processes, which can contribute to long-term change and aid in the delivery of improved levels of democracy.

Introduction

The ability of human intent to change how democracy works is evident from the increased use of social media. The influence of social media on political systems is significant and will continue to be an essential aspect that can influence the way the political setup is changing. In this respect, one of the important elements is that changing political dynamics must be regarded as overtime, as this can have a wide and varied impact on the various services being employed. The changes in the political systems are also important to consider, as social media changes must be adjusted and understood over time, which can have a high level of impact on the various services being considered.

The US political system is continuously evolving, directly impacting how voting patterns are discussed. The excellent aspect of the use of social media is that there is a need to ensure that social media can be employed overtime to ensure that the broader social needs of the individuals can be adjusted over time. It is also important to consider as there is a need to ensure that the different services can be delivered time and allow individuals to interact with society. The Lack of media literacy within countries like Russia has inhibited how the stakeholders use social media. However, in countries such as the United States, encouraging media freedom has also meant that social media use in elections and the democratic process has increased, leading to long-term change and helping deliver an improved level of democracy.

Several conclusions can be drawn from this research. The importance of social media in dealing with democracy is essential to consider, as the development of the various initiatives must be taken into account, which can lead to a long-term impact on the way democracy is handled.

Background

Social media and political systems

In recent times the internet has played a pivotal role in changing the landscape of politics. Many have shed light on both the positive and negative impact technology or the use of social media has on politics. It is, therefore, an essential factor in understanding any country-specific politics. Empirical evidence has suggested that 44% of the public agrees that technology has played a positive role in shaping their political views and politics overall. On the other hand, it has been stre4ssed that the use of social media has been harmful in shaping public opinions.

Researchers have argued that the use of technology in shaping the political landscape of countries has been on the rise in the last few decades. It has a detrimental effect on changing voters’ views and manipulating news by spreading fake news. Social media has played a role in managing the political and democratic regime. On the other hand, side social media has led civilians to liberate them as it gives them a platform to raise their voice and give their opinion on the internet. Technologies such as social media help citizens arrange and coordinate the protests that are carried out, allowing citizens to protest against the opposition. It has also been argued that social media is deployed and used as a tool for surveillance, and as a result, it has the power to distract and change people’s political views.

Moreover, many commentators have stressed that social media in democracies is the reason for populism. Social media cannot be ignored in the pollical landscape because news good or evil spreads like fore. Many activists have misused social media for spreading fake news, which is responsible for changing and manipulating the pollical landscape. Understanding social media use can be confusing for shaping the opinion of the users. The phenomenon can explain this those citizens rely on user-generated information and hence can both have authentic and fake news. It has a significant impact on the political systems within the country. It allows changing the point of view of those who are not aware of the actual political landscape and only follow what is being said on social media.

Media literacy statistics show that 15% of the audience claimed that the use of social media is inaccurate and false. Hence, they disapproved of any claims that social media may have or highlight. Secondly, 25% have stressed that the information on social media did not have any evidence to support the fact that news was authentic. It means that social media is used more as a political tool to astray the readers and does not have any grounds to claim what they do. However, a significant chunk of the 60% population plainly and blindly believed any information mentioned on social media and deemed it proper.

The importance of social media cannot be denied today, as the role of social media in defining democracy can be significant. Around the world, the importance of social media also needs to be understood, as the ability to deal with the changing ways in which politics is enabled. The power of social media to deal with human intent is also significant, as it helps define the different issues and helps manage the human sense, which is developed over time. One of the evolving factors is that social media in the democratic process can help governments increase the population’s ability to increase their developmental needs. It is also important to consider, as there is a need to continuously ensure that the different elements that use social media can do so for the broader good of democracy. The ability of social media to increase the engagement of the locals into the more general needs of society is also essential, as it allows improved engagement and leads to the delivery of the services in a sustained manner. It can also be important for the different stakeholders, as they continuously evolve their broader needs and allow the consumers to develop an understanding of social media and its positive sides.

From a positive point of view, social media has several benefits for individuals. These include the ability of the individual to understand the different dynamics within which social media use can be employed for the broader good of society. It can lead to a long-term application of social media use. It can have a diverse impact on the way services are being provided by the government, leading to the use of social media initiatives. Social media can also increase how social media can be employed and lead to long-term change. It is also necessary, as the individuals must have the ability to develop and understand the aspects of the engagement on a civic level. Having a voice that can enable the use of the platform, the social media use can also be employed over time and lead to the development of the business ideals needed for the most optimal development of the resources.

However, research has shown that social media applications within the political process are not without dangers and problems. Fake news and the application of the different resources in a structured manner are also important to consider. There is a need to continuously develop and sustain the improvements made within governments. It is also important to consider, as the ability to respond to new challenges is also a significant issue for the government, which now needs to monitor the resources continuously, and ensure that long-term improvements can be made in the way services are being handled.

One of the issues regarding the employment of social media initiatives is how hate speech is continuously evolving and needs to ensure that the different elements of the resources are structured. It is an essential element in developing the different ways governments employ social media. The inability to deal with hate speech can especially be dangerous, as the narrative employed by the various elements must be structured over time and ensure that it does not lead to any problems for the government. Another factor that is important to consider is that social media is also important, as it allows the various individuals to have a clear understanding of the multiple attributes. The use of social media is also important as it makes Sucre that the involvement of the wider public is made possible, which can lead to long-term improvement in democratic institutions. It’s central to how the public’s abilities to take part in the broader debate are considered.

Countries in Play

Russia

The Russian state has been blamed for continuously using social media to interfere in public perceptions and politics. It has been enabled by social media to propagate fake news, which is often damaging for political candidates. In eth US elections, the Russian state has also been central to how it is interfering in the elections around the world. It is also vital to consider, as there is a need to continuously monitor the various individuals’ abilities and ensure that the sustainable use of the resources can undertake when employing social media. The lack of media literacy among the individuals can also be a defining element that can influence how the local population can expand, boon the different aspects of Beth’s social media use. Therefore, there is a need to evolve and improve social media use continuously.

 

Within the Russian state, evidence suggests that the suppressing of media literacy can be a significant factor that can influence the ability of the individuals to develop and understand the different elements which must be addressed. It is also important, as the lack of media freedom means that the individuals within the Russian state must ensure that it is towing the state line and is influenced by the more comprehensive state actors. Therefore, the positive use of social media may be limited, as the individuals do not have the freedom to enact the broader needs.

United States

The condition of the United States concerning the use and implementation of social media is significantly different., In this respect, the United States needs to ensure that it is continuously imping how social media is adopted. It is central to developing the different themes and media freedom which is a hallmark of States. It is also important to consider, as the individual actors must ensure that they can deliver and understand the factors that are important to take into account and lead to long-term use of the broader needs of the public.

Thesis

Despite showing a lack of media literacy in Russia and the United States, both countries differ significantly regarding media censorship as Russia suppresses media. At the same time, the United States encourages media freedom. Therefore, media canonship leads to a barrier in democracy.

Body

Media Literacy

Media literacy has been highlighted as a significant concern in how censorship within a country needs to improve the level of understanding that a country has about media freedom and censorship. Media literacy can be a significant factor that can influence democracy. Therefore there is a need to ensure that the wider ability of the individuals can be enabled over time, which can lead to significant contributions and skills of individuals to improve the level of assistance of democracy for the social media.

Constant Content

Constant content is necessary, as its teachers’ individuals within a democracy use social media in a structured manner. The use and wider application of social media are also important. It allows individuals to learn from their mistakes and enables them to engage with the wider debate that may be present. Understanding the different domains that may influence the political debate within a country is also important. It allows these individuals to learn from their mistakes and ensure that they can continuously evolve and learn.

Understanding the content is also necessary as there is a need to improve content continuously. It is also a significant issue, as the use of social media must be enabled over time and lead to improvement in the way social media is handled. Social media use is also important to consider. There is a need to ensure that the new social media initiatives are considered overtime and lead to new ways of managing consumption expectations. The ability of individuals to learn from mistakes and to have a proper way of dealing with the initiatives must also be enabled over time and lead to a continuous improvement in the way democracy is handled.

The learning mechanisms needed within a country are also important. They ensure that the different structures can be considered overtime and lead to improvement in the wider resources. One of the factors which are important to consider is that the various elements of the democratic intuitions can only work if the wider aspects of the understanding and control are taken into account. One of the important factors to consider is that the use of structures that can allow individuals to understand the different systems is also important. Social media applications can only be implemented in the wider public works continuously over time. Using social media to engage in healthy debates and understand the broader perspectives can also be important. One of the challenges in this regard is the need to continuously improve the present structure. The ability to positively challenge the status quo can allow individuals to enable a debate that ensures that wider systems can be fostered over time. It is also critical to understand, as there is a need to ensure that the ability of individuals to understand and contain hate speech is maintained. Another perspective is that the use of social media can also be important, as it increases the level of debate and allows the individual to have a high level of understanding of the different kinds of problems that these individuals face.

Lack of Media Literacy

The main factor which is vital to consider is that the lack of media literacy means that increasingly individuals do not have an understanding of the face news, sponsored news, and actual news. Instead, a significant problem for individuals is that they do not understand how fake news can directly impact different individuals. Fake news has been increasing in its content, with several studies showing that ability to understand the different types of fake news can be a significant challenge for individuals. It can be a major challenge for the individual, as they need to ensure that they can understand the challenges posed to them .

Another research has shown that over 80 percent of the individuals reading news do not even know that fake or sponsored news may have a bias towards a particular element are present . This research shows that the ability to deal with wider elements must also be considered overtime and lead to a long-term change in the end-users perceptions. It can be a major element in how to serve as are used and lead to a long-term change. The ability of the individuals to understand the different perspectives can Laos be important to take into account, as individuals must continuously evolve and improve their output, and ensure that the various elements can be considered overtime. This lack of media literacy can be a major element that must be regarded over time and lead to long-term change. Research suggests that the use of social media must be considered in light of these factors. Otherwise, the individuals will not have the ability to deal with the changing nature of the news, which can be a significant element that needs to be considered. The power of the individuals to deal with this news can lead to an improvement in the employment of social media issues.

Dealing with media issues is also essential, as the changes in the democracy are also significant to consider, as this enabled the end-users to learn from the government policies. It is important to consider, as the different initiatives must be considered, leading to an overall change in the way the various elements are handled. It is also important to consider, as the ability to learn from mistakes is also an important consideration, which can lead to the delivery of the services in a structured manner. Humans have evolved the ability to gossip, preen, manipulate, and excommunicate others. We know that it can make us nasty and shallow, but we are readily drawn into this new gladiatorial circus. The regular forces that might stop us from joining an outrage mob—such as time to reflect and cool off, or feelings of empathy for a person being humiliated—are attenuated when we can’t see the person’s face and when we are asked to take a side by publicly “liking” the condemnation many times a day, as Yale psychologist Molly Crockett has argued. It can have a direct impact on how elections are held.

The lack of cohesive government policy and guidelines also means that the use of social media for harmful purposes can be significant. It can be because the social media accounts must be managed over time and can lead to a long-term delivery of the services. It is also vital to consider overtime, as the employment of social media increases awareness and ensures that cyberbullying can be contained over time. It is also important, as it leads to a long-term policy for dealing with the needs of the wider public. In other words, globalization has turned many of our most politically engaged citizens into Madison’s terrible nightmare: arsonists having to compete to create the most inflammatory posts and images, which they can instantaneously distribute across the country while their public sociometer displays how far their creations have journeyed. Social media is neither helpful nor harmful for democracy; nevertheless, it can depend on who uses it and for what purposes. When social media first appeared on the political landscape a decade ago, it was heralded as “liberation technology” that would promote democracy worldwide. Outside of the control of an authoritarian state, those who did not have access to mainstream media may coordinate and communicate with one another.

Education

The decline in education standards has a significant impact on democracies’ work. In several literature and research, it has been shown that the decreasing education standards can directly impact the ay services are being provided and the use of social media. It is an essential element of eth individuals, as the level of education can directly impact the way services are conducted. It is also important to consider as there is a need to ensure that the various services can be employed over time and lead to the development of the appropriate policies for meeting the educational standards.

The main benefit of social media, which has been propagated throughout the research, is that it helps democracy by ensuring that different services can be enabled over time. Its ability is also important as it helps employ other stakeholders and ensures that various services can be provided over time. It is also important to consider, as top-level management and support are needed overtime and lead to a long-term stratify. It is also important as it ensures that the wider benefits of social media can be enacted over time and lead to a long-term change. Educational support is also necessary as it ensures that social media awareness is promoted for wider benefits. It is also important to consider, as the wider elements of the changes in social media are employed over time and can lead to a long-term shift in the way the stakeholders use social media.

The educational policies and learning from mistakes can also be important. It is central to the way services are employed and can lead to a long-term change in social media initiatives. It is also needed as there is a need to consider the different support system elements within the eruptional policy. Understanding the different perspectives is also important, as it ensures that the stakeholder can understand the challenges they face. It must be managed to ensure that the various elements in the use of social media can lead to a long-term change and lead to the development of the press, which is conducive for the wellbeing of democracy. Increasing the level of debate, for example, can be one of how the employment of social media can be enabled over time and lead to a long-term change in the delivery of the services. It is central to the long-term improvement and ensures that the wider public can take part in the debate, which is considered overtime, and lead to a strategy for the development of the continuous evolution of the countrywide discussion on the development of the systems and lead to a constant change of the broader democratic movement.

Ironically, the same features that make social media effective for pro-democracy campaigners also make it advantageous for people with anti-democratic views in democratic states. Organizing with other likeminded but geographically scattered fellow citizens would have been a costly exercise before social media if you were the only one in your county who supported extremist views on the overthrow of the United States government. These expenditures are significantly reduced using social media, and such persons may more readily find and collaborate. Furthermore, the tools developed by authoritarian regimes to influence their online conversations — online trolls and bots — can be used by a small number of extremists in democratic societies to amplify their online presence, giving the impression that their positions are more popular than they are.

USA Historical Context

The United Historical context must be considered overtime, as this directly impacts the way social media is employed. One of the critical factors is that in the election process, historically, the role of media has also been significant, all election processes are heavily influenced bit the way public opinion is affected, and this can have a direct flannel on the way voting takes palace., The freedom of the media is a key benchmark that can have a natural and inflicting factor on eth ways voting takes the populace.

In the last decade, how social media is used can also be an important element for developing public opinion. It can be a significant factor influencing how the debate is considered. The ability of the stakeholders to feel and understand the wider debate over time must also be enabled over time and lead to the development and understanding of the various factors that can lead to the long-term development of the media.

Research has shown that the roiled of the media is significant as there is a need to ensure that the education of the public is enabled. In the recent election between Joe Biden and Trump, research has shown that the role of social media was significant in developing public opinions. While the educated public within the United States may have a better understanding of the problems, in most cases, the blue-collar workers within the United States were influenced by the sponsored adverts, which skewed the debate in one direction or the other. The inability of the different stakeholders is also essential to consider, as there is a need to improve the ability of the individuals over time.

The censorship policies within the States are minimal. However, such policies are open to exploitation by external elements, as hardly any control is propagated within the United States. It can have a long-term impact on how social media users use services. The debate has also been skewed recently, as many in the United States believe that some form of political censorship is undertaken in favor of theft wing policy agenda. For example, ex-president Trump has continuously raised his voice that Facebook and Twitter have censored the for-right schedule. Twitter went on to ban Trump permanently due to breaking the company’s service agreement and hate speech that was alleged to the president.

Russian Historical Context

The use and rise of social media in Russia also took off with a boom like any other country. However, the Russian state has complete control over information shared on social media. The state believes in censorship of all information, hence hiding the facts. The power of communication by Russian can be traced back to the 2000s. The media was state-owned and only, and thus knowledge was shaped by what the government thought appropriate, which also meant sensor in many facts. Later, the media was provided with some freedom of the press, which led to a proliferation of information more freely than before. One of the Russians’ issues in liberty to the correct data is that Putin took control of all the major newspapers and press. It left the nation strayed and away from all relevant information about politics. The Russian government has been involved in creating conspiracy theories and has deprived the country of providing authentic information.

In recent years, it has been argued that the use of social media has gained power and become popular among the citizens. After the Russians have gained access to the correct information, the government has tried its best to gain control over the kind of information shared on the apps. One of the attempts by politicians is to influence al Tiktokers and bloggers to discourage the Russian people from protesting against the government. A blind eye has been kept to these issues and the fact that Russian people were utterly unaware of the influences and being paid for this. Efforts have been made to pay forces only to put up selected information, and social media has been paid to be used in favor of the government. Anything harmful for the government has been taken off the internet in Russian social media. It is an attempt to mislead the citizens of Russia. The Kremlin has wholly controlled the technological landscape, such as social media. Putting up any negative information such as suicide, Drugs, and anything negative about the government is taken negatively. The state has formulated policies that automatically enable social media avenues or platforms to erase harmful content from the internet. The problem faced by the Russian government is the social media tool internationally which cannot be controlled in any way.

Many protests took place in the 2020- ‘Telegram revolution.’ The government took steps to pay social media to completely shut down the use of social media so that protests could be avoided. It has an impact on the political stance in the country. The protestors were immobilized by shutting down the internet, which was considered a tool for coordination and communication for the citizens. Internet shutdowns have disabled people to arrange and coordinate any protests against the government’s opposition party. In Belarus, there have been instances where the internet shutdown didn’t stop protesters from being on the road. In these times, the protesters went out on the streets and protested in masses. In this instance, the internet was not a deterrent, and people could see the streets as a battlefield. A flipside to the use of social media has been argued to be not of that use as it is thought to be. Many people believe that the press exaggerates social media use because social media can arrange a riot but cannot control human sentiment. Therefore, it’s necessary to be a critical thinker and use social media as a tool for freedom and expression. The laws formulated for the use of social media are argued to be justified by the Russians, saying that they are following what Germany did. In reality, it is not as easy, and it is believed that Russian social media laws and policies go a long way and think beyond what has happened in Germany against online hate speech.

How does the execution of Democracies be different because of social media?

The use of social media around the globe has brought a revolution in the way people interact and communicate. It is central and can be applied to the political landscape easily. It has allowed the citizens of all countries to have a say in whatever government does. It has been used as a communication tool where people discuss the policies made by the government and raise their voices. With the increasing use of social media, senior government officials and leaders are now held accountable for their actions. After using social media in the case of Tunisia in 2011, social media became the tool for liberation. It is worth mentioning that social media use in the US and Russia has played a significant role in the proliferation of information to the masses. America used social media for foreign meddling, where fake news was published through CNN and Fox News. In the wake of the use of social media, it is right to argue the role it plays in democracy.

Social media has the power to go a great deal of damage to democracy. Therefore, it is an important factor for government to make policies that are good for the wider society as accountability and transparency become easy. Social media can do a great deal of damage to any democracy. The challenge is erected by social media such as Facebook and Twitter or any other app, where transparency and arability of all relevant information are accessible and abundant. The governments must now be more vigilant and reactive to any news launched. Take the example of Facebook, which has not transcended its boundaries of being friends and family connection platform only and has also been used as a political channel. Political parties use Facebook and other tools that lead to enormous repercussions at a societal level. During the 2016 elections, efforts were made by the Russian government by making fake pages on fakebooks targeted to manipulate and influence the opinion of the public at large. The Russians were successful in 80,000 posts targeting American politicians, which successfully reached 126 million American citizens. This cyberwar can and should be resented so that societies remain united.

Figure 2 Social Media and Democracy

One of the strategies adopted by the Facebook team to combat the issue of cyberwar is to make Facebook and social media tools more transparent. It has been done by allowing citizens to see those actual campaigns of the parties and avoid showing fake news pages. However, it has been highlighted that making everything transparent can put activists at risk. Sources have confirmed that they are committed to maintaining transparency that is needed because it affects democracy highly negatively. By doing so, all dishonest campaigners get a chance to spread toxic news without having any negative consequences. Democracy is mainly at risk because it is difficult to know what campaigners promised the citizens and whether they are genuinely providing that. Democracy is at stake, and measures should be taken to erect this issue.

Literature has highlighted that foreign interference is not the only issue that affects democracy but the fact that social media can also be negatively used against democracy, changing the views of others. Social media use positively and increase transparency, but on the flip side, the tool is also used for harmful purposes. Opinions of people are stained by fake news. Publishing and portraying anything negative have enormous repercussions for radically changing an individual’s opinion. Social media tools such as Facebook should use their judgment to filter out any news that seems to be untrue. Another issue that destroys democracy is eco chambers. It is believed that once people like any opinion on Facebook, it shows them all relevant information that the people consider to be true. It leads to a massive problem of taking people further apart. However, the research found that many around 45% of Americans view both sides of the story rather than just one. Social media, therefore, presents several varied opinions on any topic of the world. By being confronted by various ideas, individua’s chosen the one they already agree with.

The issue of unequal participation cannot be ignored. It has been argued that despite the problems mentioned above, there is a possibility that government recognizes only the voice of a few of many. It will represent only a sliver of the total proportion of people’s opinions. It can have repercussions and give the government a myopic view of all representatives. The repercussion is not of small magnitude but has wider implications in terms of policies. If politicians do not have a clear idea of people’s opinions, they might formulate policies keeping only a few opinions in mind. Once the minorities are also kept in mind, only then can special media be used for democracy. The mode of social media is expanding and increasing its reach for the people. People do not search the news in many cases, but the information reaches out to them. People’s interest in news is increasing day by day, and social media is a mainstream tool in giving and changing people’s opinions. Young people mainly use particular media for knowing what’s happening in the world and then reassure their owns by comparing with various news sources. However, the drawback is that people often confuse online news as fake news. It has to be dealt with appropriately to create robust flexibility in social media apps to increase their authenticity. The information available on social media apps is not just news but drives people to take action. It can, for example, be observed in the 2016 election in the US, where nearly 2 million people registered for votes. These online avenues can make voters more informational and knowledgeable to make a better choice in choosing the right candidate.

Ironically, the same features that make social media effective for pro-democracy campaigners also make it advantageous for people with anti-democratic views in democratic states. Organizing with other likeminded but geographically scattered fellow citizens would have been a costly exercise before social media if you were the only one in your county who supported extremist views on the overthrow of the United States government. These expenditures are significantly reduced by using social media, and such persons may more readily find and collaborate. Furthermore, the tools developed by authoritarian regimes to influence their online conversations — online trolls and bots — can be used by a small number of extremists in democratic societies to amplify their online presence, giving the impression that their positions are more popular than they are.

Another disadvantage of social media for democratic societies is that it exacerbates a trend already occurring on the Internet before social media’s arrival: the elimination of traditional gatekeepers from the production and distribution of “news.” Before the Internet, the news was the domain of professional journalists, and editors and publishers served as powerful gatekeepers. While this may have stopped more progressive messages from reaching the media, it also banned extreme anti-democratic voices and imposed a certain degree of news reporting quality. The Internet significantly lowered the barrier to releasing news, but social media has hastened the process. The appeal of certain types of news — including blatantly false news — with particular features, such as appealing to partisan identity, was exacerbated by social media, highlighting the appeal of certain types of news — including blatantly false news — with particular features, such as appealing to partisan identity.

Netizens are increasingly using social media to discuss and debate issues. It has also become a forum for activism, as it can be a powerful instrument for amplifying the voices of those who have been silenced. Thousands of activist pages exist on various social media platforms nowadays. Pressure may be applied on authorities to address issues by simply tagging them on social media platforms such as Twitter, forcing them to act by putting them in the spotlight. As a result, today’s political parties are under more pressure to be accountable, and as a result, they have grown more transparent and accessible. Thanks to social media sites, it is now much easier to mobilize people and plan protests, as vital information can be communicated with the touch of a finger. As a result, social media networks have likely benefited the process somehow.

There is another side to social media and its relationship with democracy. A force that threatens democracy and strengthens authoritarian regimes. Social media has aided democratization in some parts of the world. Still, it has also become a tool of social control in the hands of authoritarian states and regimes, allowing them to create their distinct worlds marked by isolation from the rest of the world and censorship. Authoritarian nations, such as China’s People’s Republic, have mastered this technique to maintain complete political control. Social networking sites have also produced an “information cocoon,” which means that the information and news we see on social media sites and applications is frequently inaccurate, partial, or incomplete, i.e., dependent on our assumptions.

Figure 3 Faith in Social media

One of the most vivid contributions social media makes on democracy is that people have a right to say and convey their opinion to the government on day-to-day biases, rather than just the electoral day. Statistics have evidence to support that 88% of government officials are active on social media tools such as Facebook and Twitter to communicate with citizens. It plays a central role in shaping and changing propels opinion regarding and against any government.

Social media has the power to highlight amplify individuals’ opinions. It is also a tool that allows individuals to portray their opinion, good or bad. When used positively, people can give their views on social media to contribute well to democracy. However, it also can rust democracy by spreading false accusations about the government. Morally, as citizens, it is our duty to better understand the robustness of these social media tools and become critical thinkers. It is needed to avoid any adverse opinion or attitude towards the government, which might interfere with the government’s positive way to success. We, as citizens, must work towards making these social media platforms as transparent as possible and not allowing room for fake news. We should ensure that the public is connected so that democracy can revive forever.

Conclusions

This research posits that social media plays a critical role in executing democracy. The use of social media has been on the rise in recent times. In the current global situation, social media has a lot to offer, both to the political parties and citizens. Therefore, political parties must use social media prudently so that it does not tarnish their image. At the same time, we as citizens have the obligation and duty to understand the robust dynamic of technology and should not be easily gullible. Citizens should play the role of critical thinkers and know different fake news sources. The problem of fake news associated with social media has to be dealt with prudently, where only verifiable news should be promoted and analyzed. It has also been concluded that social media can be used in evil ways. Therefore, both government and citizens must use it only as a learning and communication tool rather than a source of misconception.

It can be argued that technology and social media, in particular, are pervasive, and therefore understanding the impact of technology on politics is highly important. Since social media offers varying messages, it may foster democratic changes. At the same time, when social media is used as a tool to spread bad, it can steer citizens away from democracy. One of the factors which are concluded to be of importance is the role played by the government in gaining control over the internet and social media. In the cases where there’s freedom of speech, increased transparency is exercised, whereby all the parties in power are accountable. It is why the government wants power over-proliferation of information to the masses. It gets challenging to gain accountability if there is censorship of information by the government. Therefore, it is concluded that steps should be taken at the policy level to formulate laws that do not hamper the proliferation of free and fair information so that democracy can be achieved.

When we look back over the last decade, we can see that political division has risen in the United States and worldwide, coinciding with the emergence of social media. Globalization, economic stagnation in the aftermath of the Great Recession, the Syrian crisis, resulting refugee flows in Europe, rising partisanship in the United States, a renewed awakening around social and racial justice issues, and, most recently, a global pandemic have all occurred during that period. In the case of social media, we have to be cautious about assuming that correlation equals causation. It is possible that political polarisation, particularly in the United States, would have managed to grow in response to long-term economic and demographic market trends even without the dramatic technological changes that have occurred at the same time.

There are also reasons to believe that social media may favor the type of material that causes individuals to become more politically polarised. A recent study found that keeping people off social media for a month reduced dislike towards out-partisans in the United States. However, new research from the NYU Center for Social Media and Politics finds that removing people from social media during a politically tense period in Bosnia-Herzegovina increases ethnic out-group hostility, with this effect being primarily driven by people who live in ethnically homogeneous areas of the country. It shows that for some people, their internet connections may expose them to a broader range of viewpoints than they would typically encounter in their daily lives.

References

Abbott, Jason. “Democracy@ Internet. Org Revisited: Analysing the Socio-Political Impact of the Internet and New Social Media in East Asia.” Third World Quarterly 33, no. 2 (2012): 333-357.

Auger, Giselle A. “Fostering Democracy through Social Media: Evaluating Diametrically Opposed Nonprofit Advocacy Organizations’ Use of Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube.” Public Relations Review 39, no. 4 (2013): 369-376.

Ceron, Andrea and Vincenzo Memoli. “Flames and Debates: Do Social Media Affect Satisfaction with Democracy?” Social indicators research 126, no. 1 (2016): 225-240.

Dahlgren, Peter. “Participation and Alternative Democracy: Social Media and Their Contingencies.” Political participation and Web 2,  (2014).

de Zúñiga, Homero Gil, Brigitte Huber and Nadine Strauß. “Social Media and Democracy.” Profesional de la Información 27, no. 6 (2018): 1172-1180.

Deb, Anamitra, Stacy Donohue and Tom Glaisyer. “Is Social Media a Threat to Democracy?”,  (2017).

Diamond, Larry and Marc F Plattner. Liberation Technology: Social Media and the Struggle for Democracy: JHU Press, 2012.

Ellison, Nick and Michael Hardey. “Social Media and Local Government: Citizenship, Consumption and Democracy.” Local Government Studies 40, no. 1 (2014): 21-40.

Gayo-Avello, Daniel. “Social Media, Democracy, and Democratization.” Ieee Multimedia 22, no. 2 (2015): 10-16.

Gazali, Effendi. “Learning by Clicking: An Experiment with Social Media Democracy in Indonesia.” International Communication Gazette 76, no. 4-5 (2014): 425-439.

Gerbaudo, Paolo. “Populism 2.0: Social Media Activism, the Generic Internet User and Interactive Direct Democracy.” In Social Media, Politics and the State, 79-99: Routledge, 2014.

Jha, Chandan Kumar and Oasis Kodila-Tedika. “Does Social Media Promote Democracy? Some Empirical Evidence.” Journal of Policy Modeling 42, no. 2 (2020): 271-290.

Kent, Michael L. “Using Social Media Dialogically: Public Relations Role in Reviving Democracy.” Public relations review 39, no. 4 (2013): 337-345.

Lee, Paul SN, Clement YK So, Francis Lee, Louis Leung and Michael Chan. “Social Media and Political Partisanship–a Subaltern Public Sphere’s Role in Democracy.” Telematics and Informatics 35, no. 7 (2018): 1949-1957.

Loader, Brian D and Dan Mercea. “Networking Democracy? Social Media Innovations and Participatory Politics.” Information, communication & society 14, no. 6 (2011): 757-769.

Loader, Brian D and Dan Mercea. “Networking Democracy? Social Media Innovations in Participatory Politics: Brian D. Loader and Dan Mercea.” In Social Media and Democracy, 12-21: Routledge, 2012.

Loader, Brian D and Dan Mercea. Social Media and Democracy: Innovations in Participatory Politics: Routledge, 2012.

Lynch, Marc, Deen Freelon and Sean Aday. “How Social Media Undermines Transitions to Democracy.” Blogs and Bullets IV: Peace Tech Lab,  (2016).

Mason, Lance E, Dan Krutka and Jeremy Stoddard. “Media Literacy, Democracy, and the Challenge of Fake News.” Journal of Media Literacy Education 10, no. 2 (2018): 1-10.

Sunstein, Cass R. “Is Social Media Good or Bad for Democracy.” SUR-Int’l J. on Hum Rts. 27,  (2018): 83

Tucker, Joshua A, Yannis Theocharis, Margaret E Roberts and Pablo Barberá. “From Liberation to Turmoil: Social Media and Democracy.” Journal of democracy 28, no. 4 (2017): 46-59.

Valtysson, Bjarki. “Democracy in Disguise: The Use of Social Media in Reviewing the Icelandic Constitution.” Media, Culture & Society 36, no. 1 (2014): 52-68.

This is a Paper Help sample.