Blame Ill Intentions, Not Social Media

There are social media problems and there are political problems. When they come together, the underlying nature of human intent is only intensified.

On one end, social media extends geographical boundaries to bring people together to share memories and ideologies. On the flip-side, social media can be a powerful tool of manipulation that spreads misinformation and encourages ideological and political polarization. Sometimes it seems like we see the latter more than not. The results of this poses a great threat to the American democracy. Rather than social media uniting people together, it is chipping away at The United States’ ‘unity’. However, I don’t think social media platforms should take all the blame.

Human Intent

When I was first thinking about the problem on social media and democracy, I was quick to blame social media for dividing people. After some research, I shifted my perspective to look at the root of the problem.

Social media itself is only a system. Blaming social media for political polarization is like blaming the gun for firing. It is not the gun that fires, it is the person that pulls the trigger that makes it fire.

The things we see on social media like misinformation and manipulation are not all that new. We are only experiencing them through a new medium that magnifies the problem. Facebook said it itself:

“If there’s one fundamental truth about social media’s impact on democracy it’s that it amplifies human intent — both good and bad.”

While social media may increase the influence of ill intentions, social media is not the root of the problem. The problem lays in the intent of the person running the system.

For instance, in the Cambridge Analytica and the 2016 election scandal, millions of Facebook profiles were hacked and utilize for political campaign advertisement. Not only was this performed without millions of people's consent, but it was disrupted the natural system of American democracy. Social media worked as a tool to the ill intentions of the people behind the agenda. To my understanding, this notion is not all that new. How is it that different from legacy media and propaganda?

Social media is being used the same way the press can be used to push an agenda. Propaganda is as old as time. What is new is that politicians can buy their way in front of their desired audience with personalized persuasive content. If all the content is curated to catch our attention, how do you know if you really support someone or if you were manipulated into thinking that you support someone? We shouldn’t point a finger at the medium when it’s the people that are working through the medium. 

Intensified Intent

As I have identified in my past blogs, social media curates the content on your feed. So, we know the motives are in the eyeballs and the money. The motives for politics are that in of the same but with the result being a vote. When political campaigns take on social media, they have the potential to take advantage of the algorithms. Rather than organically reaching people, it is as easy as a few clicks to get reach your desired audience.

Casey Newton interviewed Ezra Klien in her article Why we can’t blame social media for our polarized politics. He said:

"I think the move towards algorithmic feeds that select for content that triggers an intense emotional response is just a bad way to structure communication. I think supercharging our social instincts often brings out the worst, not the best, in us — few look back fondly on the social dynamics of high school cafeterias, and for good reason."

We see emotional backlash and intense polarization when things are miscommunicated or taken out of context to fit an agenda. There is not much we can do to alter deep rooted ill intentions or political corruption. However, social media corporations can design their products in a way that protects their technology from being taken advantage of. Of course, this would mean that they would have to have good intentions in the first place. Issues like this need to be reevaluated with the moral duties of social media corporations. In a perfect world, they should fulfill a moral duty that has the consent of its users i.e. a "Designer's Oath".

What's Next?

If things continue to go as they are with social media and politics, it may deconstruct democracy as we know it. In my case, the current dynamic has only pushed me further away from being politically interested. Lucky, I have not been pushed away from voting. But I am not proudly educated when I make my decisions at the polls. There is not enough trustworthy and easily accessible information. Also, I think it is important to remain skeptical of your ideologies being shaped by the information provided.

Let’s not give up our hope yet. The merging of social media and politics is still relatively new. Right now, politics are using social media to meet their needs whichever their intent are. Going forward, social media has great potential to work with politics. I would like to see both industries come together to establish a moral code that works for the people, not against them.