March 27, 2023
There are many important questions about the role of social media in public discourse, security and data utilisation. The BBC’s decision to cancel Gary Lineker earlier in March and the recent engagements in US congress with TikTok’s CEO demonstrate the increasing pressure organisations and governments feel to address social media’s impact.
In comparison to traditional ‘one-way’ media outlets, social media enables real-time information sharing and the expression of opinions from anyone who wants to participant online. There is a low level of control over the information being disseminated, with no editorial boards checking that the information is accurate and unbiased. Public discourse in the online space, therefore can be dramatically altered through online discussions and sharing of news.
This can be incredibly powerful for social change and to galvanise the public for important causes. For example, social media played a vital role in spreading information about George Floyd's death in 2020 and the subsequent protests. It also helped to amplify the voices of Black activists and community leaders, who have long been advocating for change.
However, when the public is empowered to engage with important political and social conversations, social media also presents a threat to traditional methods of political and public discourse. The BBC’s reaction to Lineker’s tweet early this month reveals just that.
Was Linkears tweet too strongly worded or perhaps leaning in the wrong political direction? The BBC claimed that the lack of impartiality was the reasoning behind Linkears removal, yet this same policy was not enforced in 2011 when Jeremy Clarkson commented that striking state workers should ‘be shot’. Nor in 2018 when Alan Sugar tweeted showing an image of Jeremy Corbyn in a car next to Hitler. Neither of these other BBC freelancers were removed from their roles at the time. The BBC Chairman was already facing a review of his appointment into his role earlier this year after helping former Tory prime minister secure a personal loan; he now faces further scrutiny after his involvement in the decision to remove Lineker.
Regardless of your political leaning, thoughts on this or concerns over the BBC’s impartiality, these examples demonstrates the intense juxtaposition that social media presents as a political vehicle and influence on public discourse.
Equally, just as you and me have been empowered to engage with political agendas via social media, it can also be used as a tool for censorship or propaganda. Governments around the world have been known to use social media platforms to spread their own narratives and silence opposing views. The circulation of mis- and dis-information during civil unrest can cause confusion, stoke tensions and distract from factually-correct information.
For example, in the 2016 US Presidential election there were popular and fake news stories of alleging that the Pope had endorsed Donald Trump for President. Three times as many Americans read and shared it on their it on their social media accounts as they did the top-performing article from the New York Times. In 2018, for every accurate news story about George Floyd’s death, there was an inaccurate story circulating about how actors faked the event. Furthermore, a study that examined false memories in the week preceding the 2018 Irish Abortion referendum demonstrated that many voters ‘remembered’ fake news stories as if they were real events. This further highlights the powerful impact of disinformation to rewire our memories and influence our perceptions.
Currently, if you Google the ‘TikTok Congress proceedings’ whatever comes up top on your Google results is likely to impact your opinion on this matter as it has been shown that higher ranked results on search engines have a powerful impact on political opinion and decision making. How often do you consider who could be manipulating the order of your search engine results when you google something?
Unfortunately our skills to differentiate between fact and fiction on social media have been shown to be poor. If all social media users had the critical analysis tools and time to consider and research the political intent and accuracy of the information they consumed, every individual would have a greater level of personal protection. Sadly, however we are at risk of being led down echo chambers of polarising political views and misleading content. The people or groups behind the fake and fictitious therefore have power to change perspective and influence a nation.
Social media is always political because it facilitates the free and quick dissemination of media and news without fact checking and enables anyone to contribute to the direction of public discourse. But what's the point of this article?
Social media is extremely complex environment to navigate and as a society generally we really know very little about how to personally protect ourself from the negative impacts of social media. This article aims to present both the positive power social media when we engage proactively with the information that we consume, whilst also considering the media’s influence on us and our need to be conscientious in our response to what we consume.
Social Media Resilience’s agenda aims to support young people in schools, and others in organisations, to develop critical thinking skills when online so that they not only make informed decision about politics, news and the world, but also to be critical of the content they consume when it comes to identity, beauty standards, success, happiness and more.
If you have made it this far reading this article, I challenge you to start viewing content online through the filter of, ‘What response is this designed to provoke?’. Engaging with online media through this filter automatically gives you a level of personal protection and critical analysis to ask the right questions and search for facts.
Ask that question of this article; what conclusions do you draw?