Skip to main content
Open Book Publishers

2. Social Media and Democracy

Chapter of: Ethics of Socially Disruptive Technologies: An Introduction(pp. 33–52)

Export Metadata

  • ONIX 3.1
  • ONIX 3.0
    • Thoth
    • Project MUSE
      Cannot generate record: No BIC or BISAC subject code
    • OAPEN
    • JSTOR
      Cannot generate record: No BISAC subject code
    • Google Books
      Cannot generate record: No BIC, BISAC or LCC subject code
    • OverDrive
      Cannot generate record: No priced EPUB or PDF URL
  • ONIX 2.1
  • CSV
  • JSON
  • OCLC KBART
  • BibTeX
  • CrossRef DOI deposit
    Cannot generate record: This work does not have any ISBNs
  • MARC 21 Record
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
  • MARC 21 Markup
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
  • MARC 21 XML
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
Metadata
Title2. Social Media and Democracy
ContributorElena Ziliotti(author)
Patricia D. Reyes Benavides(author)
Arthur Gwagwa(author)
Matthew J. Dennis(author)
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0366.02
Landing pagehttps://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0366/chapters/10.11647/obp.0366.02
Licensehttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
CopyrightElena Ziliotti et al.
PublisherOpen Book Publishers
Published on2023-09-05
Long abstractHas social media disrupted the concept of democracy? This complex question has become more pressing than ever as social media have become a ubiquitous part of democratic societies worldwide. This chapter discusses social media’s effects at three critical levels of democratic politics (personal relationships among democratic citizens, national politics, and international politics) and argues that social media pressures the conceptual limits of democracy. This new digital communication infrastructure challenges some of the fundamental elements of the concept of democracy. By giving citizens and non-citizens equal substantive access to online political debates that shape the political agenda, social media has drastically expanded and opened up the notion of demos and public sphere (the communicative space where citizens come together to form and exchange opinions and define collective problems), and misaligned the conceptual relationship of public sphere with the idea of demos. These conclusions have multiple implications. They indicate engineers’ and designers’ new political responsibility, novel normative challenges for research in political and moral philosophy, security and legal frameworks, and ultimately they shed light on how to do politics in digital democratic societies.
Page rangepp. 33–52
Print length20 pages
LanguageEnglish (Original)
Contributors

Elena Ziliotti

(author)
Assistant Professor of Ethics and Political Philosophy at Technische Universiteit Delft
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8929-9728

Elena Ziliotti is an Assistant Professor of Ethics and Political Philosophy at TU Delft. Her research focuses on Western democratic theory and Comparative democratic theory, with a particular focus on contemporary Confucian political theory. ORCID: 0000-0002-8929-9728

Patricia D. Reyes Benavides

(author)
PhD candidate in Philosophy of Technology at University of Twente
https://orcid.org/0009-0008-6867-864X

Patricia D. Reyes Benavides is a PhD candidate in Philosophy of Technology at the University of Twente. Her research delves into the technopolitics of the global climate movement, in particular the appropriation of Internet platforms by climate activists. ORCID: 0009-0008-6867-864X

Arthur Gwagwa

(author)
PhD candidate, Ethics Institute at Utrecht University
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9287-3025

Arthur Gwagwa is a PhD candidate at the Ethics Institute at Utrecht University. His research focuses on anti-domination approaches in new frontier technological and data relationships between the Global North and China on the one hand and the Global South on the other. ORCID: 0000-0001-9287-3025

Matthew J. Dennis

(author)
Assistant Professor in Ethics of Technology at Eindhoven University of Technology
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4212-6862

Matthew J. Dennis is an Assistant Professor in Ethics of Technology at TU Eindhoven. His research investigates how technology can be designed to promote autonomy, fairness, and well-being. ORCID: 0000-0002-4212-6862

References
  1. Anderson, Elizabeth. 1999. ‘What is the point of equality?’, Ethics, 103: 287−337, https://doi.org/10.1086/233897
  2. ——. 2009. ‘Democracy: Instrumental vs. non-instrumental value’, in Contemporary Debates in Political Philosophy, ed. by Thomas Christiano and John Christman (Chicester: Wiley-Blackwell), 213−27, ttps://doi.org/10.1002/9781444310399.ch12
  3. Bennett, Lance W., and Segerberg, Alexandra. 2013. The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and the Personalisation of Contentious Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
  4. Boamah, Eric. 2018. ‘Information culture of Ghanaian immigrants living in New Zealand’, Global Knowledge Memory and Communication, 67(8/9): 585–606, https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-07-2018-0065
  5. Carey, James W. 2008. Communication as Culture (New York: Routledge), https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203928912
  6. Christiano, Thomas. 2015. ‘Voter ignorance is not necessarily a problem’, Critical Review, 27(3–4): 253–69, https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2015.1111669
  7. Cohen, Julie E. 2019-a. Between Truth and Power: The Legal Constructions of Informational Capitalism (New York: Oxford University Press)
  8. ——. 2019-b. ‘Turning privacy inside out’, Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 20(1): 1–31, https://doi.org/10.1515/til-2019-0002
  9. Dewey, John. 1946. The Public and Its Problems: An Essay in Political Inquiry (Chicago: Gateway Books)
  10. Duarte, Maria Elena. 2017. ‘Connected activism: Indigenous uses of social media for shaping political change’, Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 21, https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v21i0.1525
  11. Farrell, Henry, and Melissa Schwartzberg. 2021. ‘The democratic consequences of the New Public Sphere’, in Digital Technology and Democratic Theory, ed. by Lucy Bernholz, Helen Landemore, and Rob Reich (Chicago: Chicago University Press), 191–218, https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226748603.001.0001
  12. Habermas, Jürgen, Sara Lennox, and Frank Lennox. 1974. ‘The Public Sphere’, New German Critique, 3: 49–55
  13. Hall, David, and Roger Ames. 1999. The Democracy of the Dead: Dewey, Confucius, and the Hope for Democracy in China (Chicago: Open Court)
  14. Helberger, Natali. 2020. ‘The political power of platforms: How current attempts to regulate misinformation amplify opinion power’, Digital Journalism, 8(6): 842–54, https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1773888
  15. Jørgensen, Rikke Frank, and Anja Møller Pedersen. 2017. ‘Online service providers as human rights arbiters’, in The Responsibilities of Online Service Providers, ed. by Mariarosaria Taddeo and Luciano Floridi (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 179–99, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47852-4_10
  16. Karekwaivanane, George Hamandishe. 2019. ‘“Tapanduka Zvamuchese”: Facebook, “unruly publics”, and Zimbabwean politics’, Journal of Eastern African Studies, 13(1): 54–71, https://doi.org/10.1080/17531055.2018.1547257
  17. Kaye, David. 2018. ‘Report of the special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression’, United Nations Digital Library, https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1631686
  18. Kim, Sungmoon. 2017. ‘Pragmatic Confucian democracy: Rethinking the value of democracy in East Asia’, Journal of Politics, 79(1): 237–49, https://doi.org/10.1086/687762
  19. ——. 2018. Democracy After Virtue: Toward Pragmatic Confucian Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
  20. Kolodny, Niko. 2014. ‘Rule over none II: Social equality and the justification of democracy’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 42: 287–336, https://doi.org/10.1111/papa.12037
  21. Laidlaw, Emily. 2015. Regulating Speech in Cyberspace (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
  22. Liu, Jun. 2021. ‘Technology for activism: Toward a relational framework’, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 30: 627–50, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-021-09400-9
  23. Makhortykh, Mykola, Claes De Vreese, Natali Helberger, Jaron Harambam, and Dimitrios Bountouridis. 2021. ‘We are what we click: Understanding time and content-based habits of online news readers’, New Media & Society, 23: 2773–800, https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820933221
  24. Pariser, Eli. 2011. The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You (New York: Penguin Press)
  25. Scheffler, Samuel. 2014. ‘The practice of equality’, in Social Equality: On What It Means To Be Equal, ed. by Carina Fourie, Fabian Schuppert, and Ivo Wallimann-Helmer (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
  26. Simons, Josh, and Dipayan Ghosh. 2020. ‘Utilities of democracy: Why and how the algorithmic infrastructure of Facebook and Google must be regulated’, Foreign Policy at Brookings and Harvard Kennedy School, https://www.brookings.edu/research/utilities-for-democracy-why-and-how-the-algorithmic-infrastructure-of-facebook-and-google-must-be-regulated/
  27. Smith, Aaron. 2009. ‘The internet’s role in campaign 2008’, Pew Research Center, https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2009/04/15/the-internets-role-in-campaign-2008/
  28. Spiekermann, Kai, and Robert Goodin. 2018. An Epistemic Theory of Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
  29. Steinert, Steffen, and Matthew James Dennis. 2022. ‘Emotions and digital well being: On social media’s emotional affordances’, Philosophy and Technology, 35: 1–21, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00530-6
  30. Sullivan, Emily, and Mark Alfano. 2022. ‘A normative framework for sharing information online’, in The Oxford Handbook of Digital Ethics, ed. by Carissa Véliz (Oxford: Oxford University Press), https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198857815.013.5
  31. Sullivan, Emily, Max Sondag, Ignaz Rutter, Wouter Meulemans, Scott Cunningham, Bettina Speckmann, and Mark Alfano. 2020. ‘Can real social epistemic networks deliver the wisdom of crowds?’ in Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy Volume 3, ed. by Tania Lombrozo, Joshua Knobe, and Shaun Nichols (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 29–63, https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198852407.003.0003
  32. Sumiala, Johanna, Minttu Tikka, and Katja Valaskivi. 2019. ‘Charlie Hebdo, 2015: “Liveness” and acceleration of conflict in a hybrid media event’, Media, War & Conflict, 12(2): 202–18, https://doi.org/10.1177/1750635219846033
  33. Sunstein, Cass. 2017. #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media (Princeton: Princeton University Press)
  34. Tan, Sor-hoon. 2003. Confucian Democracy: A Deweyan Reconstruction (Albany, SUNY Press)
  35. UNHRC resolution 17/4. 2011. The UN Guiding Principles (UNGPs) on Business and Human Rights, HR/PUB/11/04, https://www.undp.org/laopdr/publications/guiding-principles-business-and-human-rights
  36. Van de Poel, Ibo. 2020. ‘Embedding values in Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems’, Minds and Machines, 30: 385–409, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09537-4
  37. Verbeek, Peter-Paul. 2020. ‘Politicising postphenomenology’, in Reimagining Philosophy and Technology, Reinventing Ihde, ed. by Glenn Miller and Ashely Shew (Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland), 141–55, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35967-6_9
  38. Volkmer, Ingrid. 2014. The Global Public Sphere: Public Communication in the Age of Reflective Interdependence (Cambridge: Polity Press)
  39. Young, Iris Marion. 2007. Global Challenges: War, Self-Determination and Responsibility for Justice (Cambridge: Polity Press)
  40. ——. 2011. Justice and the Politics of Difference (Princeton: Princeton University Press)
  41. Zeng, Jing, and Crystal Abidin. 2021. ‘“#OkBoomer, time to meet the Zoomers”: studying the memefication of intergenerational politics on TikTok’, Information, Communication & Society, 24: 2459–81, https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2021.1961007
  42. Zuboff, Shoshana. 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power (New York: Public Affairs)