1

Question: Is Social Media Compatible With Democracy?

Democracy, which is the government by the people, has principles that include citizen
participation, political tolerance, transparency, and more. Citizen participation is said to have the first
place on the list of the principles of democracy. “Democracy for All” text defines citizen participation as
being the right and duty of the citizens in the forms of voting, paying taxes, protesting, being informed,
and more. The text suggests that “Participation builds a better democracy” (p.2). It means the political
participation of the citizens is important for a democratic environment. When the participation takes place
through social media, does it have the same value? Becoming informed is one of the forms of
participation that is happening with the use of social media as the primary source. Yet, the environment
and features of social media make it hard to believe that this form of citizen participation has the same
value for democracy when it takes place through social media. Social media creates a platform for
disinformation to be spread quickly to a large number of people. Besides, the platforms provide
personalized information to their users. Therefore, doubts may arise on whether social media is
compatible with democracy. The consequences of fake and personalized information conflict with the
idea that social media is working well with democracy. Briefly stated, social media is not compatible with
democracy as it disseminates disinformation and provides personalized information through participation
on its platforms.

Social media does not work well with democracy since it disseminates disinformation. As
disinformation is posted on social media, it is hard to stop the spread of it and the availability of fake
information can affect the thoughts and decisions of individuals. When it comes to a decision-making
process, citizens search for information. However, the disinformation that they encounter on social media
does not help them make up their own minds. Instead, it shapes their ideas matching the direction of the
fake information. As, Kenny (2019) suggests, “To participate in both a free and fair election, voters must
be able to make up their own mind without any undue influence. However, technology is, unfortunately,
making this increasingly difficult” (p.4). As a result, it is hard to say that a decision is promoting
democracy when it is taken under the influence of social media. As Noam (2005) claims, when
disinformation and unfiltered information comes out, it will end up in rumor and political ambush.
Therefore, social media is not different than a trap for making decisions. This trap can be even more
dangerous if citizens are being informed by the fake or censored information that is controlled by the
authorities. The reason why is that if there is any case of censorship or falsehood done by the authorities,
the government loses transparency which is one of the essential principles of democracy. As included in
“Democracy Now?”, in countries like Vietnam and China the autocrats use censorship tools, and there is
an intention to create an illusion for citizens to think they achieve true information on social media (Grill,
 2

2011). Thus, citizens do not access transparent information through social media. Without transparency,
citizens cannot be aware of what is actually happening in the country so it seems impossible for them to
make genuine and democratic decisions. It can be said that social media disseminates disinformation
while also conflicting with the transparency principle of democracy which distorts the decisions of
citizens. Briefly stated, being informed through social media affects citizens’ decision-making process in
a way that conflicts with democracy.

Social media is conflicting with democracy as it provides personalized information. Through the
encryption of social media, users are being provided content based on individual interests. As a result,
social media users do not encounter any content by chance. According to Sustein (2018), these unplanned
encounters build democracy and prevent polarization. Yet, personalized information on social media
prevents users from getting random information and even from encountering different people with
different ideas. Personalized information on social media polarizes citizens as it makes the users get in
touch with only the ones who share similar ideas. As Sustein (2018) claims, “This problem is linked to
the phenomenon of group polarization- which takes hold when like-minded people talk to one another and
end up thinking a more extreme version of what they thought before they started to talk.” (p. 83).
Therefore, people seem to hold to what they were thinking even more strongly. As a result, it becomes
harder for people to communicate with those who have opposing ideas. As Kenny (2019) suggests,
“People become increasingly agitated and entrenched in their views and beliefs, which make it
increasingly difficult for them to both communicate and cooperate with those who share different
opinions, resulting in a political deadlock” (p.4). It means, there will be a loss of political tolerance,
which is the willingness to allow others with opposing views. As no opposing views collide, no new ideas
arise and everyone stays where they were. Thus, there is a decrease in diversity among the country which
is essential for democracy as a democratic country prioritizes a variety of perspectives. As long as users
cannot face unplanned content and opposing people, there will be an obstacle to diversity. Therefore, as
social media provides personalized information, polarization occurs, political tolerance and diversity
disappear so that it conflicts with democracy.

Even though social media disseminates disinformation and provides personalized information,
some people suggest that social media works well with democracy as it mobilizes people and spreads
information internationally. In Chrona and Bee’s research, it is supported that social media offered the
space for the international spread of the Gezi Park protests in Turkey, and provided a chance for
protestors to communicate (Chrona & Bee, 2017). Yet, mobilization seems to be the innocent version of
polarization. During such protests, the opposing views on social media may create a bigger polarization
within a country. If there is a majority of protestors as in the research of Gezi Park Protests, the huge
 3

amount of supporters can create interference. As in Noam’s (2005) text, “If everybody speaks, who will
be listened to?” (p.58). It means participation in social media loses its meaning during the spread of
information and mobilization. Besides, the research does not provide any information on whether
disinformation is prevented during the international spread of the protests on social media. It seems
impossible to avoid disinformation during such a collapse on social media to communicate and to spread
the protests. Therefore, even if social media can mobilize people for protests and can spread information
internationally, there is still polarization, risk of disinformation, and a loss of meaning of participation.
Thus, social media is not compatible with democracy.

Even though some people believe that social media and democracy work well together in case of
mobilization and spread of information, social media is not compatible with democracy as it disseminates
disinformation and provides personalized information to its users. As a result of disinformation, the
decision-making process of citizens is being affected. Personalized information creates polarization and
distorts political tolerance and diversity. It seems like as long as disinformation and personalized
information is not ended in social media platforms, democracy and social media will continue conflicting.
It is important not to be completely affected by social media in being informed, decision-making, and
thinking diversely.

REFERENCES:

Bee, C., Chrona, S. (2017). Right to Public Space and Right to Democracy: The Role of

Social Media in Gezi Park. Research and Policy on Turkey, 2(1), 49-61. Retrieved

from: https://eds.s.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=7&sid=79b02ed0-

fcb8-480a-929e-404ce1c8a3ae%40redis

Grill, H. (2011). Does Social Media Promote Democracy? The New Presence, (2), 27-33.

Kenny, J. (2019). The Impact of Technology on Democracy? Medium. Retrieved from:

https://becominghuman.ai/the-impact-of-technology-on-democracy-fc38ee85c12c

Noam, E. M. (2005). Why the Internet is bad for democracy. Communications of the

ACM, 48(10), 57-58.

Principles of Democracy from Democracy for All. Retrieved from:

http://www.streetlaw.org/democlesson.html

Sunstein, C. R. (2018). Is Social Media Good Or Bad For Democracy? SUR-International

 4

Journal on Human Rights, 15(27), 82-89.

FAE ENG 102 Writing Criteria

CATEGORY SCORE LEVEL

Submission

Task Requirements 0 1 2 Question

Doesn’t Meet Partially Meets Meets

Word Limit
Requirements Requirements Requirements

Prompt

Thesis

Argument
1 2 3 4 5 Stance/Claim/Position

Poor Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Good Excellent Scope, Focus & Coherence

Reasoning/Logical Fallacies

Analysis of Sources
Support
1 2 3 4 5
Use/Relevance of Support
Poor Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Good Excellent
Integrating Material

Grammar
Language
1 2 3 4 5
Vocabulary
Poor Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Good Excellent
Tone/Register

Introduction

Readability
1 2 3 Paragraph Structure

Poor Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Conclusion

Clarity
 5

In-Text Referencing

Formatting 0 1 2 End-Text Referencing

Doesn’t Meet Partially Meets Meets

Punctuation/Typing
Requirements Requirements Requirements

Layout/Formatting