Social Media Platforms and Political Communication (full article)

Even before the times of the coronavirus pandemic and universal lockdown, we were aware of the power of new digital technologies as instruments which are capable of redefining our societies and determining their policies.

Now, there can be no more excuses or appealing to ignorance. When everything stops and the silence is only broken by the applause for the heroes on the front lines of the battle, social platforms and their networks will continue to realign the world and connect experiences and emotions, solitude and multitudes. In short, linking the human being with a social environment which is as much individualised and full of identity as it is global and without borders.

It's not so much that home isolation and the fear of contagion, spread and collapse (health, economic, institutional, etc.), have brought us closer to social networks, but rather that have turned them into irreplaceable tools for even more people. Beginning, curiously enough, with the oldest and most vulnerable: our housebound elderly population.

Undoubtedly, the seclusion at home of a large part of the world population has triggered the use and also the abuse of social networks, with their access and disclosure of information in a positive light and their manipulation, reproduction of fake news, conspiracy theories and blatant lies lurking in the shadows. In this new readjustment of personal priorities and collective desires, the triad of technology, society and politics converge more than ever with social networks which, through new technologies, condition the will of governments and their public policies.

And yet, looking back, we have learned something. We are not so naive now. Or, worse, we have become more distrusting. From the first positive drive we have gone on to feel a certain pessimistic aversion and, even today, we are not able to see any convincing balance between pros and cons.

The expansion of access and dissemination of information and communication through the Internet and social networks, and, with this, the exponential boost that allows our capacity for political participation has, in principle, been as much dizzying as it has emancipating. In a short space of time, the dream turned into a nightmare. The dark side of the digital age, with its manipulative reverse of selfish hoaxes and fake news, came to meet us.

We will see what the future holds for us and how we digest the exceptional situation that the COVID-19 pandemic has spread worldwide. One thing, however, seems more than certain: although things will never be the same again, we are all aware of the greater economic, political and also existential impact of social platforms with digital networks, which are increasingly defining who we are.

It is well known that clarity comes from the interplay of lights and shadows. That is why we will focus here on the pros and cons of the expansion of social networks for political determination.

With Aristotle, we learnt that the human being is not only political or social, but also a talking animal. And already in the cyberspace of our complex and multicultural societies, it was the Canadian Will Kymlicka who stressed that politics is done in the vernacular.

However, the digital revolution and its social networks have had such a profound impact on all spheres of politics: territorial, institutional, identity, etc., so as to rattle our consciences, and determine how they do so, showing us a few certainties and a lot of doubts.

In the increasingly accelerated and unpredictable art of politics, among the manifest truths we highlight one: social networks, as exemplified by their massive use in times of lockdown, have become a basic tool of political action. And, amid the uncertainties of these troubled times, of political polarisation, social imbalances and citizen dissatisfaction, we face the following question: Will constitutional democracy survive the digital revolution and the construction of new political hegemonies of the social networks? We will find out sooner rather than later, but for now it is worth analysing how virtual reality affects our res publica.

From euphoria with regard to the positive impacts of social networks on democratisation and citizen empowerment, we have passed over to disappointment. Polarisation of messages and the bipolar division of society, political manipulation and disinformation. In short, a breeding ground for the most radical, partisan and populist discourses. Thus, following Brexit, the European motto ‘united in diversity’ gave way to societies ‘divided by antagonistic halves’. And not just in the old continent, but across the pond too.

That is where we were when the pandemic invaded our world and ruptured lives and works.

Mutation of parties and mass media: political propaganda on social networks.

With the proliferation of social networks and the immediacy of communication, the role of classical political intermediaries had lost its raison d'être:

• On the one hand, parties, as an instrument of citizen participation in public affairs, were no longer essential.
• On the other hand, the traditional means of communication, known, until now, as the Fourth Estate or Power, had, in part, ceased to be so.

The direct relationship between leaders and citizens revolutionised political communication. Electoral campaigns have nothing in common with those of yesteryear. For some years now, social networks have been dictating certain partisan strategies to attract voters, mobilise the electorate and win the competitive fight for the vote. In short, they define democracy, in the sense given by Schumpeter (Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, 1942).

Compared to the mass media, whose power has been decreasing considerably with the arrival of direct communication by politicians with their constituents and with the general public, social media allows us to verify the superlative changes that not communication, but rather its political aspect has undergone. The conversion of the passive user into a possible active communicator testifies to the leap from the first Internet to Web 2.0. Furthermore, it is no longer a matter of contrasting the analogue world with the digital one. The analogue stronghold continues being present in the older generations, but the exponential growth of the digital world and active intercommunication determine the political agenda.

The character of intermediaries between rulers and their subjects who were played, on the one hand and politically, by the parties, and, on the other hand and informatively, by the traditional media, has been superseded by a model that allows a direct relationship between the leader, their followers and also their adversaries. This polarises and simplifies prescriptions and messages, as demanded by the new populisms and their expansion to the entire political spectrum.

It is not only the party state of representative democracy that has entered into a spin. The old media formats, and even the recent preference for political information on television, have also shown their shortcomings and weaknesses, even after the upturn due to the lockdown. Moreover, let's not forget that, in the face of the overwhelming polarising game represented by social networks, their business purposes do not achieve the common good, but rather seek private interest and the greatest profit.

In addition to the crisis in the traditional party system, electoral volatility and citizen dissatisfaction with the public institutions, the loss of credibility of the traditional media has also been added. Its accusation, founded or fallacious (depending on the case), of mercenaries of economic or political power, along with the quasi-free nature, in many cases, of the Internet and digital platforms, have multiplied the search and obtaining of new information instruments, concentrating radicalised messages with recipients who corroborate their intuitions or convictions.   

More and more people, and for an increasing amount of time, use social networks as the main means not only of communication, but to gain political information and, therefore, a way that will determine in some way the meaning of their vote. From strictly local campaigns to global movements, more and more people interact, share and build their political will, for all kinds of elections or referendums, through social networks.

From the elections that promoted Barack Obama to the presidency of the United States, through to those won by Donald Trump, or the departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union with the Brexit referendum, to the present-day Democratic primary elections or the upcoming US elections, the influence of social networks in determining winners and losers may be so conclusive that they make digital reality the prelude to political evolution.

We cannot forget that electoral campaigns are true political marketing promotions and, especially, a claim that must be sold and which the electors must buy with their vote. The political party, with its leader at the helm, becomes merchandise at a bargain price, but which will bring bounteous rewards to the community.

Election propaganda through social media will obviously influence more the younger and more digitally connected generations. However, although not all those registered in the electoral census have the same information dependence on social networks, in moments of such pronounced electoral volatility where victory or defeat is decided by so little, by directly or indirectly determining the political debate, the decision-making audience will focus increasingly on social media.

The direct communication that social networks allow, by being able to dispense with the intermediation between voters and representatives that political parties formerly carried out, affects this communion between the two. A supposed authenticity that encourages hyper-leadership. The identity between the subject and the rulers, between the people and their leaders, is personified. Therefore, electoral propaganda and political strategy through social networks will be, above other forms of campaign, decisive when it comes to selling our brand and product: The tandem of party (more instrumental) and leader (almighty, as a singular identity with 'their people').

However, it is necessary to distinguish between legitimate party propaganda to attract voters and manipulation of social networks to direct users towards certain behaviours, aptitudes or electoral voting. Political advertising through social media in an electoral campaign has little to do with the traditional hanging of posters, rallies, and even partisan contrast through newspapers, radio, and television debates.

Personalised advertising based on digital fingerprints and algorithms could be activated on our computers and mobile phones, segmenting the population according to their tastes, trends, wishes, etc. Furthermore, inter-generational cracks break out when we refer to social media. Distinct generations (interwar, baby boomers, generation X, millennials, post-millennials), with different communication habits and the formation of their political opinion, make the coexistence of analogue campaigns and increasingly digital electoral confrontations inevitable.

The massive power of articulation of new forms of communicative expression generated by social networks is politically projected in dual directions:

• On one hand, and from bottom to top, the estimated increase in individual capacity to influence, condition or set the agenda or political discussion.
• On the other hand, and from top to bottom, the assumption first, and the later colonisation, by political players, and especially parties, of social networks, by reinforcing their presence on these platforms and, in increasingly forceful proportions, directing their proclamations and messages to potential voters through their ideological and electoral propaganda.

We cannot, however, confuse all political propaganda with the manipulation of the electorate through what is known as ‘computational propaganda’ (Woolley, Samuel C., and Howard, Philip N., Computational Propaganda: Political Parties, Politicians, and Political Manipulation on Social Media, 2018). The fight for electoral manipulation through the use, or better said, the abuse, of social networks through the analysis and spurious use of Big Data, custom algorithms, artificial intelligence, bots, trolls, etc., can tip the balance of the electoral results or of the referendums.

Driving public opinion or voters towards a certain political position, through disinformation campaigns or the use of manipulative bots through automated, hidden and anonymous accounts, has become the effective nightmare faced by today's democracies. More than ‘misinformation’, that is, the involuntary expansion of false or uncontested news, we are talking about ‘disinformation’, the intentional manipulation of our beliefs or perceptions of reality to control our will, decision or vote. Both feed on fake news, but we must not confuse the poor quality of the information received with the manipulative disinformation that seeks to make us change our political participation.

As Neudert and Marchal propose, the polarisation that new digital technologies create is basically presented in two forms: inadvertently, ‘polarisation by design’, due to its approach; and ‘by manipulation’, as conscious polarisation and with a manipulative purpose (‘Polarisation and the use of technology in political campaigns and communication’). However, regardless of this involuntary or intentional nature, they also emphasise that marketing techniques seek to attract the attention of the user and thereby generate more advertising revenue. And it is well known that the sensationalist, conspiratorial, and, ultimately, more radical and polarising news, are the ones that get the most visits and, therefore, are the most lucrative.

Leaving global pandemics aside, the warlike confrontation has been transferred to social media, in what is known as ‘information warfare’. It is here that democracy runs too many risks if it doesn't defend itself. The fair and transparent electoral game requires ensuring a correct conversion of the fight for the vote into a democratic and representative response. However, a lot of recent data corroborate the opposite (‘Autocratization Surges-Resistance Grows. DEMOCRACY REPORT 2020’, V-Dem Institute, Varieties of Democracy).

New digital realities in reconstruction of politics.

The digital process and its impact on politics will be even more decisive in the immediate future. That is why it is the public authorities, and not only at the national level, but with regional or international convergences, which must elaborate the norms: 'hard laws' and 'soft rules', which make it possible to demand responsibility in cases of political manipulation or to reverse such manipulation.

The bad omens detected in the lockdown period by the health emergency unleashed by COVID-19 make us more aware of the dangers of legal inaction on the more sinister side of social networks. Self-regulation and codes of good practice ('soft rules') may not suffice. When the large digital platforms that make up social networks remain silent, States and their international organisations should take the reins. It may be the moment for a mandatory regulation with preventive capacity and, in cases of illegality, with effective sanction mechanisms (‘hard laws’). It's easy enough to say but complicated when it comes to putting it into legal practice.

This is how we have witnessed the difficulties of implementing the 2018 German legislation. This regulation, despite prescribing heavy fines for digital platforms that do not remove legally classified illegal content, has not prevented fake news, nor has it prevented doubts about its coercive efficacy or criticism for its possible restriction of freedoms. In other countries such as France, Italy and Spain, a regulation to protect citizens against 'fake news' has not yet been approved. By contrast, there are strong misgivings and criticisms in many sectors of the public and published opinions, for stigmatising some of these legislative proposals as attacks against freedom of expression, undemocratic censorship of information, etc. (Muñoz-Machado, Julia, ‘Noticias falsas’, (Fake News), in the journal El Cronista del Estado social y democrático de Derecho‘ (Social and Democratic State of Law Chronicle), No. 86-87, 2020).

Politics is not only rationality or deliberation (Rawls, Habermas), nor is it merely hegemonic popular construction with identity-representative redemption (Laclau, Mouffe). But at the confluence of both positions, associative and institutional versus rupture or populist, social networks, in the worst Schmittian style, exalt irrationality and passion. The exacerbated dichotomous separation of friends against foes and their irreconcilable borders takes shape and expands digitally and politically.

The ability to manipulate through 'Big Data' and the digital trail left on the networks by each user, along with the scarce public control of social platforms, have meant such an exponential change in the way of being in politics as to talk about a new public reality re-created by virtual reality.

Political players increasingly develop more 'bot networks' in order to amplify their propaganda, criticise electoral adversaries and even intimidate all those who could inspect them and, in particular, journalists. Personalised electoral advertising, together with the receipt of misleading or, directly, fallacious political propaganda, with the explicit objective of forcing the electoral vote towards a certain option or, where appropriate, reducing the suffrage of other options or demobilising participation, have become undesirable deviations from social communication on networks which can have a major impact on electoral results.

The unprecedented capture of personal data carried out by social media platforms allows the creation of highly sophisticated behaviour profiles and, with it, the much desired singular targeting of information ('micro-targeting') or, worse still, exploiting an advertisement ad-hoc for dark political purposes ('dark advertising'). The elaboration of these individual profiles on our philias and phobias, through algorithms that process an innumerable amount of data and that can be sold to the highest bidder, put the correct functioning of electoral processes to the test. And, precisely, in times of clear volatility of the electorate, with fewer and fewer 'captive' votes, the repercussion of singular publicity, hoaxes, fake or misleading news, could be decisive for victory or failure in future elections or referendums.

Although manipulation is no stranger to politics, we are now facing never-before-seen technological capabilities of propaganda and manipulation on social networks that have not only superseded the traditional media, but have turned part of them into coadjuvants of a political intercommunication heeling towards the poles and eager for spasms and radicalism. The impact that social networks can have in determining policy has led some governments, parties, and other public players to use digital media to seek greater support, control their citizens, or fraudulently direct public opinion or the electorate. Being unaware of the manipulation, a piece of political propaganda can be generated that determines not only the way to face certain public issues, but the very meaning of our vote (Balaguer, Francisco, ‘Social Networks, Technological Companies and Democracy’, ReDCE, 32, 2019, https://www.ugr.es/~redce/REDCE32/articulos/04_F_BALAGUER.htm).

In light of so many gaps and regulatory deficiencies, it is worth mentioning Judgement 76/2019 of the Constitutional Court of May 22, which declared Article 58 bis of the Organic Law of the General Electoral Regime unconstitutional. With this legal precedent, at least political parties have been prevented from taking advantage of the collection of personal data on the network in order to subsequently carry out a more individualised electoral campaign.   

In any case, the weakness or failure of large social media platforms to face and, where appropriate, curb these political propaganda practices with trolls, bots, botnets, illicit psychographic profiles, etc., make it imperative that it be our institutions (and not only at the state level, but at a global or, at least, European Union level) who should start working on preventing the manipulation, disinformation and explicit or subliminal propagation of half-truths or clamorous lies, put our constitutional democracies on the ropes and ultimately destroy our rights and freedoms.

And yet, in this new ‘information war’, cooperation between large technology companies and public institutions is more urgent than ever. The best use of all its technological arsenal, including automated verification instruments, algorithms and artificial intelligence for the detection and response against toxic information, hate speech, etc., becomes the new framework for collaboration between digital companies and public institutions.

Here, too, the survival of constitutional democracy is at stake. Let us at least win this battle in a war that is known as well as history: never ending.