One of the main ways democratic ideals are furthered is through social justice movements, and social media networking sites have exponentially impacted the progress and reach of these social movements. While many large social media platforms have been under fire recently for their algorithms’ negative impact on democratic values, in taking a more optimistic case-by-case approach to the digital choice architecture, we can examine Facebook’s influence on the continuing success of the 2017 Women’s March and Twitter’s influence on the lasting impacts of legalized gay marriage (#LoveIsLove). Though it may seem counterintuitive at the time, social media really can be and has been used for positive change and justice movements.
Policy-based nudges are used to “improve people’s decisions by changing how options are presented to them.” Ideally, this should be utilized in a transparent, non-imposing, cost-effective, evidence-driven, nonpartisan, non-paternalist, and democratically-controlled way. Within the choice architectural frameworks that are inherently built into everyday life, there is actually no neutral way to present individuals with options. The classic example of this is to imagine yourself strolling the cereal aisle of a supermarket. The supermarket must organize their inventory on shelves, as this is customary. But here lies the inherent choice architectural framework: whatever is closest to customers’ eyeline will be most likely to be bought. The consumer still has the choice to reach for something on the top shelf, but they are more likely to miss this option or forego it to save time and effort. In this way, unintentional choice architecture can actually be the more manipulative option because it is often done in the dark or utilized by the private sphere, which does not consider the public interest.
Since we cannot avoid this choice framework conundrum, “nudging” could be used to alter consumer behavior. Now imagine that, because of government encouragement, the supermarket stockers put the more healthy cereal option at eye level and the more unhealthy option on the top shelf. This would encourage the buyer to walk away with healthier choice cereal while maintaining the individual freedom to go against the grain. Therefore, by creating and maintaining spaces for intentional choice, in combination with policy addressing social ills, autonomy is protected.
What does this have to do with the digital sphere? Well, social media platforms present information in non-neutral ways, too, through algorithms and other such technology. But, in some cases, this works in favor of democratic values. Social media aids socio-political movements through the inclusion and mobilization of individuals who may not be able to actively participate in offline movements (i.e., those with geographic obstacles, people with disabilities). For example, the original Women’s March was organized primarily through a Facebook event, to which 200,000 people responded “going,” which leads to the idea that social media is the main, modern-day determinant of societal attitudes. This mission was validated by the 4.1 million people who marched worldwide in support due to the welcomed nudges the algorithm provided to like-minded individuals. Through Facebook’s digital nudges (e.g., suggested posts/accounts, prioritizing donation-collection pages), more people were made aware of the march and could contribute to the movement’s mission.
Social media expands the idea of democratic freedom by taking issues experienced by the public, spreading that information to public political figures, and demanding change. Social media allows the public to lend rational feedback to their representatives. This is done through its immediate, cost-effective communication network from the community to political figureheads. In a study examining Twitter posts related to same-sex marriage before it was legalized, it was found that participants from both sides of the political divide engage with social media as a means to express emotion-driven opinions on topical events. In turn, politicians can respond to the criticism and defend their position. This effectively shapes a public democratic space by allowing for a more tangible relationship between politicians and their constituents where constituents can assert their own moral values of liberty, autonomy, respect, and dignity. However, the flip side of this coin reveals that often the most emotional constituents are the least likely to vote on these issues. Despite this, due to the expansive and untethered accessibility of social media, it becomes increasingly difficult for politicians to ignore the outcries of their constituents – requiring more accountability and transparency on both sides of the communication link between parties (another goal of proper nudging technique). Thus, it is arguable that social media is the modern driving force between the public and political spheres.
Finally, social media is effective in influencing public thought because it allows for hearing many perspectives, countering traditional ideas, and building community on shared ideals and experiences without overly-paternalistic oversight by the website creators. The use of social media is entirely voluntary so that individuals may choose whether or not to partake in the public discourse and platform nudging. Facebook and Twitter can also provide a space for the non-powerful to exert their own dominion over those in power, a complete twisting of the common criticism to nudging. Therefore, as long as policymakers continue to monitor trends and create effective policies to address underlying societal problems, social media can continue to lend a voice to the underprivileged.
By Emily Carriere