Social networks and political turbulence

How social networks are changing the way people is involved in politics?  That was the main questions   @HelenMargetts, director of the Oxford Internet Institute, developed in her talk at CRASSH on “Social networks and political turbulence”. Margetts was presenting her book Political turbulence (co-writen with Peter John, Scott Hale and Taha Yasseri) in Cambridge on April 26^th in a seminar organized by the "Technology and Democracy" project directed by John Naughton (@jjn1)

Really looking forward to hearing Helen Margetts on ‘Political Turbulence and Social Media’ this afternoon https://t.co/0cG5o235WV

— John Naughton (@jjn1) 26 de abril de 2016

@CRASSHlive Social media allows political participation through very small actions. That allow more people potentially participating

— Héctor Fouce (@hfouce) 26 de abril de 2016

@CRASSHlive Politics through social media opposes the idea of "politics as pain"

— Héctor Fouce (@hfouce) 26 de abril de 2016

Social networks and reseach methods 

 

The arousal of social networks allows a more accurate approach to politics from political sciences. Untill now, the only way to research on the political interactions at the micro levels was the use of surveys. Now, the combination of big data and social networks give academics acces to what is  really happening. This is important since one of the findings of Political turbulence is that the time of social networks, also in politics, in “now”. As happens in YouTube viral videos, the successful campaigns tend to grow very quickly from the very beginning.

But, as use to happen when quantitative methods are used, big data approaches are unable to answer the key question of social science, the one that refers to how people make sense to their own behavior and the social environment they live by. Classical indicators from social sciences, as demographics, don't explain pwople’s t involvement in politics  through social media.

But big data provides social information, we know about the participation of others because social media interaction @HelenMargetts

— Héctor Fouce (@hfouce) 26 de abril de 2016

Social networks provide also visibility, our actions can be seen in the outside world. Remember the Icebucket challenge? @HelenMargetts

— Héctor Fouce (@hfouce) 26 de abril de 2016

Participation, efficiency and pluralism

 

Because of this “surveillance” of what other people is doing politically in social networks, “social media reinforces reinforces (un)popularity". People tend to support popular causes. When the British government gave the people the chance to know which petitions were more popular when they access the petitions web page, most people tended to support the one on the top. The dream of an internet that will minority proposal a high visibility is increasingly being questioned. Popular artist in “classical” media are the ones with more followers in twitter and YouTube. Which chances do we have to built a new public sphere, more dynamic, more democratic, more participatory, if the old rules of big numbers are still rulin communications?

@techdemCRASSH If political success from social network is related to popularity, are we going into a democracy leading  by celebrities?

— Héctor Fouce (@hfouce) 26 de abril de 2016

"If popular youtubers decide to start a revolution they will reach a huge amount of supporters" @HelenMargetts But what kind of revolution?

— Héctor Fouce (@hfouce) 26 de abril de 2016

Causes associated with powerful or cute images have more chances to be sucessful. Images triggers emotion and that triggers participation?

— Héctor Fouce (@hfouce) 26 de abril de 2016

Margetts: personality shapes participation and social media exerts social influence to participate. #techdem

— Technology&Democracy (@techdemCRASSH) 26 de abril de 2016

So, popular people and images are central to understand  social media politics.  I will say, this is the same as in TV networks, for instance. For many political theorist, this new politics are in the realm of sentimentalism and populism. Margetts is not pessimistic: social networks are building a new kind of pluralistic democracy; she called “chaotic pluralism”, more disorganized and fast-moving that classical pluralism.  

Another criticism to the social networks-policy based is their practical inefficiency. It is true that social networks had a basic role in the Arab Spring that reached to depose some goverments, but it is also true that the new stablished regimes are not the ones people was expecting while demonstrating in Tahir square. Margetts agree that is is inefficient to have mobilization with no political consequences, but she considered that social networks participacion is a tool to release the seeds of social change.  

 I was thinking about the arousal of Podemos (@ahorapodemos) in Spain, nearly four years after theoccupation of Puerta del Sol by the 15M in 2011. The time of the networks, but also the time of all communications, is real time. It's happening, you're watching it, was the motto of CNN Spanish branch. Probably we need to research in deep how this short times of the media interact with the long times of policy making and social change.This will allow us to move toward another revevant question: how this participation through socil networks is changing politics?