Social Media and Democracy最新文献

{"title":"Social Media, Echo Chambers, and Political Polarization","authors":"Pablo Barberá","doi":"10.1017/9781108890960.004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108890960.004","url":null,"abstract":"A popular argument that is commonly put forth as an explanation linking digital technologies to political polarization is related to their ability to foster the emergence of echo chambers where extremist ideas are amplified. Sunstein (2018), a leading proponent of this view, argues that the main characteristic of social networking sites is that they allow politically like-minded individuals to find one another. In this environment, citizens are only exposed to information that reinforces their political views and remain isolated from other individuals with opposing views, in part due to the filtering effects of ranking algorithms that generate filter bubbles (Pariser, 2011) and create incentives for publishers to share clickbait and hyperpartisan content (Benkler et al, 2018). The outcome of this process is a society that is increasingly segregated along partisan lines, and where compromise becomes unlikely due to rising mistrust on public officials, media outlets, and ordinary citizens on the other side of the ideological spectrum.","PeriodicalId":378598,"journal":{"name":"Social Media and Democracy","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132290241","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Bots and Computational Propaganda: Automation for Communication and Control","authors":"S. Woolley","doi":"10.1017/9781108890960.006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108890960.006","url":null,"abstract":"Public awareness surrounding the threat of political bots, of international fears about armies of automated accounts taking over civic conversations on social media, reached a peak in the spring of 2017. OnMay 8 of that year, former Acting US Attorney General Sally Yates and former US Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. sat before Congress to testify on what they called “the Russian toolbox” used in online efforts to manipulate the 2016 US election (Washington Post Staff 2017). In response to their testimony and a larger US intelligence community (IC) report on the subject Senator Sheldon Whitehouse said, “I went through the list [of tools used by the Russians] . . . it looked like propaganda, fake news, trolls, and bots. We can all agree from the IC report that those were in fact used in the 2016 election” (Washington Post Staff 2017). Yates and Clapper argued that the Russian government and its commercial proxy – the Internet Research Agency (IRA) – made substantive use of bots to spread disinformation and inflame polarization during the 2016 US presidential election. These comments mirrored concurrent allegations made by other public officials, but also by academic researchers and investigative journalists, around the globe. Eight months earlier, during a speech before her country’s parliament German Chancellor Angela Merkel raised concerns that bots would affect the outcome of their upcoming election (Copley 2016). Shortly thereafter, the New York Times described the rise of “a battle among political bots” on Twitter. Around the same time, research from the University of Southern California’s Information Sciences Institute concretized the ways that social media bots were being used to manipulate public opinion:","PeriodicalId":378598,"journal":{"name":"Social Media and Democracy","volume":"150 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116342122","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Comparative Media Regulation in the United States and Europe","authors":"F. Fukuyama, Andrew J. Grotto","doi":"10.1017/9781108890960.010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108890960.010","url":null,"abstract":"In current debates over the Internet’s impact on global democracy, the prospect of state regulation of social media has been proffered as a solution to problems like fake news, hate speech, conspiracy-mongering, and similar ills. For example, US Senator Mark Warner has proposed a bill that would enhance privacy protections required of internet platforms, create rules for labeling bot accounts, and change the legal terms of the platforms’ legal relationship with their users. In Europe, regulation has already been enacted in the form of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and new laws like the Network Enforcement Law (NetzDG). This chapter will survey this rapidly developing field, putting current efforts of liberal democracies to regulate internet content in the broader perspective of legacy media regulation. As we will see, there are very different national approaches to this issue among contemporary liberal democracies, and in many respects the new internet regulations, actual and proposed, are extensions of existing practices. We conclude that, in the US case, content regulation will be very difficult to achieve politically and that antitrust should be considered as an alternative. Media regulation is a sensitive and controversial topic in all liberal democracies. The US Constitution’s First Amendment protects freedom of speech, while media freedom is guaranteed in various legal instruments governing the European Union and the Council of Europe, as well as in the European Convention on Human Rights. Freedom of speech is normatively regarded as critical to the proper functioning of a liberal democracy, and the","PeriodicalId":378598,"journal":{"name":"Social Media and Democracy","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126299674","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Dealing with Disinformation: Evaluating the Case for Amendment of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act","authors":"Tim Hwang","doi":"10.1017/9781108890960.012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108890960.012","url":null,"abstract":"=3067552 Pasquale, F., & Bracha, O. (2007). Federal Search Commission? Access, fairness and accountability in the law of search. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/ abstract=1002453 Paul, C., & Courtney, W. (2016). Russian propaganda is pervasive, and America is behind the power curve in countering it. Rand Corporation (blog), September 12. www.rand.org/blog/2016/09/russian-propaganda-is-pervasive-and-americais-behind.html Pennycook, G., Cannon, T. D., & Rand, D. G. (2017). Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2958246 Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. (2017). Assessing the effect of “disputed” warnings and source salience on perceptions of fake news accuracy. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn .com/abstract=3035384 Amendment of Section 230 283 Published online by Cambridge University Press Prior, M. (2013). Media and political polarization. Annual Review of Political Science,","PeriodicalId":378598,"journal":{"name":"Social Media and Democracy","volume":"128 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116381270","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Online Hate Speech","authors":"A. Siegel","doi":"10.1017/9781108890960.005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108890960.005","url":null,"abstract":"Online Hate Speech ist ein virulentes, gesamtgesellschaftliches Problem: User*innen von sozialen Netzwerken und Online-Medien sind zunehmend davon betroffen. Auch der Rechtsstaat und Organisationen müssen neue Umgangsstrategien finden. Die Autor*innen dieses Sammelbandes betrachten Online Hate Speech aus interdisziplinären Perspektiven der Rechts-, Politik-, Medien- und Sozialwissenschaften und aus der Praxis. Sie bieten Einblicke in neueste rechtliche Entwicklungen, in die mediale bzw. zivilgesellschaftliche Auseinandersetzung, die Betroffenheit von Personen(-Gruppen) und in die Strafrechtstheorie und -praxis. Praktische Handlungsempfehlungen für Politik, Medien, Zivilgesellschaft und Einzelne für den Umgang mit Online Hate Speech runden die Publikation ab. Die Inhalte des Sammelbandes entstammen dem Projekt „NoHate@WebStyria“ der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, der FH JOANNEUM und der Antidiskriminierungsstelle Steiermark - gefördert durch den Zukunftsfonds Steiermark. Creative Commons Licence Terms: Namensnennung – Keine Bearbeitungen 4.0 International ( CC BY-SA 4.0 ) Sie dürfen: Teilen — das Material in jedwedem Format oder Medium vervielfältigen und weiterverbreiten und zwar für beliebige Zwecke, sogar kommerziell. Unter folgenden Bedingungen: 1. Namensnennung — Sie müssen angemessene Urheber- und Rechteangaben machen, einen Link zur Lizenz beifügen und angeben, ob Änderungen vorgenommen wurden. 2. Keine weiteren Einschränkungen — Sie dürfen keine zusätzlichen Klauseln oder technische Verfahren einsetzen, die anderen rechtlich irgendetwas untersagen, was die Lizenz erlaubt. Die vollständigen Creative Commons Lizenzbestimmungen finden Sie unter: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode.de Die Rechte an den einzelnen Textbeiträgen und die Verantwortung für deren Inhalt liegen bei den Autor*innen. Trotz sorgfältigster Bearbeitung erfolgen alle Angaben ohne Gewähr. Eine Haftung des Verlages, der Herausgeber*innen und der Autor*innen ist ausgeschlossen.","PeriodicalId":378598,"journal":{"name":"Social Media and Democracy","volume":"83 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115762146","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Index","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/9781108890960.015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108890960.015","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":378598,"journal":{"name":"Social Media and Democracy","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130010296","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Misinformation, Disinformation, and Online Propaganda","authors":"A. Guess, Benjamin A. Lyons","doi":"10.1017/9781108890960.003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108890960.003","url":null,"abstract":"Not long ago, the rise of social media inspired great optimism about its potential for flattening access to economic and political opportunity, enabling collective action, and facilitating new forms of expression. Its increasingly widespread use ushered in a wave of commentary and scholarship seeking to meld wellestablished bodies of knowledge on mass media, economics, and social movements with the affordances of this new communication technology. Several political upheavals and an election later, the outlook in both the popular press and scholarly discussions is decidedly less optimistic. Facebook and Twitter are more likely to be discussed as incubators of “fake news” and propaganda than as tools for empowerment and social change. The resulting research focus has changed, too, with scholars looking to earlier literatures on misperceptions and persuasion for insight into the challenges of the present. The terms “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “propaganda” are sometimes used interchangeably, with shifting and overlapping definitions. All three concern false or misleading messages spread under the guise of informative content, whether in the form of elite communication, online messages, advertising, or published articles. For the purposes of this chapter, we define misinformation as constituting a claim that contradicts or distorts common understandings of verifiable facts. This is distinct conceptually from rumors or conspiracy theories, whose definitions do not hinge on the truth value of the claims being made. Instead, rumors are understood as claims whose power arises from social transmission itself (Berinsky 2015). Conspiracy theories have specific characteristics, such as the belief that a hidden group of powerful individuals exerts control over some aspect of society (Sunstein and Vermeule 2009).","PeriodicalId":378598,"journal":{"name":"Social Media and Democracy","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125221252","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Democratic Creative Destruction? The Effect of a Changing Media Landscape on Democracy","authors":"R. Nielsen, R. Fletcher","doi":"10.1017/9781108890960.008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108890960.008","url":null,"abstract":"The move to a more digital, more mobile, and more platform-dominated media environment represents a change to the institutions and infrastructures of free expression and a form of “democratic creative destruction” that challenges incumbent institutions, creates new ones, and in many ways empower individual citizens, even as this change also leaves both individuals and institutions increasingly dependent on a few large US-based technology companies and subjects many historically disadvantaged groups to more abuse and harassment online. That is the argument we advance in this chapter, where we will aim to step away from assessing the democratic implications of the Internet on the basis of individual cases, countries, or outcomes to focus on how structural changes in the media are intertwined with changes in democratic politics. We will set aside considerations of (important) individual phenomena like the Arab Spring, the indignados movement, and #MeToo, or (important) individual outcomes like the 2014 Indian general elections, the UK (Brexit) referendum on EU membership, or the 2016 US presidential elections, and instead identify a few key changes at the institutional level and the individual level that are part and parcel of the rise of digital media and discuss how this rise is in turn changing the institutions and infrastructures that enable free expression. Inspired by James Webster (2014) and his work on structuration, we examine structural change by considering the interplay between institutional change on the supply side and aggregate individual-level behavior on the demand side. We will do so through the lens of news, first the news media as an institution and second news as part of how individual citizens engage with public life. We focus on news as one of several key aspects of democratic politics, key to how we imagine it in its ideal forms and key to how we realize it imperfectly in practice. The structural changes we analyze are not dictated by technology but","PeriodicalId":378598,"journal":{"name":"Social Media and Democracy","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128003168","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Online Political Advertising in the United States","authors":"E. Fowler, Michael M. Franz, Travis N. Ridout","doi":"10.1017/9781108890960.007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108890960.007","url":null,"abstract":"Digital political advertising comes inmany forms, appears in amyriad of places, and can be targeted in many more ways than traditional television advertising. At its most basic, digital political advertising is interactive content placed for a fee. It includes display advertising (images, audio, or video) and search advertising (based on keyword search behavior); the goal may be to build supporter distribution lists, to fundraise for a candidate, party, or specific political cause, to persuade, or to increase name recognition and distribute information. Paid political ads can appear as banners (across the top of the page), as page takeovers, on the side of a webpage or news feed, in mobile apps, or in social media feeds where viewers can interact, like, or share them, further disseminating paid content organically. Some online ads feature call-to-action buttons and some auto-play as pre-roll advertising, appearing before consumers can continue their online activity. Some can be skipped and others will not allow further action until the ad finishes playing. According to Borrell Associates, digital advertising made up a small fraction (less than 1 percent, $71million) of political ad spending in the United States in 2014 but was projected to comprise a fifth of spending (20.1 percent, $1.8 billion) in 2018 (Borrell Associates 2018). Although digital advertising in campaigns has been around for a while and has been a growth market for several cycles now, it has long been overlooked by scholars, especially in comparison to traditional television advertising, for which there is a long and robust literature (see Fowler, Franz, and Ridout 2016), and even organic social media content, for which there is burgeoning research (Borah 2016; Bode et al. 2016). The lack of research on paid online advertising stems, in large part, from the difficulty in tracking the placement of and spending on online ads on websites, in apps, and on social media. Unlike television, where commercial tracking data has been available for two decades, systematic commercial tracking of digital advertising is very new, and until the aftermath of the 2016","PeriodicalId":378598,"journal":{"name":"Social Media and Democracy","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128428927","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Facts and Where to Find Them: Empirical Research on Internet Platforms and Content Moderation","authors":"Daphne Keller, P. Leerssen","doi":"10.1017/9781108890960.011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108890960.011","url":null,"abstract":"Reliable information about platforms’ content removal systems was, for many years, hard to come by. But data and disclosures are steadily emerging as researchers focus on the topic and platforms ramp up their transparency measures, including both self-regulatory efforts as well as disclosures required by law. This essay reviews the current and likely future sources of information. First, we discuss disclosures from platforms and other participants in content moderation, such as users and governments. Second, we discuss independent research from third parties such as academics and journalists, including data analysis, interviews and surveys. Finally, before concluding the essay, we list specific questions and areas for future empirical research.","PeriodicalId":378598,"journal":{"name":"Social Media and Democracy","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125003857","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}