Spanish PM warns social networks could ‘overturn democracy’

Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Wednesday, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez warned how social media could threaten democracies around the globe. He called on European Union leaders to crack down on tech billionaires who use the platform to push agendas favorable to their own ends – not the masses.

“The technology that was meant to liberate us has become the tool of our oppression,” suggested Sánchez. “Social media that was supposed to bring unity, clarity and democracy has instead given us division, vice and a reactionary agenda.”

He warned that while the sites had helped bring unity through causes like the #MeToo movement and encouraged peaceful discussion on issues like climate change, it had given more power to the billionaire class.

“What really limits democracy is the power of elites,” Sánchez added. “It’s the power of those who think that because they’re rich, they’re above the law and can do anything. That, my friends, is why tech billionaires want to subvert democracy.”

A clear and present danger

Sánchez is not the first to warn of the dangers of social media, but his comments come just days after numerous tech billionaires — including those who own some of the biggest social networks — attended President Donald Trump’s inauguration.

Dr. Cliff Lampe, professor of information and associate dean for Academic Affairs in the School of Information at the University of Michigan, said it should not be hyperbole to say that social media is a threat to democracy, or indeed to any form. of the government that serves as the status quo.

“While there are still open questions about the extent to which social media is bad for democracy, we have seen some cases both in the United States and around the world where it has harmed democracy,” Lampe explained. “One example is that Cambridge Analytica data was used to manipulate several global elections years ago. There is a reason that Russia’s Internet Research Agency has determined that social media is the best vector to attack US stability.” .

How social media is a threat to democracy

Social media networks were not created to change the world or have such an impact. They were simply meeting places, allowing users to share their thoughts with friends on a centralized online platform. Then the platforms became the means of broadcasting to reach the masses – and it cannot be denied that some have taken advantage of this fact.

“Social media in general has been a double-edged sword, on the one hand, enhancing business efforts and facilitating international and domestic connections, and on the other hand, its algorithms have contributed to echo chambers, polarization and self-radicalization for people who spend a lot of time on the Internet or in isolation in these rooms,” suggested geopolitical analyst Irina Tsukerman, president of the threat. analytics firm Scarab Rising.

“However, these social media companies are incentivized by greater output from polarized exchanges, and until these incentives change, there will be no reason for the companies to do anything differently. Moreover, the more media companies social media are attacked by government officials as they play an important role in recent elections in the US and other countries, the more likely there will be a backlash,” Tsukerman added.

Social media companies are now playing a major role in shaping discourse and allowing misinformation and misinformation to spread. This is exacerbated by those aforementioned echo chambers, where even the most extreme views find an audience.

“It’s a vector for bad information,” Lampe said. “For a variety of reasons, everyone tends to have more extremist views, which is bad for the compromise needed to make a republic work. Social media companies tend to use the algorithm to give people self-affirming views in instead of views that would help promote democratic dialogue”.

Additionally, platforms can mute views as they see fit – while third-party fact-checkers who can address any misinformation/disinformation are largely a thing of the past.

“That their owners are increasingly expanding their power through monopolistic and cartel-like practice is a legitimate concern,” Tsukerman said. “However, the popularity and feasibility of the discourse provided by these platforms makes it a difficult issue to resolve in a way that does not cause a social reaction between different parties that benefit in one way or another. What is more worse, much of the discourse around the subject itself is often subject to the interference and infiltration of foreign interests, who invest in fueling policies and controversies in ways that maximize their own profit, contribute to chaos and polarization and contribute to social and political distrust between users and between users, authorities and business owners.”

Enemies of democracy given a platform

Then there’s the fact that Twitter/X allowed known opponents of the West to maintain a presence on the network.

“Both Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk have allowed the accounts of Iranian leadership, Taliban leaders, and even Hezbollah leaders, despite pressure from the US government,” Tsukerman said.” Musk’s X, rebranded by Twitter, reportedly even allowed check purchases blue by Hezbollah before. Pressure from the US government finally put an end to this scheme and forced X to close Hezbollah’s accounts.”

However, other extremist accounts are still operational, including those that were funded by Russia.

“Musk has increased extremist accounts linked to Russia and its various proxies, including various troll accounts that have spread extremist Russian propaganda,” Tsukerman warned. “There are no easy answers to either of these dilemmas, but perhaps the focus in this situation should be: one, exposing the role of foreign malign influence in influencing discourse; two, the flow of funding from these foreign interests and how it affects US policy, and three, the conflicts of interest from governments, social media, companies, and specific interests among users who benefit from the current regulatory framework.”

And for now, this seems to be a problem facing democracies more than totalitarian regimes—even though social media proved a vital tool during the Arab Spring movements of 2011. For the most part, democracies have not they are paying attention.

“The thing that surprises me is that governments outside of China don’t see the threat as serious as it really is,” Lampe said. “In the U.S. at least, this risk is countered to some extent by our commitment to free speech, which makes it difficult to regulate the social media industry.”