Social media and digital platforms have transformed the political landscape, evolving into pivotal arenas where movements gain traction and power dynamics shift. Emerging from grassroots initiatives, online protests like the Arab Spring, Spain’s indignados, and the #MeToo movement illustrate how self-organized networks leverage these platforms for collective action. As new technology continues to change the ways we all engage in political discourse, the threats to our democracy are deep and wide.
The Five Star Movement in Italy is one example of how political organizing and digital engagement can go hand-in-hand. Founded in 2005 by former comedian Beppe Grillo, the movement utilized its founder’s blog to foster direct participation and encourage a new political dialogue. Like all of the best examples of digital campaigns, it reached citizens in an inspiring way that old-school political parties can’t quite replicate. A recent study analyzing a vast dataset of user interactions across five digital platforms underscores the movement’s reliance on online engagement to mobilize support.
The Rise of Digital Protests
The Arab Spring, ignited in 2010, is perhaps the most notable example of how social media can catalyze political change. Activists used social media channels such as Facebook and Twitter to organize protests, spread knowledge, and mobilize support for the fight against tyrannical regimes. The indignados movement in Spain illustrated this trend mightily. Citizens then organized via social media, fervently expressing their desire to alleviate economic disparity and end governmental nepotism.
In much the same way, the #MeToo movement used the power of social media to raise awareness of the pervasive nature of sexual harassment and assault. Not only did this movement empower individuals to step forward and share their experiences, but it created a worldwide dialogue regarding the impacts of gender inequality. Digital networks are powerful enablers of global action. Most of all, they give people the tools to organize and mobilize behind mutual interests, even if those interests are geographically dispersed.
This shift toward infrapolitics as a norm in political engagement has been facilitated by the ability to mobilize people through digital platforms. Traditional forms of political engagement are often more institutionalized, requiring formal membership and/or pre-existing networks of participation. Together, these movements are a testament to how grassroots organizing can truly thrive in digital spaces. They elevate underrepresented voices (particularly critical voices) to the forefront of political discussion.
The Power Dynamics of Digital Platforms
When one’s opponents, whether political parties or civic groups, take to the digital streets, the alchemical ingredients in this new game-changing power dynamic begin to shift. And 96% of political parties in 48 countries are actively using these platforms. The owners of these digital environments hold a disproportionate amount of power in shaping the fate of our conversations. U.S. President Donald Trump himself tweeted, “Be there, will be wild! This now-infamous plea is a prime example of how platform operators can encourage and discourage user behavior and manipulate public sentiment.
Over the last few years, the high-profile cases like those have centered attention on this deep authority of platform owners. After the violent events at Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021, Trump’s social media accounts were locked, raising questions about censorship and the responsibilities of platform providers. This incident is illustrative of the dangerous, tenuous, and all-too-often distorting relationship between users and the platforms they depend on to share their voices.
Additionally, the systematic deplatformization of far-right social media app Gab in 2018 serves as another example of how platform owners can dictate user access. These actions reaffirm a powerful reality. They have the power to create content of their choice, but only within the confines of the rules set by the platform owners.
The peculiar interpretations of Section 230 in the US make this dynamic even more complicated. This law protects online platforms from being held as publishers themselves, shielding them from legal liability for user-created content. Consequently, platform owners have a unique form of power that shapes not only individual user experiences but broader societal conversations.
The Ecosystem of Political Engagement
The modern political environment is a highly developed ecosystem. Digital platforms are designed to engage citizens and their governments in unprecedented ways. Increasingly, governments are designing their own digital platforms and communication to enhance two-way communication while promoting and supporting increased transparency. For instance, the UK has introduced GOV.UK, and Australia provides myGov. By empowering citizens to readily access information and services, these platforms can help promote a more informed and active civic constituency.
Yet the centralization of discourse on private platforms raises troubling questions about one of the key issues of our time – who controls the narrative. Political parties and civic organizations are busy on the ground using these platforms to amplify their efforts. The problem is, the very design of these online spaces limits the possibilities for democratic conversation. The balance of power between users and platform owners is delicate. Users depend on these spaces for expression while simultaneously risking their voices being silenced by platform policies.
Recent studies published in Political Communication have highlighted three critical forms of power that arise from this platform ecosystem: informational power, structural power, and relational power. Content creation with informational power influences narratives through storytelling. Structural power comes into play through platform owners’ control over users’ access to and visibility on the platforms, while relational power comes from relationships created between users on digital platforms.
This complexity highlights the need for an urgent and ongoing conversation about the role of platform owners in promoting a healthy democratic discourse. As Americans try to find their footing in this new reality, knowing how to thrive in it will be key.