The PEW Internet Research group recently conducted a survey seeking “people’s opinions about the Snowden leaks, their willingness to talk about the revelations in various in-person and online settings, and their perceptions of the views of those around them in a variety of online and off-line contexts.”
What the study ultimately found was that
“Overall, the findings indicate that in the Snowden case, social media did not provide new forums for those who might otherwise remain silent to express their opinions and debate issues. Further, if people thought their friends and followers in social media disagreed with them, they were less likely to say they would state their views on the Snowden-NSA story online and in other contexts, such as gatherings of friends, neighbors, or co-workers.”
The PEW findings suggest that Twitter, which some have described as a form of networked public sphere, does not, in fact, function as an ideal public sphere, providing a public forum for open and democratic discourse regarding topics of public concern. The PEW study found that 44% of the population felt that the release of classified information harmed the public interest, while 49% felt that it served public interests. This strong polarization is an obvious topic for debate, yet it seems that neither Twitter or Facebook are adequate forums to facilitate the debate, at least according to the PEW study.
The notion that users are less likely to post their opinions on social networking sites if they feel their friends and followers are likely to disagree with them supports the claim that politics on Twitter are extremely partisan, as discussed in the #HamOnt study (see Literature Review: How Twitter Affects The Public Sphere). Further reenforcing that polarization, as New York Times writer, Clair Cane Miller notes, is the fact that “Internet companies magnify the effect, by tweaking their algorithms to show us more content from people who are similar to us.” To have a true debate, we need to discuss topics with those who hold varying and differing opinions from our own. If social networking sites like Twitter continue to suggest like-minded users to follow, we end up with a community of people who all hold to the same set of beliefs. Few users, if any, actively seek out users with differing opinions to display a balanced set of opinions within their timelines.
If politics on Twitter continues to be as polarized as recent studies, such as the Spiral of Silence study suggests, it can never assume the role of networked public sphere.
Resources
- Hampton, K., Rainie, L., Lu, W., Dwyer, M., Shin, I., Purcell, K. Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’. PEW Research Internet Project. PEW Research Center. 26 Aug. 2014.
- Cain Miller, Claire. “How Social Media Silences Debate”. The New York Times. The New York Times Company. 26 Aug. 2014.
When a video of freelance photojournalist James Foley being beheaded by members of ISIS was released online, social media sites, like Twitter and YouTube, worked to remove the images and videos linked on their sites. Twitter representatives state that they removed the imagery on the request of Foley’s family, as per their current policies. This is a fair request from the family, but as journalist Mathew Ingram points out: “… as well-meaning as their [Twitter & Youtube] behavior might be, do we really want those platforms to be the ones deciding what content we can see or not see?”
If Twitter is intended to ever successfully play the role of the networked public sphere, how can it succeed if it censors the content on its site? While the video of Foley’s beheading may be considered too gory and obscene to view by some, forcing its censorship eliminates the freedom of speech needed to facilitate the public sphere.
That said, Twitter has every right to remove the content from their site; they have never made any claim that they are, or strive to be, a networked form of Habermas’s public sphere. They removed the content to fulfill the request of a grieving family, an act I would greatly appreciate if I were in a similar situation regarding a loved one. Supporters of Twitter’s decision argue that sharing and viewing the video only supports the actions of ISIS, and that ignoring the video completely is the only way to battle such an atrocity.
In order to create a successful public sphere, sites like Twitter need to allow open discourse amongst users, but with situations like the Foley video, they also need to maintain a happy user base to keep their investors content. As noted in the #HamOnt study, Nancy Fraser points out that “the media that constitute the material support for the circulation of views are privately owned and operated for profit.” While Fraser’s argument discusses today’s digital divide, and subordinated social groups’ inability to access these private forms of media, her statement also eludes to the notion that these same media outlets control the content displayed through their channels.
Unless Twitter is willing to allow any and all content to be posted online via their social network, it can never act as the ideal networked public sphere. This argument, however, assumes that Twitter is making strides towards this goal; the company is more likely just a private institution that provides a channel for discussion of topics relevant to the public sphere.
Resources
A recent New York Times article looked at Twitter’s relationship to the protests over the death of a black teen, Michael Brown, in Ferguson, Missouri. While the happenings in Ferguson are heartbreaking, to say the least, the purpose of this post is to compare some of the points raised in the New York Times article with Hamilton’s Twitter activism community.
The New York Times article refers to a counterpublic commonly referred to amongst its users as “Black Twitter” and cites the PEW Internet Project’s study of African Americans and Technology Use. According to the PEW study, “22% of online blacks are Twitter users, compared with 16% of online whites.” and, further to that point, “Younger African Americans in particular have especially high rates of Twitter use. Fully 40% of 18-29 year old African Americans who use the internet say that they use Twitter. That is 12 percentage points higher than the comparable figure for young whites (28% of whom are Twitter users).”
It’s interesting to compare these statistics to the survey findings from the #HamOnt research project, which shows an overwhelming majority of the respondents were white (94.3%). When looking at Hamilton’s demographics, only 13.6% of the population (according to the city’s 2010 TECHNICAL REPORT #3 for The Playbook: A Framework for Human Services Planning in Hamilton identify as a visible minority. From that group, roughly 20% identify as Black, which counts for a mere 3% of the total population of Hamilton.
In a city where the population is predominantly white, it seems logical that Twitter’s #HamOnt population would be largely white as well, but what seems odd is that Twitter’s overall popularity among Black Internet users doesn’t result in larger representation among visible minorities in the survey findings. That said, the #HamOnt survey was conducted using a snowball sampling, which may not be entirely representative of the city’s population.
Another point, that struck me as interesting from the New York Times piece was:
Yemisi Miller-Tonnet, 19, a student at Spelman College in Atlanta, said social media movements should be taken seriously. “Hashtag activism is activism,” Ms. Miller-Tonnet said. “We might be tweeting from a couch, but we’re also getting up and doing the work that needs to be done.”
“Hashtag activism”, or as referenced in the #HamOnt research, slacktivism, is clearly an effective means of garnering support from those that may not be fully aware of the problem in the first place. Hashtags, such as #IfTheyGunnedMeDown and #HandsUpDontShoot were used to show support for the people of Ferguson, as well as build awareness for the cause and the greater injustices that stemmed from Brown’s death.
Both hashtags use imagery to help spread the messages associated with the protests. #IfTheyGunnedMeDown shows two juxtaposed portraits of black youth; one image depicts the individual as a fine upstanding citizen, the other plays on stereotypes to suggest they are less than civil. The #HandsUpDontShoot hashtag carries with it images of supporters with their hands in the air, surrendering, as Brown was doing when he was shot by police. The New York Times claims that the #IfTheyGunnedMeDown hashtag has been used over 168,000 times since the campaign began, making its reach exponentially larger.
Both these hashtag protests express emotion and help sway opinion for the cause. Both sets of images clearly define the undercurrents that fuel the protestors in Ferguson and bring needed attention from around the world to the injustices faced by these protestors as they continue to stand up for what they believe in.
References