Debunking digital undemocracy
Democratic governments across the world are trying to keep up with the social and economic impacts of COVID-19, all while being undermined by aggressive tech companies monetising the erosion of representative democracy. As they attempt to institutionalise their unsolicited overreach into the personal lives of every user, it is vital that society challenge core assumptions that are central to claims of benefit of social media companies and tech giants more generally. These companies, and the economic structures they have created, claim to aid democracy, when in fact they undermine it. In addition, the monetary benefit they realise is an example of a systemic failure in recognising cumulative research, in other words, they get paid for other’s innovation while claiming it as their own.
Australian, and indeed global democratic, society must interrogate the value of social media, it must be critical on claims of democratic value. Defining democratic disruption as benefit without question only alleviates the responsibility of those monetising it, which often dismisses collateral damage as ‘disrupting another incumbent’. The well-known behavioural economist and lawyer, Cass Sunstein, stated that on balance social media platforms are “not merely good; they are terrific”. Such an absolute position both fails to mention both the variety of potential substitutes and the value of cumulative research.
Social media has been heralded as enabling pro-democratic movements, most notably the Arab spring movement. However, such conclusions are coming under increasing scrutiny. Social media existed during a time of intense socio-economic stress in the nations of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), which there was reportedly no correlation between social media use and the success of mass protest. Like almost all revolution, an economic shock and decades of extractive institutions are some of a myriad of likely causes of the Arab Spring revolution. To attribute responsibility for the Arab Spring to social media is cloudbursting.
As hope in social media’s ability to spark democracy wane, the resurgence of despots in the nations of MENA has likely been facilitated by the reach social media gives autocrats. Whether it be enabling centralised campaigns of dis/misinformation or aiding the identification of dissidents, they counterintuitively appear to be more of a tool of the dictator than a tool for the democrat.
If anything, hopeful democratic revolutionaries in oppressive regimes actively avoid social media because of these reasons. Protestors in Hong Kong for example have eschewed centrally controlled communications and opted for decentralised apps such as Bridgefy, which use Bluetooth instead of the internet. Usage of decentralised media platforms such as LIHKG has also been used. The difference between these platforms and that of Facebook and Twitter is that they necessarily avoid the collection of data and are online forums without a centralised authority.
Democracy is not a necessity for Facebook and tech giants, autocrats and their subjects are just another market to move into. It was not that long ago that Facebook was working on censorship tools in a bid to regain access to the Chinese market. Apple removed an app that was aiding pro-democracy protests because they value their foothold in the Chinese market more than democracy, and Google has engaged in bouts of internal self-censorship after they removed democracy game on their app store. It was only in July of 2020, after the implementation of the new national security law, that Google, Facebook and Twitter decided to halt cooperation with Hong Kong authorities.
Despite the best efforts of social media giants, they do not have a monopoly on communication. Arguments then claiming that social media’s ability to disseminate information is what makes it fundamentally pro-democratic must be compared against their respective substitutes.
The ongoing Belarusian protests are largely unable to access Facebook, Twitter, or Google, yet their protests continue. In the digital age, it is to be expected that information moves quickly and in large volumes, something which is not unique to social media, it is common across a range of telecommunication technologies. In Belarus, it appears to be facilitated by a combination of Telegram, VPNs, and the discontent of the people. As President Lukashenko does what dictators do and cracks down on protests, it will not be Facebook that revives democracy, it will be the people.
As doubt increases over the democratic efficacy of social media, remaining claims of democratic value or prestige neglect the value of cumulative research.
Facebook or Google monetising economic value does not necessarily imply that they were solely responsible for the creation of that value. As Isaac Newton — in a rather uncharacteristic bout of modesty — claimed that ‘he stood on the shoulders of giants’, the innovations of today are the product of generations of research and innovation. Our society’s system of patent and intellectual property law heavily rewards the latter stages of innovation and often excludes the decades of work by research institutions prior. While the economic necessity of such an asymmetry in rewarding innovation is plausible, society need not accept attribute all credit of innovation to those who just happen to monetise it.
The relevance of cumulative innovation in the discussion of any potential benefit of social media is that it is not theirs to claim. For example, to say that Facebook is beneficial to democracy because it provides information to users or because it allows rapid communication implies that Facebook somehow created these innovations. The internet is but one innovation that enables social media, itself standing on more shoulders of more innovations. This is also not to mention that many of these early innovations are typically publicly funded. Social media companies like YouTube and Facebook just happen to monetise the innovation of others.
The implication of such an understanding on the benefit of social media to society and democracy is that any benefit that social media may have to society is in fact diluted by the fact that this benefit is not actually shared across the decades of innovators that led up to their own innovation. Society’s decision to build in this asymmetry in the monetary rewarding of innovation between the early and late-stage innovators does not mean that society is compelled to praise social media companies for any benefit their product might have, if anything, it is plausibly the opposite.
The extraction and monetisation of an individual’s and thus society’s data actually implies that social media companies have effectively cashed-out their economic benefit for personal benefit. To both seek praise for their product and completely monetise their product implies double counting. The act of monetisation itself alleviates any claims of wider societal benefit because what would have been a social benefit has been cashed-out for capital.
While arguments of the neglect cumulative research and social benefit double counting are a part of a broader criticism of society’s attitude towards innovation, it is clear that while the monetisation of innovation is an example of tech giants appropriating the utility of others as their own, this only further erodes the apparent benefit that social media and the companies that own them provide to society.
Society’s ability to contribute to democratic governance comes with it a responsibility to continuously interrogate threats to its own democratic institutions. Social media and the economic shock of the COVID-19 pandemic likely pose the greatest challenge in generations. This is an opportunity to realise that social media is not necessarily democratic, and in fact is likely more of a detriment to representative democracy. Moreover, in debating the value of social media to society, it should be made clear that any remaining benefit is also not necessarily theirs to claim. Social media companies may monetise the erosion of representative democracies, but this does not compel society to accept claims that they are a benefit to society.
