When Freedom of Speech reinforces a political society
Research Proposal:
The main topic of the present research focuses on how ‘freedom of speech’ through social media reinforces a political society. In these modern times of social media transparency, most people view freedom of speech as a means to an end: a democratic and civil society. However, is everything as it appears? Specifically, the research examines how the government manipulates public opinion via social media. It is investigated how a dominant authoritarian media regulation system embraces equality through isegoria, whereas a libertarian- social responsibility media system embraces liberty through parrhesia. The hypothesis is that civilized society is replaced by a political society in which citizens become political actors, but that none of the aforementioned media systems produces the outcomes that everybody claims to desire, namely, peace, love, values, and humanities.
How does the government sway public opinion via social media? What are the distinctions between a neo-Soviet media system and a social responsibility media system, and how are they related to freedom of speech? Why do citizens adopt political behaviour simply by using the term ‘freedom of speech’ and expressing themselves on Twitter?
The questions outlined above have three major objectives:
(1) To find out how social media are used to manipulate public opinion.
(2) To illustrate the distinctions between media regulation systems.
(3) To educate people about the importance of values and humanities in society, rather than scrutinizing and blaming political decisions.
Literature Review: Impact of social media on society and Income Political society
In 2019, social media is deeply embedded in citizens' lives, with 45% of the population using it (Chaffey, 2019). According to a GWI report, internet users spend an average of two hours and twenty-two minutes online per day' (Salim, 2019). With these statistics, it would be irrational to assert that social media have no effect on the formation of beliefs. According to Sarah Oats (2008:88), ‘the media matter because they give long-term political information that helps to socialize voters into particular party preferences.’ To enhance manipulation, the Government uses ‘’Cyber troops’’, namely political party actors. Bots, humans, and cyborgs all deceive humans via bogus accounts, while Victor Barreiro (2019) asserts that cyber troops employ even full-time members ‘to control the information space.’ Even if it is stated that ‘what we see on Facebook is dictated by algorithms that decide what you see based on what you like and dislike’ (Dahmen), the digital society is fundamentally a capitalist society. This demonstrates that regardless of which ‘group’ one belongs to, beliefs ‘’for’’ and ‘’against’’ various political parties continue to be nurtured.
‘‘For and against’’ arguments between political parties expose two different versions of freedom of speech that date all the way back to ancient Athens. This is parrhesia, the freedom to say whatever one wishes, even if it is offensive, and isegoria, the equal right to express oneself in public debates. According to Teresa Bejan (2017), ‘isegoria was fundamentally about equality while parrhesia was about liberty.’ To take an illustration of it, in a libertarian media regulation system, citizens follow mostly 'parrhesia' by blaming political decisions. At the same time though, ordinary citizens publish only positive facts and experiences about their lives on social media, as well as their attractive photographs, and there is no one to expose them. On the contrary, politicians and celebrities are routinely exposed. As a result, politicians not only lack the 'right' to live their lives without being exposed, but also ‘analysts have noted that... sound-bites have decreased and commentary by the reporters themselves has increased over time’ (Oates, 2008) as citizens anticipate their next error at every hour and moment. Another crucial point is that politicians are more cautious in their movements. Diana Owen (2017) declares that ‘political leaders are held more accountable because their actions are constantly probed on social media.’ Hence, in a libertarian model, equality is practically impossible because politicians lack social rights, whereas in a Soviet model, equality makes more sense because everybody is protected by 'black propaganda' through the law's restrictive application. However, Teresa Bejan (2017) states,
Neither concept relied upon the Greek understanding of speech as logos- that is reason or logical argument… Aristotle would identify logos as the capacity that made human beings, political animals in the first place.
This demonstrates that regardless of whether someone uses isegoria being a political player seeking to benefit from power or parrhesia being an independent ‘political’ actor examining the situation in a superficial way, he adopts a political behaviour. The research concludes that civilized society has been replaced by a political society and that it would be wise to focus on humanities over capitalism.
Methodology:
Certain questions naturally require additional depth and explanation for the researcher to be able to answer them. As a result, a mixed-methods approach was chosen in conjunction with a case study methodology. The case study examines how freedom of speech on social media contributes to the reinforcement of a political society. The reason for choosing a mixed-method approach over a qualitative one is that quantitative data can significantly enhance the research results. The research will be conducted using a 'qualitative dominant' design, as it will rely heavily on qualitative data rather than quantitative data.
Through surveys, we gathered quantitative data. We administered a self-administered questionnaire with closed-ended questions (Likert Scale and multiple choice) to a convenience sample of 47 people who express themselves on Twitter. We supplemented the research with quantitative findings using an embedded design. It is important to emphasise that we distributed a sample questionnaire to some individuals to assess their responses and gather feedback about their experiences while taking the survey, as well as to ascertain why they chose certain responses over others. Following that, we modified our original questionnaire to ensure that we received the expected results.
Main Research
The main topic of the present research focuses on how ‘freedom of speech’ through social media reinforces a political society. In the modern times of social media transparency, freedom of speech is perceived by most as a means to an end: a democratic and civil society. But, is it really as it seems to be? The key issues of this research is how the government manipulates public opinion via social media and how a dominant authoritarian media regulation system by using isegoria embraces equality, whereas a libertarian- social responsibility media system by using parrhesia embraces liberty. In addition, it focuses on how citizens become political players in the first place. The research focuses on two questions. On how the government uses social media to manipulate public opinion and on the distinctions between a neo-Soviet media system and a neo-liberal media system and their relationship to freedom of speech. The three major objectives of questions raised above have three major objectives: To find out if social media are used to manipulate public opinion, to explore the differences between media regulation systems and to educate people about the importance of values and humanities in society, rather than scrutinizing and blaming political decisions. The overall aim and hypothesis of our research is to demonstrate that civilized society is outmoded by a political society in which citizens become political actors. Besides this, none of the aforementioned media systems produces the outcomes that everybody claims to desire, namely, peace, love, values, and humanities. This will be achieved through the collection of qualitative data, but also through the administration of surveys to a convenience sample of people who express themselves on Twitter.
In the year 2019, social media is deeply embedded in citizens' lives, with 45% of the population using it (Chaffey, 2019). As a result, it is a phenomenon that people consume and publish content via social media every hour and moment, per a report from GWI, internet users ‘spend 2 hours and 22 minutes per day online’ (Salim, 2019). Sarah Oats (2008:88) says, ‘the media matter because they give long-term political information that helps to socialize voters into particular party preferences.’ Additionally, she explains how social media compels people to participate in politics. However, the question of why media matters is a complex one. What we can be certain of is that the government expends considerable effort manipulating people's thought processes. To enhance manipulation the Government uses ‘’Cyber troops’’, namely political party actors. Bots, humans, and cyborgs deceive humans through fake accounts, while, according to Victor Barreiro (2019), cyber troops involve even full-time members ‘to control the information space.’ According to Dahmen, ‘what we see on Facebook is dictated by algorithms that decide what you see based on what you like and dislike.’ Additionally, McCarthy (2017) discusses how digital life knows us better than our friends and family, while Inglis (2018) admits that there is substantial evidence that social media platforms misuse available data to manipulate users' thinking. Even if people claim they are not affected by social media, they are still part of ‘puzzle' because regardless of which ‘group’ one belongs to, beliefs ‘’for’’ and ‘’against’’ various political parties continue to be nurtured. According to our survey findings, 60,9% of participants respond that they post anything online to the question 'How do you use media Freedom?' As a result, their posts reflect their political beliefs, whether they ''for'' or ''against'' political parties.
Arguments for and against political parties expose two different versions of freedom of speech that date all the way back to ancient Athens. This is parrhesia, the freedom to say whatever one wishes, even if it is offensive, and isegoria, the equal right to express oneself in public debates. According to Teresa Bejan (2017), ‘isegoria was fundamentally about equality while parrhesia was about liberty.’ We must insert a parenthesis here to emphasize the importance of remembering our history, referring to Plato’s Phaedo, ‘All learning is remembering.’ Even though Parrhesia and Isegoria are ancient definitions, they appear to correlate with how people today use media freedom under various media regulation systems.
The book ‘Introduction to Media and Politics’ by Sarah Oats explores the relationship between media and political climate in various media- regulation systems. She (2008: 13) introduces the four classic models by Siebert, Peterson, and Schramm (1963): the Libertarian, the Social responsibility model, the Authoritarian, and the Soviet model. In a Libertarian media model, citizens are free to publish whatever they want including offensive content. In a Social Responsibility media model, citizens are limited in what they can publish. They are not allowed to exhibit anti-social behaviour. Oats (2008: 13) explains that in a Social Responsibility media model, the media and government are partners, both responsible for the society. She continues by stating that in an Authoritarian media model, the government controls the published content. As a result, citizens are not allowed to undermine or offend the established authority. Although the Soviet media system is more restrictive, it is not dissimilar to an authoritarian media system. doesn’t differ a lot from an Authoritarian media system. In an authoritarian media system, citizens face unjust punishment from the government – see examples in the following paragraph. One could argue that a neo- liberal media model corresponds to modern parrhesia, whereas a neo- soviet media model to modern isegoria. Many people believe that the Soviet media system is a thing of the past. For example, someone could respond by saying that Russia's monarchy ended in 1917 as a result of Communist Party of the Soviet Union's Revolution.
However, the Freedom House (2017) came up with a list of countries with press freedom, with only 31% of countries classified as 'free'. 36% of countries are classified as 'partly free', while 33% are classified as 'not free'. North Korea, Russia, Yemen, Syria, and China, are all classified as 'not free'. On the other side, countries like Canada, Australia, Germany, the Nordic Countries, the U.S., or the U.K. are classified as 'free'. For example, ‘the U.S. is notable for a dearth of media regulation’ (Oats, 2008). In the U.S., the First Amendment, ratified in 1791, guarantees freedom of speech. The UK lacks a written constitution and has a more tightly controlled government and bureaucracy. Despite some established differences with the U.S., freedom of speech prevails in the U.K as well. In contrast, Russia, which adheres to a ‘neo-Soviet’ media system, is considered one of the deadliest countries for journalists. Even if freedom of speech was established in 1993, there is still governmental control in practice, and journalists and the general public regard themselves as political actors.
Freedom of the Press 2017
Freedom House. (2017). GLOBAL PRESS FREEDOM STATUS
Even though, press freedom does not guarantee safety. Journalists who venture to publish their truth become targets of assassination, imprisonment, threats, and physical assault. Afghanistan, which is classified as a partly free country, has lost a total of 15 journalists to violent attacks. In China, the world’s largest jailer of journalists, imprisoned 60 journalists in 2018 for a single on social media post. Even with press freedom, the United States reached 6 murders of Journalists in 2018. Even though, 31% of countries are classified as free, only 13% of countries enjoy guaranteed media freedom.
A secure space where anyone can speak his truth is the bare minimum that the Government can do for its country. It is unquestionable, that the media serve as a ‘coordination good’ (Bueno de Masquita and Downs, 2005), with journalists and the general public contributing by allowing ‘anti-government opposition views enter the public sphere’ (Solis, 2018) Journalists are considered as a medium for promoting transparency and uncovering wrong political decisions. Journalists are devoted to society, often at the expense of their own lives. They should be protected from attacks and threats, and neo- soviet regulatory systems, as well as neo-soviet minds, should re-establish their movements. However, the radical weapon of openness, which increases political empowerment and accountability, has a contested meaning.
Today, a modern parrhesia takes the wheel of free speech, dividing society. According to our survey findings, citizens perceive themselves as distinct from the Government, with 72.3% of the participants agreeing with the statement ‘All politicians lie and manipulate citizens.’ Citizens appear to ‘blame’ politicians for the capitalist society in which we live, as 89% of the participants to the question ‘Do you believe that political decisions affect society entirely?’ respond with ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree.’
We could argue that the majority of people are justified in resisting the government as 77,1% of participants have broad political opinions and involvement, with 36,2% claiming to investigate everything in detail, and 40,4 % to only be aware of the important political events.
Although, only, 8,4% of participants gain political knowledge through books and additional research. 42,6% ‘learns’ about politics via social media, while 77, 7%, of those who claim to ‘know only the important events’ or ‘investigate everything in detail’ obtain their political knowledge via the Internet (i.e., Online websites or Social Media.). One of the most common traps people fall into is the propaganda through social media, which causes people to attack one another and alienate themselves from politics. As a result, the majority of people blame politicians for having shallow minds.
When we take a step back and examine the situation objectively, we see that people complain about the decisions of a single individual, whose decisions followed those of other countries, and ultimately, the entire society serves particular choices to a politician. Tip O’Neil, former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, asserts that ‘in America, all politics are local’ (Oats, 2008). Oats (2008: 37) continues by explaining the importance of all politics regardless of the number of citizens affected. Aristotle believes that men are fundamentally political animals. As he puts it, ‘Polis* is not something more than its citizens’ (Knoll, 2017). That is, a state is composed of its citizens, each of whom sustains a self- sufficient life. On the other hand, countries such as Russia and China, where media freedom is restricted, citizens are not subjected to such high levels of government manipulation. Schoonvelde (2014) discusses how a lack of press freedom results in decreased political engagement and voter turnout. Our quantitative data, though, appear to contradict that, as only 25% of the participants agree with the statement ‘As I live in a country in which Free Press is not guaranteed, I refuse to be involved in Politics. I disagree with them anyway. There's no point. I prefer using my time wiser'. Although it would be somewhat imprecise to rely solely on the findings of people who enjoy press freedom. Most likely, focus groups or interviews with people who understand what it is like to lack press freedom would be more accurate. The main issue, though, is that citizens oppose the state while remaining a part of it.
One possible explanation for why citizens regard themselves as distinct from the state is that openness conflicts with national security ethics. The government desires a depoliticized transparency without disclosing private information, whereas activists seek a broader and more comprehensive transparency. However, this appears to occur only superficially, as people on Instagram and Facebook publish only positive events, concealing their ethical fallacies and errors. For instance, Christina Hallina (2019) admits that even after deactivating her Instagram account, she desired to take pictures whenever she did something cool. However, anonymity prevails on Twitter, particularly when one wishes to offend someone. According to a case study on Twitter (Peddinti, S. Ross, and K. Cappos J.), identifiable users are more conservative and lurk more than anonymous users. Anonymous users are more likely to engage with sensitive content. Finally, they will face no consequences, as there will be no one to expose them. Politicians and celebrities, on the other hand, are constantly exposed. As a result, "studies indicate concerning trends such as an increase in the negativity of political advertisements, as well as journalists speaking more and politicians being given less time to express their views." (Ansolabere et al., 1995; Kaid et al., 2011; Patterson, 1994) As a result, politicians not only lack the 'right' to private life without being exposed, but also speak less frequently, leaving citizens waiting for their next gaffe. Additionally, politicians are more circumspect in their movements. According to Diana Owen (2017), political leaders are held more accountable because their actions are constantly scrutinised on social media.
Hence, in a ‘neo- liberal’ media model, there is no equality, in practice, as politicians lack social rights, whereas in a ‘neo- soviet’ media model, equality makes more sense as everybody is protected from using 'black propaganda' through the strict application of the law. It should be admitted that a ‘neo-liberal’ media system converts politicians into ‘citizens’ of a ‘neo-soviet’ media system. We realize that there are arguments ‘’for’’ and ‘’against’’ media freedom. Although neither concept appears to be efficient. According to Teresa Bejan (2017),
Neither concept relied upon the Greek understanding of speech as logos- that is reason or logical argument… Aristotle would identify logos as the capacity that made human beings, political animals in the first place.
This demonstrates that regardless of whether someone uses isegoria as a political actor seeking benefit from power or parrhesia as an independent 'political' actor examining the situation superficially, he adopts a political behaviour. Kant provided the solution by equating 'isegoria' with thoughtful comprehension, which is quite distinct from isegoria or parrhesia in and of itself. The same cannot be said for contemporary times, as people are incapable of distinguishing between various forms of expression, referring to everything as 'freedom of speech.' The research concludes that a political society has displaced civilised society.
Summary:
To summarise, in contemporary society, all viewpoints, whether offensive or benign, are accepted and considered to have the right to 'freedom of speech' within all media regulatory systems. Even if Kant provided a solution by uniting 'isegoria' with thoughtful understanding, which is qualitatively distinct from isegoria or parrhesia per se, the same cannot be said for contemporary times, as people are unable to distinguish between various modes of expression, mistaking everything for 'Freedom of speech.' Society has deviated from what truly matters, as love is no longer on the agenda, people no longer think, values no longer matter, and people have replaced friends with business partners and virtual messages. The best we can do is justify each response without passing judgement on others, even if nobody else does so or recognises the difference. In this way, a political society can be civilised. A further question is how we can persuade others to propose a new system of media regulation. What media systems have been doing for decades does not appear to be efficient. We require additional solutions.
References:
[1] Barreiro, Victor Jr. (2019). Use of ‘cyber troops’ found in 48 hours countries, up from 28 last year- report, RAPPLER from www.rappler.com/technology/features/211681-global-inventory-organized-social-media-manipulation-2018-report-cyber-troops [Accessed at 1st of November]
[2] Bejan, Tereza M. (2017). The two Clashing meanings of free speech, THE ATLANTIC from www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/two-concepts-of-freedom-of-speech/546791/ [Accessed at 20th of October]
[3] Brichacek, Anna. Six ways the media influence elections, SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM AND COMMUNICATION, The University of Oregon from journalism.uoregon.edu/news/six-ways-media-influences-elections [Accessed at 14th of October]
[4] Bueno De Mesquita, B. & Downs, W.G. (2005). Development and Democracy. FOREIGN AFFAIRS 84(5), 77–86 from www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2005-09-01/development-and-democracy
[5] Cappos, J. Peddinti, S, Ross, K. On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog: A Twitter Case Study of Anonymity in Social Networks, DEPT. OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING from cosn.acm.org/2014/files/cosn025f-peddintiA.pdf
[6] Chaffey, Dave. (2019). Global media research Summary, SMART INSIGHTS from www.smartinsights.com/social-media-marketing/social-media-strategy/new-global-social-media-research/ [Accessed at 1st of November]
[7] Freedom of the Press. (2017). Press Freedom’s Dark Horizon. FREEDOM HOUSE from freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/freedom-press-2017
[8] Halina, V. (2019). The Psychology of Social Media- Why we feel the need to share, NOTEWORTHY from blog.usejournal.com/the-psychology-of-social-media-why-we-feel-the-need-to-share-18c7d2d1236
[9] Inglis, J. (2018). Remember, you’re being manipulated on social media: 4 essential reads, THE CONVERSATION from theconversation.com/remember-youre-being-manipulated-on-social-media-4-essential-reads-106742
[10] Knoll, M. (2017). Aristotle’s Arguments for his Political Anthropology and the Natural Existence of the Polis. OPENEDITION from books.openedition.org/psorbonne/14286?lang=en#ftn78
[11] McCarthy- Jones, S. (2017). Are Social Networking Sites Controlling Your Mind?, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN from www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-social-networking-sites-controlling-your-mind/
[12] Oates, Sarah. (2008). Introduction to Media and Politics, London: SAGE Publications
[13] Owen, Diana. (2017). The New Media’s Role in Politics, In the Age of Perplexity: Rethinking The World we knew, OPENMIND from www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/articles/the-new-media-s-role-in-politics/ [Accessed at 20th of October]
[14] Political Knowledge. POLITICAL SCIENCE RESEARCH AND METHODS 2 (2), 78- 163
[15] Reporters Without Borders. (2018). Worldwide Round- Up of journalists killed, detained, held hostage, or missing in 2018 from rsf.org/sites/default/files/worldwilde_round-up.pdf
[16] Salim, Saima. (2019). How much time do you spend on social media? Research says 142 minutes per day. DIGITAL INFORMATION WORLD from www.digitalinformationworld.com/2019/01/how-much-time-do-people-spend-social-media-infographic.html
[17] Schoonenboom, J. & Johnson, R.B. (2017). How to Construct a Mixed Methods Research Design, SPRINGER LINK, 69 (2), 107-131, from link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11577-017-0454-1 [Accessed at 27th of October]
[18] Schoonvelde, M. (2014). Media Freedom and the Institutional Underpinnings of Political Knowledge. POLITICAL SCIENCE RESEARCH AND METHODS, 2(2), 163-178. doi:10.1017/psrm.2013.18
[19] Solis, J. (2018). Media Attacks and Political Institutions. UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON from uh-ir.tdl.org/bitstream/handle/10657/3125/SOLIS-DISSERTATION-2018.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
[20] Vaas, Liza. (2019). Social media manipulation as a political tool is spreading, SOPHOS from nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2019/09/30/social-media-manipulation-as-a-political-tool-is-spreading/
