Many historic political events that occurred in the United States in 2020, such as the video of George Floyd’s arrest that sparked Black Lives Matter protests, the malfunctioning reporting app at the Iowa Democratic Caucus that caused a significant delay in results, and President Trump’s Twitter-based self-assertion of victory in an election he lost, share a common trait: technology played a critical role in each. This blog post explores the impact of technology on democracy in the U.S., arguing that technology has a net zero effect on the quality of democracy because its positive impacts are balanced by its negative impacts in the following ways: greater accessibility to communication means that the prevalence of both fact and fiction is amplified, the capability to provide increased personal safety requires heightened general surveillance and data collection, and the same technologies that enhance the accessibility and efficiency of governmental systems make them vulnerable to targeted interference.
Open communication and expression are two of the most integral components of a democracy. Political theorist Robert Dahl lists two of his “three necessary conditions for a democracy” as the right of citizens to “formulate their preferences” and to “signify their preferences to their fellow citizens and the government by individual and collective action.”[1] Transparency between the government, private institutions, and citizens is therefore important not only for maintaining a high level of functionality in society, but also for fostering public trust in the political system. The number and diversity of public communication channels is drastically increasing thanks to modern technology, particularly social media. With the power of video capture and instantaneous global communication in the hands of almost all citizens, news travels immediately, citizens can share their views and opinions on global platforms, and individual, previously-overlooked injustices can be exposed. This technology can also be used to organize and mobilize, as seen in June 2020 when teenagers successfully used TikTok to coordinate decreased attendance at one of President Trump’s rallies.
While this increased capacity for communication is fundamentally good for democracy because it embodies the freedoms of speech and expression, it also introduces a broader range of information and opinions into the public political space. Modern technologies disseminate information rapidly with little regard for quality or content; they therefore distribute misinformation as well. This has led to the dangerous propagation and popularization of “fake news” and “alternative facts.” While misleading posts largely go unchecked, Twitter took action against this threat in May 2020 by flagging posts containing misinformation about Covid-19.
Furthermore, the algorithms that control what users see on different platforms – including news sites themselves – work to tailor content to individual users. In this hyper-curated informational environment that is inundated with new data every second, it becomes increasingly difficult to escape the echo chamber to diversify one’s views, and practice understanding and empathy for those with different opinions. Sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild describes this disconnect as “the great paradox” in which “people see the other side not as ‘wrong,’ but as ‘so misguided that they threaten the nation’s well-being’.”[2] Technology thus expands communication channels while also limiting dialogue.
Safety is another technology-influenced factor that deeply affects citizens’ trust in democracy. As previously discussed, the ability of individuals to record their experiences and share them with the world has the potential to improve both government and society by providing evidence of injustice, as in the cases of the senseless deaths of Black Americans like Eric Garner and Ahmaud Arbery. Furthermore, advances in security systems, such as increased account security through the confirmation of personal information and smarter monitoring using facial and object recognition software, can reassure citizens that they are receiving the best protection possible.
However, is this personal sense of security negated by the invasion of privacy and personal data that is a side effect of this protection? Personal data collection by private companies and the government has become normalized, and while this data contributes to technologies that increase security, it also leaves the public vulnerable to damaging data breaches. Millions of U.S. citizens’ personal records are compromised every year. Surveillance and identity detection, meanwhile, are somewhat dystopian concepts that complicate the balance between supporting personal and national security and undermining democracy. It is critically important to note that such technologies can do more harm than good if the data used in their development is biased, since even technology can form prejudices. Partiality as a whole is unhealthy for democracy, but is the situation inherently more dire if systemic bias is propagated by willingly-implemented technologies? Even ignoring technology’s potential flaws, it seems that the cost of protecting citizens and their personal information is to compromise their privacy and in fact risk the release of their personal information.
Finally, it is important to consider technology’s implications for democratic governmental functionality. The government’s use of data collection and analysis enables data-driven decision-making, but also gives the institution a concerning amount of power; private tech companies, however, hold the same capabilities. It is difficult to determine if the power wielded by these institutions is necessary or excessive, and how – or if – governments and corporations should be regulated for the good of democracy.
Governmental functionality has also been enhanced by the immense power of automation. The introduction of electronic voting machines, for example, has increased the efficiency of the electoral process and has markedly decreased the probability of human error in this specific operation. Yet this technological progress, like the other technological benefits examined in this blog post, is not spared from a negative repercussion: automating this process makes it hackable. Essentially, the same innovation that strengthens this democratic component weakens it. It is therefore prudent to reconsider the fact that the public’s trust in the political system is absolutely integral to the maintenance of democracy, and hence question if the risk of losing citizens’ faith in the system is worth the efficiency gained from using this technology. Even if the voting machines proved to be impossible to hack, some people would still likely be doubtful of their reliability, as was demonstrated by President Trump’s distrust of voting software during the 2020 Presidential Election. Technology can therefore be understood to both strengthen and weaken the practicality and perception of governmental activities.
After considering this argument for the net zero impact of technology on democracy due to the benefits and drawbacks of widespread instant communication, increased safety and surveillance measures, and technological innovations that enhance governmental functionality, what conclusions can be made about technology’s impact on the quality of democracy in the U.S.? Clearly, utilizing the unbounded powers of technology has the potential to turn democracy on its head, but not using technology at all would be just as detrimental for the future of the country. A balance must be struck between technological freedom and regulation. This is a difficult task, since the natures of technology and democracy are mutualistic but can drive each other to extremes: democracy emphasizes personal freedoms and protections and thereby spurs innovation, while technology produces innovations that revolutionize personal freedoms and give large institutions such as the government an increasingly significant amount of power. Ultimately, it is important to remember that democracy is built on the trust of the people, and that while technologies can be empirically evaluated for functionality and reliability, their perceived functionality and reliability could tell a completely different story.
[1] Dahl, Robert. 1972. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press. Chapter 1.
[2] Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 2016. Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right. New York: The New Press. Chapters 1, 9 and 15.
I thought this was a very compelling post that equally considered the benefits and repercussions of enhanced use of technology on U.S. democracy. Though, you bring up the development and entrenchment of social media in American society, citing how platforms like Twitter have become misinformation and disinformation breeding grounds that represent significant threats to democracy. I think this notion cannot be understated. Social media has quickly consumed much of the conventional news market previously dominated by broadcast television, radio, and even newspapers. While these outlets have worked to adapt to technological revelations, integrating themselves into mobile platforms and shifting much of their content to social media, they cannot possibly compete with the flood of highly unregulated information coming from billions of users. Contrary to professionals and academics who dominated this previous media generation, anyone who has an Instagram or Snapchat can now be a journalist. Also alarming, a grey area has persisted over the last decade over whose jurisdiction disinformation and misinformation vetting falls under. Is it the responsibility of the federal government, as they have regulated libel and defamation historically in other outlets? Or does this fall within the responsibilities of the companies themselves? Facebook recently appeared before the U.S. Senate to face questioning regarding their information monitoring policies ahead of the 2020 general election and amidst the current Covid-19 pandemic. I fear that while the emergence of social media has further increased intercommunication and freedom of expression, allowing anyone to have a voice, a maleffect may be that such unchecked misinformation and disinformation has contributed greatly to the construction of different perceptions of reality, and therefore, further polarization.
Eleanor, I enjoyed reading your blog post about the relationship between technology and the quality of US democracy. As you mention, a particular issue with social media is the proliferation of mis- and disinformation on these platforms. With Twitter and Facebook reaching 126 million and 1.2 billion daily active users respectively as of 2019, attempts to ensure the veracity of each post or tweet is likely a futile endeavor. Yet the spread of misinformation, for example the idea that masks are ineffective at limiting coronavirus transmission or that concerns regarding the current pandemic are overblown, can have real world, life or death consequences. Likewise, erroneous accusations about widespread voter fraud and stolen elections, particularly those emanating from President Trump’s twitter account, are further polarizing an already historically divided American society and electorate. As you mention, Twitter began flagging and labeling Trump’s misleading tweets as so since May of this year. Nevertheless, as recent research has shown, these annotations and corrections only seem to be deepening polarization.
I am generally pessimistic about the public’s ability to discern fact from fiction and agree that mis- and disinformation circulation on social media is a pressing issue that must be addressed. However, I am also weary of relying on private companies like Twitter and Facebook to assess and censor speech on their platforms. At what point does ‘newsworthy’ become dangerous and potentially harmful to democracy?
Hi Eleanor! I found your blog post really thought-provoking because I have never heard the argument that technology has a net-zero effect on democracies; I have only ever heard arguments for technology’s benefits and hindrances. As a negative you mention that citizens are now facing a “hyper-curated informational environment” due to algorithms. To add to that, I think that it is not just the algorithms to blame. Even when presented with the option to consume news sources that differ from their beliefs, some citizens are specifically choosing for themselves to only consume news that confirms their beliefs. Due to the huge amount of information that is available now (like you mention in your blog), Americans are easily able to live in their own information bubble where their opinions are not challenged. This use to not be possible when there was a limited amount of news sources. Also, I think another negative impact of technology to explore would be how some citizens are facing an information overload and simply stop consuming news altogether. It is tiring constantly getting news thrown at you and having to sift through everything and figure out what is fake and what is not. When faced with this information overload, some Americans choose to shutdown. This is really problematic though because citizens need to consume news in order to make informed decisions and hold the government accountable.
Hi Eleanor! I felt like this was a very compelling and relatable blog post. Being that our lives are saturated with technology and its implications, weighing the benefits and drawbacks of both and their effects on our quality of democracy in the United States is essential. I appreciate your argument for a net zero impact. It is easy to disqualify technology and social media as something that has become unruly and unmanageable, especially regarding political influence and its instant reach. However, never before have so many people had education, news, current events, and political analyses at their fingertips. Technology has given more power to the people to educate themselves, forcing once largely elitist institutions (government, political science, etc) into the hands of the people. The dangers are also very apparent. From false news, to the hacking of electronic voting machines or emails, it can be frightening to try to prospect into what the United States democratic political future may look like. One of your concluding sentences struck me, “democracy emphasizes personal freedoms and protections and thereby spurs innovation, while technology produces innovations that revolutionize personal freedoms and give large institutions such as the government an increasingly significant amount of power. ” I thought that this was very eloquent and concise. Though I do not have any answers regarding what the correct balance between technological freedoms and regulations should be, I am left with so many more questions.
Hi Eleanor – your post advances a very thorough argument for the net-zero effect of technology on American democracy. I appreciated the clarity with which you delineated technology’s positive and negative impacts. Of particular importance is your mention of social media’s ability to propagate misinformation. While some might think that social media’s power to shape public discourse warrants its increased regulation, such regulation would also raise concerns over censorship and interference in the marketplace of ideas. There is an inherent irony to social media companies adopting a laissez-faire approach to their platforms in the name of uninhibited expression and democratic freedoms: as a result, misinformation often spreads faster than verified news items on social channels, which only exacerbates an electorate’s existing partisan divisions. In doing so, social platforms threaten the democratic norm of mutual toleration. Your post alludes to this norm with your quotation from Sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild. As mutual toleration is a “soft guardrail” of democracy not upheld by written law, technology’s ability to undermine it sets a troubling norm-breaking precedent. This irony precisely captures the “net zero effect” of which you write.
Your discussion of technology’s benefits and drawbacks, however, is confined to its effects within the political sphere. I would encourage you to also consider how technology affects the country’s broader social and economic landscape. Truck driving, for example, is the most popular job in 29 states in America: what will happen when such jobs become automated? As the appropriate technology becomes increasingly accessible, employers will replace their unskilled laborers with automated machines. This phenomenon has already begun in some parts of the United States (it was a significant topic in Andrew Yang’s 2020 presidential campaign) and has the potential to incite massive economic discontent by further consolidating wealth in the upper classes. Several international incidents demonstrate that economic inequity can threaten democracy – thus, automotive technology bears a highly erosive potential.