Modern Internet Trends and Their Socio-Political Effects

Literature Review:

Many experts believe that the internet generally, and especially social media, play a
crucial role in magnifying economic, political, and cultural problems throughout the
world and that they have their own distinct impact on politics for both democratic
societies and authoritarian regimes. The apparent involvement of social media in
organizing protests and providing a voice to the alternative forces in autocratic regimes
(Ghonim, 2012) raised expectations for the internet and social media as "liberation
technologies" (Diamond & Plattner 2010). However, observers have emphasized how
despotic regimes exploit the internet and social media for espionage and disinformation
such as propaganda, as well as to distract people from politics, which are discussed in an
all-time classic book by Morozov (2011). More lately, analysts have begun to blame the
growth of populism, the promotion of racist ideologies, and the spread of false news in
democracies on social media (Mitchell et al., 2019).
There is abundant proof that mainstream media platforms (newspapers, radio, and
television) have had a significant influence on political outcomes by delivering both
political news and entertainment before and after they were widely available.
(DellaVigna & Gentzkow 2010) To the degree that internet media are similar to
conventional media, one should anticipate their persuasive effects to be similar. However,

1
some characteristics of modern media, particularly social media, set them apart from
conventional media. This review focuses on these characteristics since they may have an
impact on politics and explain certain current trends.
What distinguishes social media from conventional offline television and radio media?
We'll start by discussing the key theories regarding how social media could influence
politics. Low entry barriers and dependence on consumer content are the two most
prominent characteristics of on-line social media. Low entrance barriers make the
gatekeeping of political information far less effective, allowing new recruits who were
previously ignored by the political elite to participate. By giving the opposition and so-
called "whistleblowers."1 A voice, social media makes it more difficult for political and
corporate players to conceal potentially detrimental data (Diermeier 2011).
According to current theoretical research, this might make political systems more
susceptible and in need for transparency (Edmond 2013). Low entry barriers might have
societal ramifications. Not just the legal opposition in authoritarian countries, but all
formerly disadvantaged groups now have a voice on social media. Social media, for
instance, may be exercised to promote radical beliefs, thereby expanding their reach and
impact. Low entry barriers, along with the capacity of on-line media customers to repost,
and reproduce content created by others, may jeopardize the reputation mechanisms that
protect conventional media outlets' data quality (Cagé 2020). Social media enhances
coordination amongst individuals by facilitating horizontal streams of data through two-
way contact between users, thereby allowing simpler and easier planning of collective
activities such as rallies on the streets. Simultaneously, on-line protests on social media
may drown out offline movements required for genuine political change under
autocracies (Gladwell 2010)
A few studies look at how social media affects voter turnout and outcomes. During
the 2010 US congressional elections, Bond (2012) performed a field experiment on
Facebook with 61 million participants. The experimental treatment consisted of
displaying an election message along with a button that allowed users to indicate whether

1
People who leak information from a private companies or governmental agencies. They usually work or have
worked with that company/agency before.

2
or not they had voted. Another version of the mail included a list of Facebook friends
who had voted. On election day, these messages were distributed to a random group of
Facebook users. The article demonstrates that mentioning Facebook friends in social
communication increased self-reported voter involvement, while the magnitude of the
impact was significantly reduced when verified turnout was taken into account. The
communication that solely provided election details, on the other hand, had no influence
on voting. For more extensive user-to-user contacts, the link among voting and attention
to the comment stating friends' voting was greater. Jones (2017) later reproduced these
findings for the 2012 US presidential election with approximately the same unchanged
results.
Low barriers for entry in social networks makes it simpler to share critical
information about the government, which is especially essential in authoritarian regimes
when conventional media is tightly controlled by the government. This raises the number
of well-informed individuals who are dissatisfied with their authorities and, as a result,
may be willing to participate in public demonstrations. Furthermore, horizontal
information flows between social media users, enabling them to share logistical
information about planned events and coordinate strategies on the move. This aids in the
resolution of collective-action issues and enhances the likelihood of demonstrations by
raising the likelihood that those who are hypothetically prepared to join in street rallies
do so.
Acemoglu (2018) noted that the amount of Twitter tweets with keywords relevant to
Tahrir Square was prognostic of the number of attendees in the rallies the other day in
the plaza during Egypt's Arab Spring (which ended Hosni Mubarak's 30-year reign of
terror). In a similar vein, Steinert-Threlkeld (2015) indicate that greater coherence of
communications on Twitter by using particular hashtags was related to increased rallies
the following day during the Arab Spring, using data from almost 14 million
geographically-referenced tweets and data on protests from 16 countries.
Additionally, If we examine the case of July 5 th rallies, the extremist groups were
coordinated using both traditional media such as Alt-Info televised channel and on-line

3
media such as Facebook lives by Makharadze and Palavandishvili families, Telegram
groups for increased coordination and Twitter for the spread of awareness to the world 2.
To reiterate, the usage of the internet and social media with their respective trends
have proven to be both advantageous and disadvantageous for society. In particular, for
Tunisia and Egypt, it has been a major determinant for victory in overthrowing the
previous authoritative government and moving towards a better, democratic society;
however, in the case of Georgia or Syria, it has led to the development of extremist rights
populist groups that have resentment towards people of colour, different religious
backgrounds, sexual orientation, sex, fashion-choices and ethnicity. In the case of long-
term outcomes, there's two possibilities for the Georgian reality, either the Conservative
Movement established by Alt-Info will pass the parliamentary threshold and get
mandates into a legislature, or the party is going to dissolve. As we observed some
patterns of increased social media usage, it is very unlikely that the populist movements
will lose popular support. Instead, they will grow and become bigger than ever. I believe
this should be a major concern for the transitional democratic societies that thrive
towards liberal ideals. Nevertheless, in any case, scenario, society must be watchful.

Bibliography:
Acemoglu D, Hassan TA, Tahoun A. 2018. The power of the street: evidence from
Egypt's Arab Spring. Rev. Financ. Stud. 31:1–42
Bond RM, Fariss CJ, Jones JJ, Kramer ADI, Marlow C, et al. 2012. A 61-million-person
experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature 489:295–98
Cagé J. 2020. Media competition, information provision and political participation:
evidence from French local newspapers and elections, 1944–2014. J. Public
Econ. 185:104077
Diamond L, Plattner M. 2010. Liberation technology. J. Democr. 21:69–83
DellaVigna S, Gentzkow M. 2010. Persuasion: empirical evidence. Annu. Rev.
Econ. 2:643–69

2
For further sources, please visit Alt-Info, Aleksandre Palavandishvili and Guram Palavandishvili Facebook
Pages. As well as @PalaGiorgi twitter page.

4
 Diermeier D. 2011. Reputation Rules: Strategies for Building Your Company's Most
Valuable Asset. New York: McGraw-Hill
Edmond C. 2013. Information manipulation, coordination, and regime change. Rev.
Econ. Stud. 80:1422–58
Ghonim W. 2012. Revolution 2.0: The Power of the People Is Greater than the People in
Power: A Memoir. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Morozov E. 2011. The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom. New
York: Perseus
Mitchell A, Gottfried J, Fedeli S, Stocking G,Walker M. 2019. Many Americans say
made-up news is a critical problem that needs to be fixed. Tech. Rep., Pew Res.
Cent., Washington, DC
Steinert-Threlkeld ZC, Mocanu D, Vespignani A, Fowler J. 2015. On-line social
networks and offline protest. EPJ Data Sci. 4:19