Social Media the Day After the U.S. Election

Here are some questions for us to ask ourselves the day after the U.S. elections end: Should fear be what guides the shifting of the red lines that protect political discourse, our right to be informed, and our right to know who wants to lead us during the elections? Or should the rules of the electoral process ensure that this happens by promoting more information, not less? How do we want social media to function in the future as a space for political debate? We’re still in the very early stages of understanding the real impact of social media; it’s clear that we don’t know what to do and the playing field is changing, but while we’re figuring this out, it’s worth keeping an eye on the issue of free speech and thinking about how we can protect it.

Brexit in the UK, the referendum on peace in Colombia, but above all, Trump’s first election as U.S. president, highlighted the power of social media and transformed its potential for smear campaigns into an obsession we now call “Fake News.” Since then, pressure on the platforms that operate the major social media networks to monitor discourse before, during, and after elections has grown, reaching a climax in the current U.S. elections amid the possibility of Trump’s reelection. In the run-up to the U.S. election, as Carlos Cortes describes, the platforms “have implemented various measures on the fly that they apply inconsistently, leaving many questions for the future.” They are doing so under pressure from both the pandemic and a Trump who is shouting and claiming—without evidence—that he will be the victim of fraud. In a downward spiral where, even after Election Day, during the vote count, and as I write this, November 4, Facebook continued to announce new adjustments. The self-regulation that social media platforms had been developing to address misinformation is far from ideal; content moderation based on community guidelines has many problems, and government regulation is on the horizon. In any case, until two months ago, discussions about content moderation during election seasons included reflections on how to apply to this medium the paradigm of facilitating the dissemination of political discourse. With the 2020 U.S. elections, the fear of the democratic crisis we face has led us to praise calls for control made by various actors, including civil society, with urgent demands to remove content. In other words: we’ve gone from considering measures that respect freedom of expression to calling for the censorship of someone who aspires to lead one of the world’s superpowers. Whether due to pressure or a survival instinct, social media platforms—run by large corporations—took on a central role in curbing political manipulation and containing potential violence in a divided and polarized country. These measures were largely justified on the grounds that the U.S. election is an exceptional one in which democracy must be defended by controlling the messages circulating in the public sphere. Yes, Trump is authoritarian. Yes, the country is divided. Yes, there may be excesses. But none of that is any different from so many other recent electoral contests around the world. So, does this figure justify enacting stricter rules that give platforms more power to shape the political debate at the very pinnacle of democracy—the elections? This is no minor question. Until recently—before social media—the paradigm was not to control candidates’ discourse, but to facilitate its dissemination. The Inter-American Human Rights System, for example, prioritizes the dissemination of political discourse during elections, when the voices of those running for public office must be given the widest possible reach—to the point that our countries allocate airtime on broadcast television so that their messages reach every corner of the country. The case law of the Inter-American Court, as CELE reminds us, helps us understand that discourse “about” and “by” politicians is in the public interest because it seeks to protect those who criticize the powerful, shielding them from threats of lawsuits for damages, but it is also grounded in the idea that public criticism enables people to learn about and stay informed regarding the ideas of those in public office or with political aspirations—and it is those individuals who are accountable for their actions. What is the problem? Is the problem that the presidential candidate’s thoughts appear on social media, or is it that in a country like the U.S., an authoritarian liar is the president and has the support of half the voters? Every election since social media took center stage has faced this question, and it has not been possible to demonstrate that the lies circulating on these platforms have the power to massively sway the vote. What we do know is that they are a powerful communication tool for campaigns —which are used for both good and ill—and that there is significant concern and research regarding the effects of disinformation on democracy in a more structural sense—specifically, how it affects the information ecosystem. Even so, I can’t help but think that instead of analyzing the global political crisis, we’re discussing how to make it go unnoticed. That’s why, even though some claim that social media wasn’t in the news on November 3 because the pressure was effective in curbing disinformation, it’s a claim that’s hard to prove. There were so many changes to the regulations that it’s impossible to verify them or establish indicators; in fact, this is true for content moderation in general, where the lack of transparency and uniform criteria makes evaluation impossible, On the other hand, it is possible that if we follow this path, we will lose the ability to refute messages from political campaigns; we will not be able to criticize them publicly because to do so we would need to know the messages, and those that are not politically correct will tend to disappear. Let’s think about this: if it weren’t Trump, would we agree to prevent a candidate from raising doubts about election fraud? Here are some questions for us to ask ourselves the day after the U.S. elections end: Should fear be what guides the shifting of the red lines that protect political discourse, our right to be informed, and our right to know who wants to lead us during the elections? Or should the rules of the electoral process ensure that this happens by promoting more information, not less? How do we want social media to function in the future as a space for political debate? We’re still in the very early stages of understanding the real impact of social media; it’s clear that we don’t know what to do, and the playing field is shifting, but while we’re thinking it over, it’s worth keeping an eye on the issue of freedom of expression and considering how we can protect it. By: @carobotero Article published in El Espectador (Colombia), November 9, 2020: https://www.elespectador.com/opinion/las-redes-sociales-el-dia-despues-de-las-elecciones-en-eeuu/ Photo Credit: @claybanks