What the demonstrations in the streets of the Philippines meant in 2001, the election of Barack Obama as president of the United States in 2008, the revocation of fraudulent election results in Moldova in 2009, the M-15 movement with its encampments and demonstrations in Spain in 2011, the so-called “Arab Spring” in the Middle East in early 2011 and the “Occupy Wall Street” movement that started in New York, also in 2011, all have in common? They all used social media to organize such protests and mobilize their responsible agents. But it was much more than just organizing a party: everyone was making great use of social media to establish communication networks and achieve their goals. Today's social media has helped make real the idea of ​​a "global village", first put forward by communications theorist Marshall McLuhan in the 1960s, and suggests that the essayist's claims of a "flat world" 21st century Thomas L. Friedman are true.Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayAccording to Friedman, personal computers and the speed of the optical cable in transferring information marked the modern revolution and almost removed the limitations of time and space. The rapid development of social media into an important tool influencing society is part of the advancement of information and communication technologies, with the first notable trend being the evolution of the Internet, with diverse social media and social web communities as central components. This essay aims to analyze and highlight the influence that social media has had on politics. Both positive and negative aspects of the issue will be presented, followed by an examination of the current situation and possible future outcomes. How has social media transformed politics and how will this trend continue? Not long ago social media promised a more enlightened politics, as accurate information and simple communication would help “good people” drive out corruption, bigotry and lies. However, Facebook acknowledged that before and after the last US election, between January 2015 and August 2017, 146 million users may have seen Russian disinformation on its platform. Google's YouTube admitted 1,108 videos linked to Russia and Twitter 36,746 accounts. Thus, far from bringing enlightenment, social media has helped to further complicate the political scene. Russia's difficulties are just one example. From South Africa to Europe, politics seems to be getting uglier and uglier. Part of the reason is that by spreading falsehoods and outrage, influencing voters' judgment, and exacerbating partisanship, social media erodes the conditions for negotiation and communication, key elements for preserving freedom and democracy. On the other hand, it is important to keep in mind the fact that the use of social media does not cause division but rather amplifies it. The 2007-2008 financial crisis fueled popular anger at a wealthy elite that had left everyone else behind. The culture wars have divided voters by identity rather than class. Likewise, social media isn't the only one that has the power to polarize: just watch cable TV and talk on the radio. But, while Fox News is familiar, social media platforms are new and still little known. And because of the way they work, they exert extraordinary influence. Social media companies make money by putting photos, personal posts, news, and advertisements in front of you. Because they can measure how we react,they also know how to get under our skin. For example, some of the greatest values ​​of social media lie in its immediacy and its effective ability to engage broader audiences, particularly younger voters. A good example is that of President Barack Obama, who was the first politician to harness the power of social media during his two successful campaigns. It would be ideal if such a system only helped wisdom and truth rise to the surface and influence millions of other people around the world. But the truth isn't so much beauty as it is hard work, especially when you disagree. To give an example, those who scroll Facebook know well how, instead of imparting “wisdom,” the system doles out compulsive things that tend to reinforce people's prejudices. Because different sides see different facts, they share no empirical basis for reaching a compromise, tending to slowly discredit the niceties of liberal democracy and embolden politicians who feed on conspiracy and nativism. In Myanmar (an example of contemporary relevance) because Facebook is the main source of news for many, it has deepened antagonism towards the Rohingya. In order to develop a deeper understanding of the discussion, it is important to investigate through what means and what concrete consequences social media have in politics. In particular, the impact of social media on politics has become a new trend as its importance grows as a forum for political activism, transforming the way political communications were traditionally carried out. Political leaders, political parties, institutions and foundations are all using social media as a new way to connect and interact with voters. Individuals, politicians, thought leaders and similar people are able to express their opinions, interact with a vast network and connect with other like-minded people. One important way that social media has transformed politics is the increased speed with which news, poll results, and rumors are shared. While before the Internet people had to wait for the next newspaper or television news broadcast to get the latest information, online news is a 24/7 phenomenon, and social media has taken it a step further. However, while there is the ability to access news on many websites at any time, most people tend to spend more time on specific websites such as Facebook and Twitter than on more serious or professional news sites or political sites. This means that what people get most is all the latest trending news and opinions shared by their "friends" or highlighted by the system itself thanks to the website's algorithms. Another interesting new feature concerns political polls, an important part of every campaign. As with other types of political news, the Internet has dramatically increased the number of poll results available each day, and once again social media has helped accelerate this process even further. . Social media sites not only report survey results, but also allow users to participate in them (such as on Facebook). And this is important because poll results have a great influence on elections, even if they are flawed. A survey can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, if people think a candidate is far ahead in the race, they may conclude that it makes no sense to vote for the loser. Additionally, one of the mentioned positive effects that social media has on politics is the opportunity for voters to more easily interact with candidates and elected officials.Traditionally, if you wanted to meet a politician or candidate, you would have to attend a live event. However, as with the other two previous examples, this one also has its downsides, since the lack of intermediaries or filters, such as trained journalists or editors, allows this influence to also come from the other side, uncontrolled and without censorship , something potentially dangerous if the message spread serves to promote hatred and anger towards a specific target (usually a minority group). Targeting is used throughout the advertising industry to ensure that ads and messages reach the right audiences and has become a major phenomenon in the advertising industry. also the political world, allowing, in the age of social media, politicians and people running for office to direct their own campaigns. If a candidate wants to address the concerns of women, college students, retirees, Latinos, or any other group of voters, they can now tailor their messages specifically. Just as advertisers on Facebook are able to use analytics and targeted advertising, so can candidates and politicians. So, if we notice that political messages seem to speak to us personally, it is no coincidence. One of the biggest concerns about the relationship between social media and politics is the fact that political campaigns are now influenced by every story, whether true or not, that spreads on social media. It is becoming increasingly difficult to separate real news from fake news online, especially as the fundamental characteristics of social media help to make this distinction even more blurred. It has become easy to be influenced by misinformation posted by “friends” and followers, even if there is no real intent to mislead. Likewise, one of the hidden forces operating on social media (especially powerful when it comes to controversial topics, like politics) is the aforementioned confirmation bias. Most people tend to have interactions on the Internet with people who share their vision, which means that they continually receive content expressing the same point of view, especially on social media, where this can create the illusion that “everyone ” think the same way, leading us to live in differentiated “filter bubbles”. It is interesting to mention the formation of what has been called tribal epistemology. Information is evaluated not on whether it meets common standards of evidence or fits a common worldview, but on whether it supports the tribe's values ​​and goals and is vouched for by tribal leaders. “Good for our side” and “true” begin to blur into one. This applied to politics can contribute to fostering growing intolerance towards others. It is therefore because of dangers like these that (social) media literacy becomes increasingly significant, as it helps to raise awareness and use a lot of discernment, which are necessary before believing in anything. It can be argued that social media has changed the political landscape in four main ways. First, they created a channel of direct interaction between voters and politicians, offering voters the opportunity to interact more easily with political entities and for the latter to circumvent the traditional process schemes of reaching citizens which involved huge investments (such as paid advertising). Live streaming is a great example to illustrate this, as it makes it possible to attend/host virtual events, which encourage interaction with politicians and candidates. Secondly, the social media platform allows political parties to advertise their campaigns without itpay large sums or without being able to raise large sums in a short period of time, through online campaigns. Since journalists also often cover campaigns and write about such ads on YouTube and Facebook, this essentially broadcasts politicians' messages to a wider audience at no cost to the politicians. It also refers to criticism of the old system of media “gatekeepers” (such as newspapers), accused of slavishly adhering to their owners' agendas. Third, it allows for the customization of messages based on audience demographics in order to increase campaign effectiveness. Finally, rumors, fake news, controversies and the speed with which they are spread hinder the ability to discern “good” information from “bad” information. In short, social media has reshaped the structures and methods of modern political communication. While positive aspects can be achieved, such as an increase in democratic engagement and voter turnout, the lack of traditional filters and the ease with which news is disseminated to highlight the difficulties associated with this phenomenon. The often wild trends of the online world can seem like the spontaneous actions of a newly liberated audience to express their opinions. Social media acts as a mere amplifier, simply increasing the proportions of everything that reaches the web, but not really being the core cause or reason for any major change. It's a catalyst for things that are already happening. Faced with all this, the question “what to do?” it certainly comes to mind. People will adapt, as always. However, in the time it takes for this adaptation to take place, bad governments with bad policies could cause a lot of damage. Some are calling for social media companies, like publishers, to be responsible for what appears on their platforms; be more transparent; and be treated as monopolies to be dismantled. Politics is not like other types of discourse; it is dangerous to ask a handful of large companies to consider what is healthy for society. However, breaking up the social media giants might make sense in antitrust terms, but it would not help political discourse; indeed, by multiplying the number of platforms, it could make the sector more difficult to manage. With this in mind, there are other remedies. Social media companies should edit their sites to make it clearer whether a post comes from a friend or a trusted source. They could accompany the sharing of posts with reminders of the harms resulting from misinformation. Bots are often used to amplify political messages. Twitter may not admit the worst or mark it as such. However, because these changes run counter to a business model designed to monopolize attention, they may have to be mandated by law or a regulator. In conclusion, one thing that is certain is the fact that social media is being abused. But, with will, society can address this problem and revive that first dream of enlightenment. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a custom essay An interesting example is that there are now proposals for Internet voting, which could lead to greater democratic engagement in elections, making social media even more influential. Other advances, such as social media polling techniques, are expected to become more common and hopefully more accurate. But above all, it is important to keep in mind that social media is relatively new, so whether we are just starting to see its impact on society and how it will develop in the future depends entirely on our current relationship, 60(4), 707-728.