Impact of Social Media On Politics

Impact of Social Media On Politics
Student’s Name
Course
Instructor
Date
Impact of Social Media On Politics
The use of social media platforms such as Facebook in legislative functions and procedures is referred to as social networking or social media uses in the political arena. The matters about a nation's political or region's government are included in legislative processes and practices. Political movement, international diplomacy, misuse of power, national parties, and political ideals are examples. The technology and the social media platforms have opened communication lines that are critical in the transmission of information. This has given the social media platforms immense power to control or alter the political messages or the capacity of the messages released to the public..Social media can also alter the dynamics of the political values and forms of political conflicts across the world. This paper argues that social media is being used more than ever within political circles, and it has both negative and positive impacts. The argument presented in the paper is that despite the adverse effects of social media on politicians, the positives include the reduction of campaign costs and improved party images. Social media has also affected the legal system by altering some fundamental elements of the laws and policies. Private information is available on online portals that are vulnerable to hacking. It has also led to policies to control polarization and even flagging misinformation.[Bossetta, Michael. "The digital architectures of social media: Comparing political campaigning on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat in the 2016 U.S. election." Journalism & mass communication quarterly 95, no. 2 (2018): 471-496.]
Diplomacy is no longer as private as it was and is more vulnerable to the public's opinion due to the massive use of media platforms in political processes, international warfare, and political activism. Digital networks have now been regarded as adding value to the users of these digital network sites to create and comment on content posted on these sites. The concept of media technologies radicalism involves how individuals might involve disenfranchised persons and attract more people to participate in political discussion more informed and vibrantly. Citizens' accessibility to information dissemination can be aided by online media, such as social networking sites like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. Social media and internet platforms have aided in disseminating political knowledge that opposes traditional media strategies, generally consolidated.
Social Media and Political Campaigns
Social media has changed the course of campaigns because the candidates are now tied to their respective parties to a lesser degree. Michael Bloomberg, a businessman and former mayor of New York, spent over $1billion of his funds in his brief presidential campaign, eventually withdrawing in March. Moreover, over 70% of the budget was spent on advertisements.. The massive expenditure demonstrates how much money it costs to compete for a government position in America and why it is so challenging for legislative entrants to gain any traction in the poll alone without the help of influential fundraisers or, in Bloomberg's situation, his substantial funds.. The problem continues between electoral campaigns, which explains why upward to 90% of legislation incumbents are elected for a second term, a process known as the incumbency benefit. Nevertheless, social media has transformed the system, enabling the leaders in power and the new candidates to directly communicate with voters about policies and other aspects of their political agendas. Barack Obama was the first presidential contender to utilize Twitter in his 2008 presidential campaign when it was in its infancy. Donald Trump uses it virtually every day to communicate with his voters without the censorship of the conventional media. A deeper look at how legislators interact today indicates substantially different from how politicians communicated five years ago. They would talk through professional spokespersons or be broadcast on television. They would appear in print or on government sites. They now communicate using social media sites such as Twitter. According to a study, new political candidates gain a significant increase in popularity by utilizing social media outlets that are affordable and accessible and anyone with a connection to the internet. The discovery is effective because it shows how social media may encourage competition in governance, where accessibility to official messaging services and finance are considerable obstacles to beginners.[Calderaro, Andrea. "Social media and politics." (2018).] [Howard, Philip N., Bharath Ganesh, Dimitra Liotsiou, John Kelly, and Camille François. "The IRA, social media and political polarization in the United States, 2012-2018." (2019).]
Potential candidates can personalize themselves using their social media pages in addition to presenting their proposed policies, which helps supporters feel a connection to them. Previous Democrat presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg, for instance, utilized his 2 million followers on Twitter to present his rescue puppies. In contrast, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren utilized her Instagram to talk in a live stream with followers who contributed small amounts to her presidential election campaign. There is a political saying that if enough people donate small sums, this would ultimately develop into a wave of contributions, which will assist that individual get voted in the future. Small donations, usually between $5 and $100, appear improbable to make a difference in an expensive campaign worth billions of money. These donations are, nevertheless, a significant element of the election process, according to the experts, since they reflect optimism.. Organic advertisement in published magazines and newspapers or on tv news is cheap and covers a bigger audience. Targeted ads, although expensive, enable candidates to send a precise statement to a specified constituency, just like on social media platforms. Social media cannot be overlooked as a minimal cost, high-impact tactic in electoral rivalry. It offers the advantage of engaging with the community using tweets or Facebook posts to inform them of plans and even request a fundraiser.[Dimitrova, Daniela V., and Jörg Matthes. "Social media in political campaigning around the world: Theoretical and methodological challenges." Journalism & mass communication quarterly 95, no. 2 (2018): 333-342.]
Enhanced Political actors’ Responsiveness
In today’s modern election process, online communications platforms allow legislators to obtain real-time and diversified data about the people's choices. Interactions also allow real-time evaluations of the stakeholders 'and party communication strategy. Parties can alter their campaign strategy by analyzing public input on social media platforms. If candidates demonstrate their dedication to addressing problems of existing public interest, sensitivity could help them win elections. Furthermore, it allows policymakers to simulate the participants' ongoing alertness and willingness to help people, a vital characteristic of democracies. Democracy is a long-term process rather than a one-time action. The interaction between people and elected legislators is essential to developing and sustaining democracy. There has been much attention paid to functional representation, or if politicians' actions demonstrate the goals and interests of people.. Substantive representations, on the other hand, are not a fixed structure. It entails voters giving indicators to ruling leaders regarding their choices constantly and politicians constantly receiving information about the voter's policy priorities. In a perfect environment, voter messages are directed into the electoral arena, influencing political decisions. Dynamic representations occur when variations in popular perception cause adjustments in party discourse or legislation. The realistic political figure is often compelled to adapt to fluctuations in voter preferences as a response to political rivalry. Political parties that fail to consider citizens' requests and demands diminish electoral support. As a result, significant parties continuously seek more information on voter choices to assess if their public communication strategy is correct. Political Parties are obliged to be specific, even in the reality that changing their viewpoint might be detrimental. This statement is exceptionally reasonable given that politicians are relying on social media to track the constantly changing needs of the people in recent times. An open communication channel from the intended audience is required to carry out these relatively brief improvements. Politicians ‘broad inclusion of citizens in their parties has propelled pre-modern campaigns, communicating information about the voting members' needs to party leaders. Eventually, political strategists used bulk studies and focus group interviews on obtaining data regarding voters' choices. These instruments are still helpful today, but they are expensive, prejudiced, and relatively slow. However, the rise of internet communication channels has opened up new possibilities for obtaining factual information in real-time regarding citizens' choices. Also, political forces can monitor what concerns citizens discuss on social media platforms to gain insight into their opinions. The actual problem agenda of U.S. lawmakers on Twitter is similar to that of Twitter accounts (voters). Political players can answer to public needs much more rapidly via social media. Social networking platforms like Facebook, and Twitter, produce content at a considerably quicker speed than traditional channels of communication, allowing political information to be transmitted virtually instantly. These online networks should be a suitable venue for partners to participate in both the short and long-term Responsiveness and get real-time feedback from the voters.[Romeijn, Jeroen. "Do political parties listen to the (ir) public? Public opinion–party linkage on specific policy issues." Party Politics 26, no. 4 (2020): 426-436.] [Marozzo, Fabrizio, and Alessandro Bessi. "Analyzing polarization of social media users and news sites during political campaigns." Social Network Analysis and Mining 8, no. 1 (2018): 1-13.]
Political Polarization
Applying statistics from the American National Election Surveys and the Pew Research Institute to analyze digital and social networking use by age bracket, a group of academics comprising Stanford and Brown Universities assessed political division in the United States. Their results indicate that older American voters, who frequently do not use online platforms, have experienced the most significant shifts in political radicalization in recent times. As per the study, individuals aged 75 and up experienced a 0.32 score point increase in radicalization between 1996 and 2012. Meanwhile, individuals aged between 18 and 39, who already are substantially engaged on online platforms, showed just a 0.05 indices percent increase in radicalization in that same timeframe. Except for religious radicalization, every metric shows that the eldest age demographic undergoes more polarization shifts than the younger people. The results are impossible to balance with the simple explanation linking the current polarization growth to social media and the internet platforms. This is particularly the case for accounts that heavily rely on social media. Other studies have found a correlation between social media prevalence and political extremism. Numerous scholars are concerned about the growing trend toward echo chambers on social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, enabling people to select whom they engage with or things they can be exposed to in their feeds. The feature has promoted extremely radical beliefs as people tend to block opposing viewpoints. To a certain degree, social networking sites allow their users to construct their feeds and effectively stay by them, cau...