Social media raises awareness of current affairs and spreads influences. However, it is also an outlet for negativity and adverse political discourse. 

Social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter are popular with users worldwide. These platforms brought people and organisations together, allowing them to connect and interact in real-time (Vanderkaay, 2010). Many users are probably unaware of the downsides of social media. Usually, the positive traits sound attractive. The negative characteristics are far worse. 

Loiacono & McCoy (2018) found that although social media technologies (SMTs) are unique and facilitate communications on social networks, they require users to stay connected and involved continuously. Examples of commonly used SMTs are Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Linkedin. The popularity of SMTs is notable as businesses see that as a tool essential to their growth. Many would think it’s all good with their usage identical to other web-based technologies. However, there are a few downsides to using SMTs. Societies and companies had to take a step back and rethink the objective of such technologies. Despite users seeing this as an opportunity to remain connected & reconnect with people, studies show that the usage of SMTs is associated with decreased life satisfaction, which is one negative trait of SMTs. 

Social media & Political discourse

Adeishvili (2015) defines political discourse in this manner. Politicians fulfil their professional duties through political discourse. Discourse is political and influences the general public or any public organisation. It begins with politicians’ professional discourse and applies to those concerning social issues in the public sphere. Similarly, Paunescu & Chiritescu (2019) argued that political discourse is an outlet for agreement. It promotes conflict and domination as well. In contexts where persuasion, conviction, negotiation or intimidation is involved, resorting to political lingo is an option besides physical violence. Differences are balanced. Those not in power are more lenient, while those in power regulate their discourse.

Political discourse is a potential source of power. It seems like a struggle between two visions, two individuals, and two power figures. Generally, the characteristics of political discourses are the struggle between good and evil: Aimed precisely at action with a concrete motive, for example, a political party calling the general public to vote or abstain; targeting the masses; holding a powerful psychological and emotional element, so politicians appearing on television and shedding tears in light of an underprivileged nation as the result of bad decisions made by the political party in opposition; controlling and manipulating, without leaving anyone indifferent (Paunescu & Chiritescu, 2019). Typically, political discourse is related to power management. It only works when people or their representatives participate in political affairs. Political discourse is when the locator aligns with their desire to power during struggles against politicians and political groups (Paunescu & Chiritescu, 2019).

Political discourse also arises over social media platforms. Shirazi (2013) mentions that recent unrests in Islamic Middle East and North African (MENA) countries spiralled due to civil resistance, anti-government demonstrations, civil disobedience and riots. These upsprings were uploaded and trending on Youtube, news media outlets and social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. Such events are similar to the collapse of the Eastern Bloc and the dissolution of the former Soviet Union in the late 1980s, leading to a wave of widespread colourful democratic revolutions throughout Eastern Europe and other parts of the Former Soviet Union. 

Such events and similar movements, including the 2007 Saffron Revolution in Burma, initiated many Iranian and Arabic citizens – especially young educated people to deploy social media to fight for a fair and just society towards freedom and democracy. These events in the MENA region had such resemblance, including a prominent presence of youths and women protesters and the widespread usage of the internet and social media websites, as a communication outlet for planning protests (Shirazi, 2013). 

Fuchs (2012) discussed how social media platforms sparked riots and protests, such as the 2011 UK riots and Arab spring. Likewise, a gang communicated on Blackberry Messenger in preparation for two nights of looting in London. Also, a group of thugs utilised social media to cause a series of violent events. Similarly, the Arab Spring occurred due to social media. In June 2010, hundreds of thousands of Egyptians started posting content. People would upload videos on Facebook, which became circulated by around 50,000 people within hours on their feed. Egyptian blogger, Google employee and political activist Wael Ghonim argued that internet access gives people the power to liberate and run a free society. Mainly, the internet aided in fighting the media war, a war the Egyptian government and the Egyptian regime played well, known as revolution 2.0. It is when everyone contributes to online content (Fuchs, 2012). 

Fuchs (2012) discover the intentions for sparking riots and protests since many factors contribute to unrest, turmoil and people escalating their problems on social media. The main reasons are often capitalism, class and crisis. People who live under unfavourable economic, political and cultural conditions take every opportunity to show discontent and cause riots and protests. 

Social media and negative influence

The widespread diffusion of social media platforms in private and corporate life raised awareness of its risks and adverse effects on individuals, organisations and societies. Recently, a discussion regarding using social for amplifying socially undesirable acts such as fake news and hate speech demands a critical analysis of the adverse consequences of using social media (Salo et al., 2018).

Salo et al. (2018) argue that social media engagement helps with phenomena like loneliness, depression, envy and narcissism. There are also long-standing controversies related to the nature and outcome of using social media. For example, following other users on social media platforms would mean maintaining interpersonal connections may become an outlet for digital voyeurism. 

According to McHugh et al. (2018), many adolescents use social media daily. It initiates an analysis of the potential “dark side” of social media usage in teens. Research shows adolescent internet use is related to reduced well-being, while excessive usage is associated with addictive behaviours, depression, anxiety, aggression and social isolation. Teens develop addictive behaviours due to reduced offline social interactions, which cause social anxiety. Such addictive behaviours often render poorer mental health and a significant risk of identity theft by dubious profiles. Teens could also use social media for adverse gratifications such as voyeurism and exhibitionism. Negative impacts of social media on mood are associated with how teens are exposed to content and interact online also exposes them to online risks that can be potentially harmful to teens’ developmental growth. It raises concerns about emotional and psychological risks teens may encounter online. Some of which are sexual solicitations, privacy breaches and explicit content (McHugh et al., 2018).  

The anonymity of social media may cause teens to be vulnerable to cyberbullying while also safeguarding the identity of the bullies, raising the feeling of fear and powerlessness of victims. There are also concerns about sexual solicitations teens may receive from various social media users, such as peers requesting nude photos. Around 7 per cent of teens indicated they forwarded a nude photo to someone else. Since most social media users are much older, teens are at greater risk of sexual predation on social media sites. Although parents can restrict access to certain websites, it does not protect them from online risk, as most of these risks teens encounter surface on social media platforms. The pervasiveness of social media use among teens shows it is unrealistic to prevent online risk exposure. Therefore, researchers noted that it is crucial to address the risks teens may encounter online and be resilient against them rather than restricting their internet access (McHugh et al., 2018).

Johnson (2018) mentioned that the unscripted, usually racist and sexist outlook of Donald Trump sparked members of the self-labelled “Alt-Right.” group to escalate to platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. They planned to circulate hateful messages and target non-white individuals, females or supporters of liberal political opinions. Given this chaotic rhetoric, politicians, pundits and the public called for social media platforms to facilitate user-generated content (UGC)to restrict the spread of extreme speech. 

Studies prove that race and gender contribute most towards opinions online. Most participants had a sense of apathy and cynicism when social media companies tackle extreme speech and make positive online discourse. Similarly, females felt that positive public discourse and safeguarding more vulnerable social media users (e.g. children, women and racial minorities) are the ultimate goals of controlling expression on social media platforms. African-American females voiced for social media platforms to better understand safeguarding minority users, whom they considered contributors to the success of those platforms (Johnson, 2018). 

Social media and discrimination

Ethnic minorities may encounter exclusion or act differently from other ethnic majorities on online dating platforms. Robnett & Feliciano (2011) argues that racial barriers and hierarchies are not just for economic and structural realms but also for intimacy. According to assimilation theory, a common racial identity is crucial in determining marital preferences. The majority of online daters mainly prefer dating people of the same ethnic group. Social exchange theories explain that lower status racial-ethnic groups go for racially higher-status males over wealth and education. Similarly, ethnic minority males of higher socioeconomic status like East Indians, Middle Easterners and Asians are more likely to intermarry with lower socioeconomic status males like Latinos and Blacks (Robnett & Feliciano, 2011). 

Nader (2020) argues that race is a significant contributor to the grouping factor. If dating platforms sort users by ethnicity, platform mechanisms match a potential pool of users with their preferences. Some dating platforms let users display their race and preferred race in a sexual partner. Users can share this data or allow algorithms to push recommendations based on the user’s preferences. According to Reed (2014), how the web works induce, reinforces or recreates how racism thrives.

Becton et al. (2019) claim that the popularity of social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram meant substantial amounts of personal information became conveniently accessible compared to the past. Moreover, there is a contrasting belief the primary usage of such information is to sieve out undesirable applicants. 

Numerous research confirms that negative information and extreme characteristics highly affect others’ perspectives of individuals compared to neutral or positive traits. Similarly, negative information leads to higher explanatory or diagnostic power over positive or neutral characteristics. Recruiters often see this as having more diagnosticity, sparking integration biases and forming a positive-negative asymmetry effect (Becton et al., 2019).

Around 50 per cent of employers refused job applicants due to social media content. Recent studies examined employers’ use of social networking sites during employee selection to understand how social media content is accessed and used in selection procedures. Findings show that official selection procedures include screening social media profiles where candidates grant permission or covert observation without consent. Likewise, concerns arose regarding this practice (Becton et al., 2019).

Becton et al. (2019) mention that sensitive information is conveniently accessible through individuals’ social media platforms, sparking potential claims of illegal discrimination. Some applicants also expressed strong objections against using social media in employment screening due to privacy concerns. Likewise, using social media in employability is relatively new. The validity of these practices is questionable since much of the content on social media profiles may not be job-related. 

In conclusion, this essay examined why social media platforms are an outlet for negative influence, discrimination and political discourse through communications and sharing information. Although social media helped the world connect, interact and create awareness of current affairs, the mentioned reasons regarding how political discourse, negative influence and discrimination spread across social media platforms outweigh the benefits of using social media platforms to communicate some topics. It does not mean people should stop using social media platforms. More importantly, we should take a step back to consider the impact on different communities if we were to communicate topics of interest on social media platforms.Thio_20071206_ConferencePaperPDF

References

Adeishvili, K. (2015). Opponent’s Disqualification Strategy in Political Discourse. Theory and

Practice in Language Studies, 5(10), 1977-1982. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0510.01

Akram, M., Nasar, A., & Safdar, M. R. (2021). HOLY COW IN INDIA: A POLITICAL

DISCOURSE AND SOCIAL MEDIA ANALYSIS FOR RESTORATIVE JUSTICE. Trames: A Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 25(2), 219-237. http://dx.doi.org/10.3176/tr.2021.2.04

Becton, J. B., Walker, H. J., Gilstrap, J. B., & Schwager, P. H. (2019). Social media snooping

on job applicants: The effects of unprofessional social media information on recruiter perceptions. Personnel Review, 48(5), 1261-1280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PR-09-2017-0278

Fuchs, C. (2012). Social media, riots, and revolutions.Capital & Class, 36(3), 383-391.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0309816812453613

Johnson, B. G. (2018). Tolerating and managing extreme speech on social media. Internet

Research, 28(5), 1275-1291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IntR-03-2017-0100

Loiacono, E., & McCoy, S. (2018). When did fun become so much work: The impact of

social media invasiveness on continued social media use. Information Technology & People, 31(4), 966-983. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ITP-10-2016-0239

McHugh, B. C., Wisniewski, P., Rosson, M. B., & Carroll, J. M. (2018). When social media

traumatizes teens: The roles of online risk exposure, coping, and post-traumatic stress. Internet Research, 28(5), 1169-1188. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-02-2017-0077

Nader, K. (2020). DATING THROUGH THE FILTERS. Social Philosophy & Policy, 37(2),

237-248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0265052521000133

Păunescu, A., & Chiriţescu, I. M. (2019). Diplomacy and Motivation in the Political

Revista De Stiinte Politice, (62), 12-21. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/diplomacy-motivation-political-discourse/docview/2247533136/se-2?accountid=10382

Robnett, B., & Feliciano, C. (2011). Patterns of Racial-Ethnic Exclusion by Internet Daters.

Social Forces, 89(3), 807-828. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sf/89.3.807

Salo, J., Mäntymäki, M., & Islam, A. N. (2018). The dark side of social media – and

Fifty Shades of Grey introduction to the special issue: the dark side of social media. Internet Research, 28(5), 1166-1168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IntR-10-2018-442

Shirazi, F. (2013). Social media and the social movements in the Middle East and North

Information Technology & People, 26(1), 28-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09593841311307123