Debating Communities and Networks XV

How yes and no supporters used social media to influence the Indigenous Voice to Parliament vote

Posted on

by

El Ashcroft

Introduction

Both yes and no supporters used social media to influence the 2023 Indigenous Voice to Parliament vote through networked publics, hashtag activism and clicktivism.

Throughout the Indigenous Voice to Parliament campaign, networked publics were created to engage the public. According to Ojala and Ripatti-Torniainen (2024), the concept of networked publics first appeared in academic literature in the late 2000s and had its roots in research on the internet and online interaction. In their research on how networked publics have been discussed in academia, Ojala and Ripatti-Torniainen concluded that ‘publics’ are defined as those who are active users of different media and ‘networked’ narrows the concept to media users who engage with digital networked media.

Based on this idea of networked publics, this paper will analyse and discuss how both yes and no networked publics used social media to advance their agenda and the agenda of their chosen side to influence the vote.

Hashtag activism and clicktivism

Freelon, Marwick and Kreiss (2020) describe hashtag activism as having three main characteristics:

  1. a declarative hashtag to serve as the movement’s unifying slogan
  2. widespread engagement by ordinary citizens who relate to the hashtag’s core message or want to declare their support
  3. attention and support from mainstream media, celebrities, businesses, and politicians.

Throughout the 2023 Indigenous Voice to Parliament campaign there were two main hashtags, #yes23 and #voicetoparliament. While these were created by the Yes campaign and Yes supporters used them to declare their support, the No campaign and its supporters also utilised them to declare their disagreement. These hashtags also gained attention from mainstream media, celebrities, businesses, and politicians.

In discussing clicktivism, Freelon, Marwick and Kreiss (2020) suggest it is symbolic in nature and includes actions such as sharing, liking, and posting or reposting activist content on social media. While they suggest this type of activism complements offline activism rather than substituting it, they note that it helps circulate incorrect information that undermines democratic deliberation. From analysis of social media use during the Indigenous Voice to Parliament campaign it is clear clicktivism helped circulate incorrect information.

How the Yes23 group used social media

Yes23 was the main lobby group for the yes case. During the campaign Yes23 used hashtags across X (formerly Twitter), Facebook and Instagram. On X Yes23 has 18,000 followers, on Facebook they have 78,000 and on Instagram they have 67,000. On review of the types of posts they exposed their followers to I found the majority included:

  • reasons to vote yes
  • high level descriptions of what the Indigenous Voice to Parliament would be and information about how the Indigenous Voice to Parliament was designed
  • videos and images of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and other supporters who intended to vote yes
  • misinformation about the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders who support an Indigenous Voice to Parliament.

In the lead up to the referendum the narrative that 80 percent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders supported the Indigenous Voice to Parliament was spread by Yes23. However, I found this to be not quite correct. In early 2023, the Ipsos poll surveyed 300 self-identified Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Ipsos, 2023) and the YouGov poll surveyed 738 (RMIT ABC Fact Check, 2023), while 80 percent of those polled supported the Indigenous Voice to Parliament, it did not mean that 80 percent of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders supported it. This piece of misinformation encouraged questioning of the truthfulness of the yes campaign and supported the no campaign in their suggestion that the yes side was lying.

In addition to questions around the 80 percent, there were questions around what the Indigenous Voice to Parliament would mean not just for Indigenous Australians but for Australia as a whole. Other than the above-mentioned types of posts and directing people to the official website or the Uluru Statement from the Heart, Yes23 did little to answer the questions. This left an opening for the No campaign slogan of “If you don’t know, vote no”.

Renwick, Palese and Sargeant (2020) note the widespread idea that high-quality information for voters is a key feature of the democratic strength of any referendum. They describe high-quality information as being accurate, balanced, accessible, and relevant. Throughout the Indigenous Voice to Parliament campaign, Yes23 did not meet these standards because the information they provided was:

  • inaccurate – it lacked detail; however, this was an aspect that Yes23 was unable to address due legislation not being available
  • unbalanced – it focused solely on why people should vote yes
  • inaccessible – while there was high level information available, detailed information about how the Indigenous Voice to Parliament would work did not exist.

While Yes23 did provide relevant information, it did not address the concerns of the public because detailed information wasn’t available due to lack of legislation.

How the Advance Australia group used social media

Advance Australia was the main lobby group for the no case. During the campaign Advance Australia also used hashtags across X, Facebook, and Instagram. On X Advance Australia has 8,871 followers, on Facebook they have 124,000 followers and on Instagram they have 18,700 followers. On review of the types of posts they exposed their followers to I found the majority included:

  • reasons to vote no
  • videos and images of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and other supporters who intended to vote no
  • videos of Yes campaigners being asked questions they cannot answer or being negative towards people those voting no or undecided
  • misinformation about what the Indigenous Voice to Parliament would do.

Similar to Yes23, Advance Australia also didn’t meet the standards outlined by Renwick, Palese and Sargeant (2020). The information they provided was:

  • inaccurate and irrelevant – the detail provided was guesswork due legislation not being available
  • unbalanced – it focused solely on why people should vote no
  • inaccessible – detailed information about how the Indigenous Voice to Parliament did not exist.

Across Facebook digital astroturfing was also an issue. According to Al-Rawi and Rahman (2020) astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a political message or events to make it appear as though it originates from or is supported by grassroots participants. This can lead to consumers believing that the information they are consuming is coming from their peers.

While it is not clear if Advance Australia used digital astroturfing, Butler and Evershed found that across Facebook the No campaign drove a digital astroturfing campaign. This included one lobby group controlling multiple pages with contradictory messages and target demographics (Butler and Evershed, as cited in Graham, 2023, p.3).

How yes supporters engaged

In 2023, Associate Professor Timothy Graham analysed 246,000 tweets sent by 32,453 unique accounts and found that yes supporters made the majority of these. He found that yes supporters had five times greater tweet volume than no supporters and began their push early on.

Graham found that the main themes of yes supporters were:

  • focusing on fact checking and criticising no supporter narratives
  • providing detailed information outlining the arguments for the yes campaign
  • countering misinformation from no supporters
  • announcing support from nationally significant sporting organisations.

While yes supporters provided detailed information outlining the arguments for the yes campaign, they couldn’t provide answers to questions about how the Indigenous Voice to Parliament would work. Yes supporters behaved similarly on Facebook and Instagram.

On Facebook, I analysed 46 #yes23 posts. Of these 43 were from yes supporters with the majority being about supporting the yes vote rather than addressing the misinformation and racism from some of the no supporters.

On Instagram, I analysed 50 #yes23 posts, of these 39 were from yes supporters. Like Facebook the majority of these were about supporting the yes vote rather than addressing the misinformation and racism from some of the no supporters.

Another popular hashtag used by yes supporters across Facebook and Instagram was #voicetoparliament. It was difficult to assess the hashtag across Facebook because the list was overwhelmed with Instagram posts.

On Instagram, I analysed 50 #voicetoparliament posts, of these 22 were from yes supporters. As with #yes23, the majority of these were about supporting the yes vote rather than addressing the misinformation and racism from some of the no supporters.

Across both the Facebook and Instagram posts, the main commenters were no supporters. I will discuss the types of comments made in the next section.

How No supporters engaged

In Grahams research of the 246,000 tweets, he found that there was a greater number of suspicious accounts that related to the no vote. Many of these were newly created fake accounts that promoted the no vote and engaged in trolling, sharing discriminatory content, and spreading conspiracy theories. Graham found that while yes supporters made a concerted push early on, the ‘no’ tweets picked up in mid-May 2023 and showed a higher volume from then on.

The push from no supporters was also shown in the analysis I undertook of #yes23 and #voicetoparliament across Facebook and Instagram. While the majority of posts for #yes23 were made by yes supporters, no supporters were the most prolific posters in relation to #voicetoparliament. In my analysis of 50 #voicetoparliament posts, I found that the accounts that posted the most were gowokegobrokeaus and advanceaustralia with 25 posts between them. These posts reached an audience almost as large as that of Yes23, 161,035 compared to 163,000.

No supporters were also the most prolific when it came to commenting on posts related to the Indigenous Voice to Parliament. The majority of top-level comments on #yes23 and #voicetoparliament posts came from no supporters. While yes supporters used their posts and comments to support the yes vote, no supporters used their posts to push misinformation and racism in addition to the no vote.

In my analysis, I found a lot of posts and comments from no supporters that pushed misinformation about the effect the Indigenous Voice to Parliament would have on the rest of Australia such as land and homes being taken. The comments also included misinformation about current Indigenous funding, representation, and benefits such as free houses, cars, etc. that don’t exist.

I also found a lot of racism including posts and comments about Indigenous people wrecking houses, being alcoholics, not being able to look after themselves and other types of comments I don’t want to give any voice to, so won’t include.

Conclusion

In conclusion both yes and no lobby groups and supporters across social media used hashtag activism and clicktivism to advance their agenda and the agenda of their chosen side to influence the vote and networked publics were created around these.

During the lead up to the referendum there were two main lobby groups, Yes23 pushing the yes vote and Advance Australia pushing the no vote. The two groups had a similar number of followers across X (formerly Twitter), Facebook and Instagram and both engaged in the creation of networked publics and the use of hashtag activism.

Yes23 used hashtag activism to promote posts that included:

  • high level descriptions of what the Indigenous Voice to Parliament would be
  • high level information about how the Indigenous Voice to Parliament was designed
  • reasons to vote yes
  • videos and images of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders who intend to vote yes
  • videos and images of supporters showing they intend to vote yes
  • misinformation about the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders who support an Indigenous Voice to Parliament.

Advance Australia used hashtag activism to promote posts that included:

  • reasons to vote no
  • videos of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders who intend to vote no
  • videos and images of supporters showing they intend to vote no
  • videos of yes campaigners being asked questions they cannot answer
  • videos of yes campaigners being negative towards people on the fence or voting no
  • misinformation about what the Indigenous Voice to Parliament will do.

While their promoted posts differed, their use of social media was similar in that both groups provided information that was:

  • inaccurate because it lacked detail due legislation not being available
  • unbalanced because it focused solely on the vote they were promoting
  • inaccessible because detailed information about how the Indigenous Voice to Parliament would work did not exist.

Misinformation was also an issue with both sides, this seems to have stemmed from the nonexistence of detailed information about how the Indigenous Voice to Parliament would work. Digital astroturfing was also an issue from the no side, this led to consumers believing that the information they are consuming was coming from their peers when it was in fact coming from a lobby group.

While Yes23 and Advance Australia were similar in their creation of networked publics and hashtag activism the networked publics themselves acted differently. Throughout the campaign period both the yes and no networked publics had the opportunity to progress their argument however no supporters utilised social media to advance their agenda more than yes supporters did.

While yes supporters across X made a concerted push early on, the ‘no’ tweets picked up in mid-May 2023 and showed a higher volume from then on. No supporters were also the most prolific when it came to commenting on posts related to the Indigenous Voice to Parliament.

While the majority of posts for #yes23 across Facebook and Instagram were made by yes supporters, no supporters were the most prolific posters in relation to #voicetoparliament on Instagram. No supporters were also the most prolific when it came to commenting on posts related to the Indigenous Voice to Parliament. The majority of top-level comments on #yes23 and #voicetoparliament posts came from no supporters.

References

Al-Rawi, A., & Rahman, A. (2020). Manufacturing rage: The Russian Internet Research Agency’s political astroturfing on social media. First Monday, 25(9). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v25i9.10801

Freelon, D., Marwick, A., & Kreiss, D. (2020) False equivalencies: Online activism from left to right. Science,369(6508), 1197-1201. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb2428

Graham, T. (2023). Understanding Misinformation and Media Manipulation on Twitter During the Voice to Parliament Referendum. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/qu2fb

Kovic, M., Rauchfleisch, A., Sele, M., & Caspar, C. (2018). Digital astroturfing in politics: Definition, typology, and countermeasures. Studies in Communication Sciences, 18(1), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.24434/j.scoms.2018.01.005

Ojala, M., & Ripatti-Torniainen, L. (2024). Where is the public of ‘networked publics’? A critical analysis of the theoretical limitations of online publics research. European Journal of Communication, 39(2), 145-160. https://doi.org/10.1177/02673231231210207

Renwick, A., Palese, M., & Sargeant, J. (2020). Information in Referendum Campaigns: How Can It Be Improved?, Representation, 56(4), 521-537. https://doi.org/10.1080/00344893.2019.1661872

RMIT ABC Fact Check (2023, August 2). Anthony Albanese says surveys show between 80 and 90 per cent of Indigenous Australians support the Voice. Is that correct? ABC. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-02/fact-check-indigenous-australians-support-for-the-voice/102673042

Ipsos. (2023). First Nations Voice Sentiment – Jan 2023 [Long Methodology Disclosure Statement]. https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/2023-01/Ipsos TAPC Methodology Disclosure Statement_First Nations Voice Sentiment.pdf

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Search Site

Categories

Tags

"#SMCN2024" #onlinenetworksandsocialchange #onlineconference #activism #advocacy #Algorithms #BodyDissatisfaction #BodyImage #BookTok #Change #Communities #digitalcommunities #fitness #identity #mentalhealth #OnlineCommunities #onlinecommunity #onlineconference #OnlineInfluencers #onlinenetworksandsocialchange #Politics #SMCN2024 #socialchange #Socialmedia #socialmedia #onlinecommunities #onlinenetworks #bodyimage #disorderedeating #diettrends #thirdplace #TikTok #TikTokinfluencers #YouTube Algorithm community community building Facebook fashion Generation Z influencers Instagram Networked Publics online communities Online Community Representation social media Social Media Influence Third Place Trends Twitch Twitter

Recent Comments

Your Experience

We would love to hear about your experience at our conference this year via our DCN XV Feedback Form.

Provide Feedback

Comments

37 responses to “How yes and no supporters used social media to influence the Indigenous Voice to Parliament vote”

  1. SarahW Avatar
    SarahW

    Thank you for your interesting paper El.

    A question, you say that the no campaigners used social more than the yes voters, but do you think they were also more effective in their usage and that played a part in the final vote?

    Sarah

    1. El Ashcroft Avatar
      El Ashcroft

      Hi Sarah

      On review of the social media posts I would say the no campaigners were more effective in their usage than the yes campaigners. While many of the social media posts from the no campaigners were misinformation, the yes campaigners did little to debunk these and instead expected the audience to do their own research.

      Regards El

      1. SarahW Avatar
        SarahW

        If that’s the case then I think this is very sad, misinformation overpowering truth! It’s reminiscent of Trump, though!

  2. El Ashcroft Avatar
    El Ashcroft

    I agree misinformation should never have the opportunity to overpower the truth. Sadly though, with regards to the Indigenous Voice to Parliament there was actually very little detailed information so the Government and the yes campaigners made it easy for the no campaigners to fill that gap with misinformation.

  3. El Ashcroft Avatar
    El Ashcroft

    I’m interested in hearing about other people’s experiences with social media in the lead up to the referendum particularly on platforms I didn’t cover in this paper. Do you think the yes camp provided enough information in their posts for you to make an informed decision or did they leave it up to you to figure out any questions you had yourself? Also, do you think the no camp provided more information even if it was mostly misinformation?

    1. SarahW Avatar
      SarahW

      I think you are probably correct that the Yes camp left much of the information sourcing to us rather than stating it openly. Maybe because they were so caught up in the belief that good people simply couldn’t say no.

      I was a yes vote, and as such, echo chambers meant that I saw very little of the no campaign online. But as an avid ABC listener, I did hear reports from both sides. The No campaigners were very good at highlighting the Indigenous people who didn’t support the referendum. It reminds me of the gay marriage referendum, where the no campaigners were very good at parading out any gay person who didn’t support the bill.

      It’s very confusing for the general public when this happens, and I think the No Camp played on this to their advantage!

  4. El Ashcroft Avatar
    El Ashcroft

    I agree that perhaps the yes camp was caught up in their belief that good people couldn’t say no. It seemed that even to the end they couldn’t see that not providing answers to questions and debunking misinformation was having a negative effect.

    I was also possibly experiencing an echo chamber at the time. I had reached out to a few politicians on social media asking questions about the Voice and also actively disputed misinformation from the no camp so the algorithm probably assumed I was a no voter.

  5. Chris May Avatar
    Chris May

    A very interesting article on how the use of social media has directly impacted our society and affected the result of the Voice to Parliament referendum.

    One thing I’d be interested in exploring is how many of the responses from both the Yes and No campaigns were from real users as opposed to bots, fake accounts, or “troll factories”, and if one side utilized such strategies more than the other.

    I’d also like to know if you think social media platforms should be held accountable for misinformation posted to them, and how that might realistically be achieved.

    If you have a moment, my paper also discusses misinformation on social media (specifically Twitter/X) and the political impact it can have. I’d be keen to hear your thoughts.

    https://networkconference.netstudies.org/2024/onsc/3488/twubbling-tweets-how-twitter-influences-modern-political-discourse-and-its-impact-on-society/

    1. El Ashcroft Avatar
      El Ashcroft

      Hi Chris, thank you for taking the time to read my paper.

      Interesting question about fake accounts or “troll factories”, I’m not sure if either of the official campaigns did but it will be interesting to see if anything comes out in the future to say this was done by other players as it seems to be becoming a common thing in political discourse.

      Personally, I don’t think social media platforms should be held accountable for misinformation posted to them when it comes to political campaigns because unless something is obviously misinformation there is no way for them to know. However, if something is reported as misinformation and they don’t remove it that’s a different story. Ultimately though, I believe it’s the job of the campaign teams to make sure they’re across everything that is being posted about their campaign so they can report it as misinformation.

      I commented on your paper yesterday 🙂

  6. Emma Garland Avatar
    Emma Garland

    A very interesting paper, I had not thought that deeply around the use of social media throughout the referendum until now. Do you believe based of the ways both groups were using social media to campaign for their votes, that without social media there would have been a completely different outcome?

    I found it interesting how both the yes supporters and no supporters were often spreading misinformation online, which has become a trend with social media do you believe there’s a way in which this could have been monitored.

    1. El Ashcroft Avatar
      El Ashcroft

      Hi Emma, thank you for taking the time to read my paper.

      It’s hard to know if the outcome would have been different without social media as information would have still been spread across other media. I think two of the biggest issues were that the Government and the Yes23 team did not provide sufficient detail around the Voice and racism so it’s quite possible that the vote would have been no anyway. However, I do believe that no supporters used social media to exploit the gap in information in addition to spreading racism. Racism would have had a hand in it with or without social media however had the Government and the Yes23 team provided more detail around the Voice, the no camp wouldn’t have been able to fill this gap with misinformation that perhaps swayed some who were on the fence.

      I think it would been hard to monitor it because a lot of the misinformation was spread through comments on posts. However the official yes camp could have been more proactive in debunking misinformation or reporting misinformation posts to the platform. The main piece of misinformation from the official yes camp was that 80% of Indigenous Australians supported the Voice and I’m pretty sure the official no camp did dispute this.

  7. Jamie Waddell Avatar
    Jamie Waddell

    Congratulations on your paper! It’s evident that you put a significant amount of effort into researching the actual hashtags used across various platforms and how users engaged with them. Political papers like this can be subject to heightened scrutiny due to deeply ingrained beliefs and experiences, so I hope my comments are received in the spirit of constructive dialogue rather than personal critique.

    For transparency, I want to disclose that I voted No in the Voice to Parliament. This wasn’t because I didn’t believe in giving Indigenous people a platform but rather because I held reservations about amending the constitution to specifically address the rights of one group, even if they are the First Nations peoples. I see it as potentially fostering division rather than promoting the unity and equal opportunities that I believe all Australians should strive for. In my view, the Voice to Parliament risked undermining the very principles it sought to uphold.

    Our constitution has played a significant role in shaping Australia into the prosperous nation it is today, and while I agree that more needs to be done to address Indigenous issues, I wasn’t convinced that this was the right approach. However, I acknowledge that there were valid concerns on both sides of the debate and instances of racism.

    I concur with your assessment that both campaigns lacked detail and high-quality information. However, I respectfully disagree on the point about providing unbalanced commentary. Each side advocated for a different perspective, and while there may have been discrepancies in the quality of information presented, it’s essential to recognise the diversity of viewpoints in any democratic discourse.

    It’s disheartening to hear accusations of misinformation dominating the narrative, as it implies that those who voted No were somehow duped or lacked the capacity to make informed decisions. As a No voter, I reject this notion and believe that both sides likely encountered misinformation to some degree. Ultimately, I feel that the Yes campaign had the opportunity to make a more compelling case but fell short, rather than attributing the outcome solely to misinformation from the No camp.

    Additionally, I agree with Sarah’s comment regarding the balanced coverage provided by ABC, as it aligns with my own observations. I found your paper was balanced in its analysis, and your exploration of the various hashtags and platforms was enlightening. I hope my comments have contributed positively to the discussion, and I apologise if I’ve veered too far into political territory.

    Thank you for sparking an engaging conversation with your paper and again for commenting on my paper, ‘Exploring the Social Fabric of Facebook Marketplace’. If anyone is interested in reading about the benefits of this digital marketplace, I welcome your feedback.
https://networkconference.netstudies.org/2024/onsc/3798/exploring-the-social-fabric-of-facebook-marketplace/

    1. El Ashcroft Avatar
      El Ashcroft

      Hi Jamie, thank you for taking the time to read my paper.

      I was also a no voter and like you had concerns around amending the constitution to include the Voice. However, as an Indigenous Australian, my concerns were different to yours. I felt given the history of Government “intervention” it was risky to embed a Voice that ultimately the Government would have control over into the Constitution could be detrimental. I was also concerned that the legislation around how the Voice would work wouldn’t be written until after the referendum.

      I agree with you that the yes campaign had the opportunity to make a more compelling case but fell short and I personally think this contributed more to the outcome that anything the no campaign or no supporters did. I’m sorry if I’ve given the impression that no voters were somehow duped or lacked the capacity to make informed decisions, that is not what I was trying to say. However, given the lack of information from the Government and Yes23 did anyone (yes or no) really have the opportunity to make an informed decision?

      1. Jamie Waddell Avatar
        Jamie Waddell

        I take your point. On reflection, I’m wondering if even as a No voter, I might have needed more information to make a truly informed decision. My limited engagement with social media might have shielded me from some of the prevalent misinformation circulating during the campaign. This could have influenced my perception that Yes campaigners were solely attributing their loss to misinformation from the No camp when, in reality, it was just one aspect of the issue. As an Indigenous Australian, do you have any views on what should come next?

        1. El Ashcroft Avatar
          El Ashcroft

          I think given that there were was little information about how the Voice would work and what it would mean for all Australians no one could make a truly informed decision. Not because they chose to not inform themselves but because the information wasn’t there.

          Personally what I think should come next is that the Government should actually do what needs to be done. I doubt this will happen though, they’ve known what the issues for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are for years and have had various federal departments to focus on the issues since the 1960s.

  8. Zaneampho Avatar
    Zaneampho

    Hey El,

    I really enjoyed reading your in-depth exploration on how digital platforms were leveraged by both the “Yes” and “No” campaign and their supporters. Your article of the social media dynamics during the 2023 very effectively highlights the role of networked publics, hashtag activism, and clicktivism in shaping public opinion and influencing the vote.

    However, as interesting, and delicate this topic is, I think there a few areas where the discussion could be deepened or clarified.
    I myself voted Yes, but I will be completely honest. I had no idea why I was voting yes. I Have studied Indigenous Australian Cultures and grew up in a town where the indigenous culture was well respected, so knew if it had something to do with giving them a Voice after the horrible history that was forced on them, I was going to do that. I hadn’t done any research and a lot of people I have talked to about this voted no, but again, didn’t have a full understanding on why and what the voice to parliament was for.

    I think in your introduction giving an understanding on what the Voice to Parliament actually was would enhance your analysis to those who aren’t educated on the subject. Also, elaborating more on the specific types of misinformation that were most prominent, and what made them particularly impactful or damaging?

    I would love to hear your opinion on what specific regulations could be put in place or educational measures we could implement to improve the integrity and effectiveness of social media campaigning in future referendums or elections?

    Thank you for this informative article and would look forward to reading what you write next

    Zane

    1. El Ashcroft Avatar
      El Ashcroft

      Hi Zane, thank you for taking the time to read my paper.

      Thank you for your feedback about giving an understanding on what the Voice to Parliament actually was in my introduction and adding examples of misinformation. I will take that into consideration if I write another paper.

      With regards to yourself and others voting without a full understanding of what the Voice was, I’m not surprised. Even if you had done research, there was little information provided by the Government and Yes23 that you could have used to make a fully informed decision.

      On both sides there was a lot of misinformation however most of this came from supporters rather than the official campaigns. With the official campaigns the most prominent yes piece of misinformation was that 80% of Indigenous Australians supported the Voice. With regards to no misinformation, much of the information they shared could have been considered misinformation considering there was little information provided by the Government and Yes23 so a lot of what they were posting was guesswork.

      Personally, I believe rather than regulations being put in place to improve the integrity and effectiveness of social media campaigning in future referendums or elections it’s the job of the campaign teams to make sure they’re across everything that is being posted about their campaign so they can report it as misinformation. With regards to education measures, I think that education on what a proposal is about is the job of those who make the proposal, I also believe is up to each person to do research before they vote on something, however if the information isn’t provided can any one really make and informed decision?

  9. isobelfcg Avatar
    isobelfcg

    Hi El! I really enjoyed reading your paper, this is a great area of investigation given how recent this outcome is, and the various responses and reflections in the wake of the historic “No” vote. Firstly, you have written a clear thesis and the structure of your paper is very easy to follow, your findings coalesce elegantly into your conclusion. It’s clear the Yes campaign seems to have left too much room in their campaign for the No camp to create doubt and fear. Fear of change and the unknown (just as fear of the stranger) has always been effective in garnering political support. If only the word count was longer, I would have enjoyed reading about the sociological underpinnings behind the No voters — you do touch on this by bringing up the types of comments you witnessed from No campaigners, which included racism and bigotry. No doubt this is bound up in our country’s history, and persistent ideas about who is a “good” Australian vs “deviant” to the expected norms. Interesting topic, great paper!

    1. El Ashcroft Avatar
      El Ashcroft

      Haha if only the word count was longer were my thoughts too, I could have kept going. I would have liked to have delved more into the failings of the yes campaign and how they and the Government enabled not just that creation of doubt and fear but also left a giant gap in information for all Australians including Indigenous Australians.

      Sadly there is still a lot of racism in this country, much of it is usually hidden though, however the campaign for the Voice certainly brought it to the surface. Having said that though, I wholeheartedly disagree with the implication by the yes camp that people who were (and did) going to vote no were doing it for racist reasons. yes, there were some racist people but overall I think the no vote was a result of not enough information.

  10. Zac Reed Avatar
    Zac Reed

    You mentioned the Yes Campaign’s lack of accessible and detailed information regarding specific legislation. That was the main reason I voted no, it felt like deliberate not necessarily misinformation, but manipulation in regards to the specifics of the legislation by the Yes Campaign.

    Do you think that if the Yes Campaign had focused less on ‘Hashtag Activism and Clicktivism’, and more on elaborating on the specifics and positive effects of the Voice to Parliament they could’ve had a chance at winning? Or was the combative campaign from the No camp always impossible to beat?

    I also wrote a paper on the use of social media and how damaging misinformation can be, I think you’d find it interesting!
    https://networkconference.netstudies.org/2024/csm/3607/the-evolution-of-social-media-and-its-impact-on-society/

    1. El Ashcroft Avatar
      El Ashcroft

      Hi Zac

      I think the problem (and it was a huge problem) around the yes campaign’s lack of accessible and detailed information regarding specific legislation was because the legislation couldn’t be written until after the referendum. However, they could have perhaps drafted something that include more detail on the workings or at the very least answered questions people had. I myself personally reached out to the PM and other politicians with questions I had as an Indigenous Australian and got nothing in reply.

      The yes side claimed that 80% of Indigenous Australians supported the Voice however as an Indigenous Australian, I knew that I hadn’t been asked so wondered how 80% could agree if 100% weren’t asked. Upon research, I found that just over 1,000 people were surveyed and the 80% was based on those people so for me that was deliberate misinformation.

      I 100% think that if the yes campaign had focused more on elaborating on the specifics and positive effects of the Voice they could have combated some of the no camp, however I’m still not sure the yes vote would have won.

      I’ll give your paper a read tonight 🙂

  11. Sammy Avatar
    Sammy

    Hi El,
    Thank you so much for sharing your research and thoughts in this paper. I really appreciate how much you dissected these campaigns in detail – it’s really interesting. I found this to be so confusing at the time and must admit I felt quite stupid because there was so much I didn’t understand but from the evidence you have supplied it seems my confusion may not have been in the minority.

    From your research on the #yes23 across Facebook and Instagram, did you notice any users trying to dispel any misinformation or properly clarify what would happen if a yes vote was successful? Totally fine if there wasn’t any, I’m just curious as to who was trying to provide clarifications and how they were doing it. It would be a great learning exemplar for the future.

    You commented on how there was a lot of racist remarks made in posts and comments across social media – this is really sad. I think it is really sad that we live in a time where we can’t have open and educated discourse where people can respectfully share why they agree or disagree, and others can feel safe to ask questions to help form their own view point. Definitely an area of opportunity.

    I really enjoyed reading your piece, thank you so much.

    Take care,
    Sammy

    1. El Ashcroft Avatar
      El Ashcroft

      Hi Sammy

      I’m not surprised you found it confusing at the time. There really wasn’t a lot of solid information around about what the Voice would mean for people. In my research I did find people trying to dispel misinformation however this mostly came from yes supporters rather than the Government and the official yes campaign.

      I didn’t find anything that clarified what would happen if a yes vote was successful. Of course there was the high level information provided by the Government and the official yes campaign however this didn’t delve into the intricacies of the Voice.

      As an Indigenous person I wasn’t surprised by the racist remarks many of which where things I have heard all my life however I was surprised by the amount of it. I agree that it is really sad that we live in a time where we can’t have open and educated discourse where people can respectfully share why they agree or disagree, and others can feel safe to ask questions to help form their own view point however with regards to the Voice I think the inability to feel safe to ask questions was felt by both sides. For example there was the insinuation that anyone who was going to vote no was racist and I think this stopped people who weren’t racist but had genuine questions form asking those questions.

      1. Sammy Avatar
        Sammy

        Hi El

        Thank you so much for your really thoughtful response and insight, I really appreciate it!

        I’m really sorry to hear that you weren’t surprised by the racist remarks and furthermore that the bigger surprise was the sheer volume of remarks. There is so much room for reflection and purposeful growth. I think your points are really valid and I think specifically your last point of those with genuine questions would ring true for many people.

        Thank you again and all the best with your studies!

        Take care,
        Sammy

  12. Jessica Wilson Avatar
    Jessica Wilson

    Hi El,
     
    I thoroughly enjoyed your paper on how social media impacted the Voice to Parliament referendum, and I found your knowledge on the subject very well-researched. One thing that stood out to me while reading your paper was how a lot of misinformation was spread on social media platforms. I found this very interesting, considering that at the time, I remember being bombarded with both sides of the argument. Due to this, I remember feeling confused about which way to vote and questioning my belief system. Ultimately, though, I went with my heart and voted yes. It does make me wonder, though, why both camps spread misinformation about the other to the point where some of us are left questioning our belief systems.
     
    Jess

    1. El Ashcroft Avatar
      El Ashcroft

      Hi Jess

      I’m not surprised you found yourself feeling confused about which way to vote, it was all very confusing with one side not providing much information and the other filling that information gap with guesses. It was sad how it all turned out because there was a real opportunity for the Voice to be a positive thing.

  13. jenayahackett Avatar
    jenayahackett

    Hi there El!

    Your paper was a very interesting read! It is great to have the opportunity to read such an insightful paper on the Indigenous voice to Parliament vote, as it was something I have been extremely interested in myself.

    Looking into the concept a bit deeper, astroturfing in this context is a very interesting topic! My support during the time of the Referendum last year was put towards groups like Yes23, and I can’t help but wonder if campaign groups supporting the “Yes” vote also used elements of astroturfing in their marketing and campaigning. I am curious to know, do you think that there could have been elements of astroturfing taking place in campaign groups other AdvanceAustralia?

    Overall, it’s really great to see an example of hashtag activism using a time that many of us had such a real and in-depth experience with. Seeing this concept happening through the campaigning around the Referendum has really allowed me to understanding the concept better! Thank you for that, El!

    I look forward to hearing from you!
    Jenaya

    1. El Ashcroft Avatar
      El Ashcroft

      Hi Jenaya

      I didn’t find any evidence of other groups on either the yes or no side using elements of astroturfing however I wouldn’t discount it.

  14. Willow_Palmer Avatar
    Willow_Palmer

    Very well written paper, the section about the Yes23 and Advance Australia groups was particularly interesting. Do you believe that politics should use less of social media due to how quickly a wildfire of misinformation can form? And do you think that hashtag activism will be the future of out political landscape and how we progress in future votes and such. Or perhaps there needs to be a more open discussion and accurate information spread from local and federal government or at least easier access to it? Overall a very interesting post as I didn’t realise how complex the inner working of the use of social media in this event was.

    1. El Ashcroft Avatar
      El Ashcroft

      Hi Willow

      I believe politics should use social media more especially during campaigns. However, I think they need to use it better. Rather than just using it to promote their side, I believe they need to actively engage in monitoring for and debunking misinformation.

      I do think hashtag activism will be a part of the future of out political landscape and how we progress in future votes. I also think that there definitely needs to be a more open discussion and accurate information spread from local and federal government. Personally, I think if government members provide misinformation, the problem with that is though we’d end up having elections too often 😉

  15. Kayu Avatar
    Kayu

    Hi El.

    interesting read.

    I’d completely forgotten about this and how big it was.

    I think lack of information given surrounding the powers the voice advisory would have speaks highly not why a no vote won.
    However, their heart is in the right place and issues of the aboriginal people must be addressed.

    A lot of social media posts often stated different ideas as to what the voice was and allowed an environment for misinformation to be spread.

    Do you think the government failed to do their role in providing adequate knowledge on the voice?
    While it was some time ago, I do not remember seeing government spread information on social media from trusted government official.

    Thanks Kayu

    1. El Ashcroft Avatar
      El Ashcroft

      Hi Kayu

      The lack of information given surrounding the powers the Voice would have definitely did have play a part in why a no vote won. I think the Government 100% failed to do their role in providing adequate knowledge on the Voice. The Government themselves didn’t use social media in relation to the campaign but individual politicians did and the PM officially supported the Yes23 campaign who were very active on social media.

      We may have to agree to disagree that their heart is in the right place considering the Government has known what the issues for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are for years and have had various federal departments to focus on the issues since the 1960s. An an Indigenous Australia, I feel things like the Voice are just token actions the Government makes so they can say they doing something without really doing something. I know many other Indigenous Australians that also feel the same and also some that don’t.

  16. Student-SM Avatar
    Student-SM

    Hey EL
    Your paper has provided me alot of knowledge and made me think deeper as it was not something that crossed by mind before.

    I believe there is alot of lack of information on this and seeing your paper now has made me want to go read more and find out the particular reasons and critera of why who Yes and No voting people are.

    1. El Ashcroft Avatar
      El Ashcroft

      Hi, thank you for taking the time to read my paper. If you’re interested in looking further into reason and who yes and no voters were, I’d stay away from social media and look at other media. While there were many good arguments for both sides on social media there was also a lot of garbage. In the lead up to the referendum I found https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/news-series/the-point 2023 season informative, there was also a final pitch on Channel 7 that included Indigenous speakers on both sides including politicians.

  17. Ved Avatar
    Ved

    Hello
    Your paper provides a comprehensive analysis of how both yes and no supporters utilised social media during the 2023 Indigenous Voice to Parliament vote, highlighting the tactics employed, such as hashtag activism and clicktivism. My questions for you is that how could delve into the impact of misinformation on public opinion and strategies for promoting balanced discourse?

    1. El Ashcroft Avatar
      El Ashcroft

      Hi Ved

      I think misinformation has a huge impact on public opinion especially when it comes to things that the public isn’t greatly knowledgeable on. With regards to the Voice referendum, I think that if the Government and the official Yes campaign had provided more information, answered people’s questions and actively debunked misinformation, this would have gone a long way to promoting balanced discourse.

      Regards
      El

  18. pichie Avatar
    pichie

    Hi El,

    What an incredible read! It is often overlooked how both yes and no supporters have the ability to influence the involvement of Indigneous voice within parliament. The delineation of networked publics, hashtag activism, and clicktivism provides a nuanced understanding of the strategies employed by both camps to sway public opinion.

    One aspect that particularly struck me is the emphasis on hashtag activism as a vehicle for mobilizing support and disseminating information. The delineation of hashtags such as #yes23 and #voicetoparliament as unifying slogans underscores their role in galvanizing supporters and amplifying campaign messages. Moreover, your examination of clicktivism sheds light on its symbolic nature and its potential to shape public discourse, albeit sometimes at the expense of accuracy and nuance.

    Furthermore, your discussion of digital astroturfing raises important questions about the authenticity of online interactions and the potential for manipulation in digital spaces. The revelation of suspicious accounts and coordinated efforts to sway public opinion underscores the challenges posed by misinformation and disinformation campaigns in online political discourse.

    Thank you for sharing your insights on this topic!

Leave a Reply

Skip to content