Many are calling for reforms to social media that will strengthen their democratic functions. But to meaningfully reshape online platforms, we first need to determine their democratic purpose. Our goal in any such reforms, argues Markus Patberg, should be to empower civil society
Social media is having a disruptive effect on democracy. It is amplifying populist messages and fragmenting the public sphere. Democratic theorists are among the many people calling for tougher regulation of social platforms. Most recently, Facebook's decision to remove hate speech rules and end fact-checking has reignited the regulation issue.
According to Jürgen Habermas, it is 'a constitutional imperative' to maintain 'a media structure that ensures the inclusiveness of the public sphere and the deliberative character of public opinion and will formation'. New models for social media reform outline possible responses to this demand. However, online platforms can contribute to democracy in various ways.
Those enacting reforms should be guided by a clear idea of their role. As I argue in a new article, the goal of reform should be to strengthen the periphery in relation to the centre of the political system.
Models for reform seek to limit negative effects and to realise untapped democratic potentials of social media. Political theory and public debate currently entertains three models:
All three models assume that the ethical self-regulation of platforms will not be sufficient to put social platforms at the service of democracy. But what, exactly, is it that we want social media to achieve?
Models for social media reform seek to limit platforms' negative effects and realise their untapped democratic potentials
Democratic affordances are features of technologies which, as Lincoln Dahlberg puts it, 'enable (afford) particular democratic uses and outcomes'. Social media have a variety of such affordances, including:
The extent to which platforms realise such affordances depends on their design and governance. And this, in turn, can be influenced by public regulation. However, not all affordances call for the same regulatory approach. Nor can one necessarily promote them all at once. As long as the platforms' democratic purpose remains undetermined, reform debates will lack direction.
To consider social media's place in democracy, I draw on Habermas's centre-periphery model of democratic opinion and will formation. According to this model, democracy requires discursive 'feedback loops' between the centre (state institutions) and periphery (civil society) of the political system, to arrive at justifiable political decisions. These processes ideally originate in the periphery: citizens publicly articulate their concerns and feed them into the political system using channels such as media-based mass communication, political parties and, ultimately, elections.
Jürgen Habermas's centre-periphery model requires discursive 'feedback loops' between state institutions and civil society to arrive at justifiable political decisions
Depending on which of social media's democratic affordances regulation is promoting, platforms will occupy a different place between centre and periphery. For example, if platforms are shaped to specifically support the potential for political protest and activism, social media could increase ordinary citizens' power to influence public policy. However, social media's 'built environment' might instead focus on collecting and analysing data about users' political views. In this case, platforms could turn into governance instruments primarily serving political elites. Ultimately, social media's democratic purpose is not an empirical question but a normative one.
We can solve the puzzle if we view it through the lens of a rational reconstruction, starting from citizens' normative expectations as users of social media. Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter (later renamed X) in 2022 – and his subsequent interventions in and political instrumentalisation of the platform – is instructive here.
Austin Clyde points out that the public reaction 'goes beyond discontent'. In fact, 'it seems to imply a perceived loss', as X is apparently 'understood by many to play […] a key role in the public sphere and in many "subaltern counterpublics", and thus in democracy'. How people have responded, the critique and worries they have articulated, indicate what users presuppose about the role of X (and other social media) in democracy. X is a privately owned company. Despite this, people regard it as a collective good, a shared citizen space. Jason Stanley called for the platform to remain a sphere where 'citizens feel confident that they can debate and criticise freely' and 'speak truth to power'.
In many citizens' eyes, the added value of social media lies primarily in offering a space in which to challenge political elites
In many citizens' eyes, the added value of social media lies primarily in offering a space to form autonomous publics; a realm from which to challenge political elites. At the same time, citizens feel increasingly disconnected from political institutions, which they perceive as unresponsive or shortsighted, for example in the area of climate policy.
Social media reforms should thus aim to empower civil society. With a view to the three models under discussion, the most promising path seems to consist in public regulation focused on:
If social media are to make a constructive contribution to democracy, they need to strengthen citizens' capacities to initiate collective decisions.
Markus’ research focuses on issues of democratic theory, constitutional theory, and international political theory.
Constituent Power in the European Union
Oxford University Press, 2020
