Is social media trivialising politics?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/25/is-social-media-trivialising-politics

Version 0 of 1.

Anne McElvoy is senior editor at the Economist

And they called it puppy love… Are your quivering fingers twitching for #Milifandom, anticipating the next Photoshopped images on Twitter of the chap formerly likened to Wallace from Wallace and Gromit? Or have you defected to the scantier surge of equally deranged #cameronettes, picturing the prime minister being flash-mobbed by Exeter students channelling Fun Boy Three haircuts? Oh yes, politics and social media is a serious business, or so we’re told, though the evidence is as flimsy as a spending commitment.

Charlie Evans (@Chevans93), founder of the cameronettes on a slow day in Exeter, was worrying about the “leftwing takeover of Twitter”. Who cares either way? Consumers of Milifandomare served up idiot-level nostrums: “I’ll always do the right thing by the NHS – #EdMil” on Milifandom. “We are against all the negative things said about David – #cameronettes”. What: every single one of them, ever?

Social media is to politics what the Fun Boy Three were to pop music. A footnote, as incidental and as evanescent as any other teenage crush. Be not fooled – this is not the Putney Debates for the young. You can use Twitter and Facebook to link to interesting political stuff. You can share a witty meme of a politician looking like a different incarnation of a plonker, and that’s amusing for 10 seconds. But the screechy, exclusive self-righteousness of social media political tribes is enough to drive out anyone balanced or curious after 30 seconds. I’d almost rather read a manifesto.

Hannah Jane Parkinson is a Guardian writer

I’d agree that a funny, Photoshopped meme of a politician is only ephemerally amusing – although one might argue that we need them when we’re living with scrolling news footage of George Osborne in a hard-hat.

The bigger point though, is that social media’s role in politics goes far beyond the memes and the gifs. Look at how Obama’s digital guru Andrew Bleeker utilised it in 2008, pulling in the youth vote. That was when Facebook introduced their “I voted” button. Twitter also gave a push for UK users to register to vote in May.

Social media is fast becoming the main referrer to news sources and information. It’s democratising debate. I do, however, agree with you on the self-righteousness of social media political tribes. Oh, and I’m sure you will agree that the Specials are far superior to Fun Boy Three.

AM It depends what we want social media to do for politics. For now, it’s a mixture of the trivialising and the grandiose, claiming that it can achieve things that need deeper engagement than pressing the “I voted” button on Facebook. You’re right, the Obama campaign used social media brilliantly – that’s the main reason Hillary Clinton’s campaign for 2016 partly launched with a tweet from her. It’s useful in reminding people to vote or register – though not so effective as it claims, otherwise we wouldn’t be missing so many youthful voters this time around. If the motivation is weak, making it easier to vote is not a cure. It reminds me of the Soviet joke about the diner being offered only ham and eggs. “I don’t like ham and eggs,” he complains. “Well I can double the portion and serve it quickly,” says the waiter.

It’s a dubious claim that it is transforming youthful engagement. I don’t much like movements that treat the young in one lump, as foot soldiers in a cause, and never envisage people coming to a different or mixed view themselves. How do we move social media from cheerleaders’ chorus or recruiting sergeant to something that opens minds, rather than magnifying the thoughts of closed ones?

HJP Well, I’d argue that it is already opening minds – by being a great aggregator and distributor of content. It’s easy to forget not everybody has time to read a newspaper every day.

Perhaps I am too much of an idealist, but I think more platforms for discussion do help change. Look at the Arab spring. And, why otherwise, would Saudi Arabia, Turkey, China and the like be so keen on blocking social media?

I agree though, that there is a danger of clicktivism – a Facebook like isn’t a vote, and #bbcqt trending isn’t going to change the world. Plus, there isn’t a straight correlation between online engagement and offline polling. Ukip, for instance, have a noisy rabble online, but of course they will be lucky to get two seats, and Farage himself is in danger of not winning South Thanet.

So you are right about real world translation. Lucy Hall, standing in Bermondsey, proposes an app for receiving constituent feedback. Could that work? In the future might people be able to vote via app?

AM I’m with you: technology can circulate liberating ideas. But let’s not forget that there is as much manipulation by the bad guys as inspiring stuff from activists. Meanwhile the realpolitik, from Iran to Ukraine, is that autocracies factor in social media as an irritant and get on with the clampdowns. I wouldn’t rely on it so strongly as a change agent, but it does allow easier connections between the like-minded.

I like the app for receiving constituent feedback. But online voting is prone to fraud and apps would be too. So I wouldn’t support app voting until that can be better dealt with.

I’m impressed by the Crowdpac idea in the US, which gives voters accessible info on the voting records and positions of candidates on issues, to help them get a more rounded sense of what politicians stand for, and who they might campaign for or support financially. We need to break down the dominance of big funding blocks, from trade unions to wealthy donors, and technology can help.

HJP Definitely agree on Crowdpac. I’ve been really interested in websites such as VoteSwap, in which people exchange their vote if they feel it will be wasted in safe-seat constituencies – an attempt at rebelling against first-past-the-post. And sites such as VoterPower and TheyWorkForYou are great online resources to become more informed.

Manipulation by the bad guys is a great point – we know that Putin has his pro-Kremlin anti-Maidan army of paid online commenters, the so-called web brigades. Fraud could well be an issue with technology.

But to bring it back to #Milifans, it was cheering that the teenagers involved seemed genuinely interested in policies. You are absolutely right that we need to dismantle the duopoly of unions and big donors. And getting more people engaged will further that.

Finally, to end trivially, I’d recommend people follow Twitter account @deletedbyMPs – always good for a laugh.