Twitter has become the defacto publishing medium of modern governments. Today everything from policy proclamations to lawmaker commentary are published and live-streamed through our social platforms. Social media’s emphasis of real-time responses in the form of brief glib sarcastic and emotional memes means our societal debates come in the form of viral soundbites designed to provoke and offend rather than thoughtful dialog designed to reconcile and foster meaningful debate and discussion. Could the increasing use of short-form social media platforms be destroying the very cooperation and collaboration that is so vital to a healthy and functioning democracy?
In many ways, social media is the perfect reflection of democratic governance.
Elected officials are connected directly to their citizenry without elite gatekeepers or special interests mediating the flow of conversation. Any constituent can have their voice heard and engage others in energetic debate.
Similarly, lawmakers can speak directly to those they represent without worrying about which topics the news media and other gatekeepers believe are worthy of covering or concerns over those gatekeepers twisting their words to advance agendas in keeping with their own interests. Instead, representatives can speak directly and in unfiltered form to those they represent.
At the same time, social media’s format emphasizes brief rapid-fire exchanges, with bonus points for the sarcastic and emotional responses most likely to go viral.
Success in the world of social media is defined by views, likes, retweets and responses. This kind of viral success rewards brief emotional comments, rather than lengthy, thoughtful and evidentiary debate written in clinical discourse.
Politicians are encouraged to engage in flame wars with their opponents, jabbing them with sarcastic comebacks that entirely avoid the actual topic at hand, rather than engaging in informed debate.
Of course, politics in the modern era has long been about glib remarks and emotional attacks. Social media has done nothing to change that. In fact, social media merely mirrors the viral soundbite politicians have long emphasized since the debut of campaigning – packaging complex debates into concise, witty and emotional remarks that resonate with voters and are a siren song for journalists.
In this regard, social media could be thought of as almost tailor-made for politics, emphasizing the very viral soundbite and detail-free venting of emotion that is at the heart of political debate where the loudest voice often dominates.
What if we enforced a minimum post length for elected officials’ use of social media? While government agencies would still be free to post rapid-fire updates, such as to update citizens during emergencies, elected officials would be required to write at least 500 words for every social media post. Language analysis algorithms would ensure the posts are coherent rather than merely gibberish written to meet the quota or abuse like the phrase “You’re wrong” written 250 times.
Requiring politicians to write lengthy responses would force them to put far more thought into their responses than merely tweeting “You're wrong” as their sole response to a policy debate.
Similarly, linguistic algorithms could scan verified elected official accounts to require all posts to adhere strictly to clinical language, eliminating the sarcasm, profanity and emotionally-laden commentary that can make political statements entertaining to read but fail to convey any actual information.
Finally, those posts could be required to attribute every “fact” and statement to an authoritative source, complete with a traceable citation. No longer could politicians make sweeping generalizations or off-the-cuff assumptions. Every assertion would have to be tied back to an authoritative source and posts which get their details wrong or misrepresent their source could be denied publication. In many ways this would yield the equivalent of a "reverse fact check."
Putting this all together, would creating a special standard for verified political social media accounts change how politicians use social platforms? Could we algorithmically nudge our leaders towards more thoughtful and measured discourse that encourages meaningful debate rather than sarcastic barbs that do little more than entertain their supporters? Would forcing politicians to attribute their facts decrease the volume of falsehoods that litter political discourse?
In the end, if Silicon Valley’s vaunted behavioral algorithms can nudge society at large towards their most monetizable behaviors why can’t those algorithms similarly nudge our elected officials towards a more thoughtful and informed discourse that advances democracy itself?
