Federal police have reportedly used unmarked vehicles to detain protestors in Portland, Oregon.
Twitter users have reacted in dismay at footage of federal officers detaining protestors in Portland, with senators, journalists and academics describing the actions as authoritarian and fascist. While the exact scale of the federal operation is unknown, the strong reaction is a prime example of the political power of social media, and of how it functions to amplify political views and sentiments.
Oregon Public Broadcasting was the first news outlet to cover the actions of federal officers, who reportedly used unmarked minivans to grab protestors off the street. For several hours, the silence of national news broadcasters and websites meant that it was the only outlet to cover the actions, with additional information appearing only via Twitter.
It was in this vacuum of media coverage that Twitter’s visceral reaction took shape and spread. Footage of protestors being arrested by men in combat fatigues was disseminated widely, with one video shared by Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley receiving 7.1 million views (as of writing).
The #Portland hashtag began trending within minutes (and has one million tweets as of writing), with #Gestapo and #FascistTrump hashtags not far behind.
Regardless of whether the filmed federal agents are acting constitutionally or not, the sheer speed by which these hashtags spread is highly indicative of social media’s power. Many of the Twitter users sharing the footage charged the federal government with authoritarianism and fascism, and with using a "secret police." Initially, their primary basis for such claims were often other tweets (and their preconceptions of the Trump administration), since the precise facts surrounding the current federal law enforcement actions weren’t (and still aren’t fully) clear.
The federal actions in Portland may very well be unconstitutional. The point is, Twitter has amplified fears surrounding the Trump administration in the context of a lack of reliable information. With the government insufficiently accounting for its own actions and with much of the media slow to respond, it has provided the environment for a viral transmission of fears, concerns, alarm, and anger, sentiments which may or may not be justified in this case.
The widespread Twitter reactions to the events in Portland also likely have another effect. The scale of these reactions may potentially provide a false impression of the scale of the federal actions in Portland. In turn, the perceived scale of these actions may end up instilling a sense of powerlessness, hopelessness and even terror in the public. Believing that the government has the power and the numbers to round up any protestor at will, they may be less inclined to protest or act politically themselves.
Molly Jong-Fast, an editor-at-large with The Daily Beast, used the word "terrifying" in one of her posts.
Likewise, author and onetime Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson suggests that the federal action was about making "people afraid to protest."
If the federal action in Portland was aimed at scaring potential protestors off the streets, the reaction on Twitter to last night’s footage is likely helping the government in this aim. Most comments appear to simply state that the government (or America as a whole) is authoritarian and/or fascist, with very few suggesting ways of acting constructively in response to such a possibility.
In other words, Twitter has helped spread not only horror at the federal government’s actions, but also an apparent passivity, a resignation in the face of something apparently unacceptable. It has turned what may be an unconstitutional action into something like a spectacle, to be passively consumed by observers rather than acted upon by agents.
It’s likely that Twitter often functions in this way, along with social media in general. It may seem to foster a heightened awareness of political events, but this awareness is in many cases superficial and may not actually lead to meaningful political engagement. Past research into Facebook use suggests that having a social media account can lower political participation, while a 2016 paper published in the Social Media + Society journal found that "extensive Facebook and Twitter use was a negative predictor" of political participation.
Admittedly, the research picture on online political engagement is mixed, with some research indicating that the effect of so-called slacktivism is mildly positive when it comes to fostering offline engagement. As such, the fact that the events in Portland trended so vigorously may actually be a good sign for wider political involvement. Of course, whether the events themselves are good or bad is a question I’ll let readers answer by themselves.
