Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp have over 1.3 billion users, and I am one of them.
Many adolescents get their news primarily from social media channels. However, it's critical to double-check sources and facts, particularly on social media, where it's sometimes unclear where a post originates.
What appears in your newsfeed isn't haphazard. Facebook carefully customized content to each user's preferences and interests. Per consumer has a profile created by the companies. We leave clues about our likes and dislikes every time we click on something, and our profiles become more and more comprehensive as a result. So, if you think you have complete power of what you see on the internet, I'm afraid you're mistaken.
Both social media firms profit from strategically positioned advertising that are targeted to specific user profiles. They know what kind of car people drive, who has recently given birth, and who is planning a trip around the world. Users can be swayed by so-called micro targeting without even realizing it. Politicians often target their voters, but campaign advertising can be difficult to spot online.
This is where social media profiles come into play as a platform for targeting campaign advertisements. Car drivers want lower gas prices, young parents want a cleaner neighborhood, and anyone planning a world trip will benefit from lower taxes.
Ad targeting has long been a crucial part of campaigning.
Micro targeting, on the other hand, may be argued to be beneficial. For example, since I do not own a car, I am uninterested in new car advertisements. But what if that leads an algorithm to believe I'm not interested in car news? Exhaust gases or new immobility systems come to mind.
Knowledge is a powerful tool. People should be able to select what information they want to view and receive balanced news. However, this is not always the case on social media.
According to a survey, nearly half of the items shared on social media sites skewed toward the extreme right, despite the fact that only 10% of users identified as members of extreme right parties.
The risk of a post that represents people's outrage causing yet more outrage, which leads to proven journalism.
In the national debate, social media played a significant role. Both users and lawmakers must be aware of how to deal with this.
It is often preferable to participate in a dialogue rather than censor it.
It is already possible to monitor social media and limit freedom of speech.
Can social media, then, help to improve democracy?
On the plus side, social media sites make it simple for everyone to share information, participate in debates, and exchange ideas. They have the ability to effectively participate in political discourse. In the negative side, corporations and governments have complete power of what we see.
Micro targeting makes manipulating people simpler than ever before.
So, is social media beneficial or harmful to democracy?
Social media censors all posts that they don't like. Even banning the account