It stiffles intellectual debate I think we can all agree that the internet, particularly social media has been instrumental to activists, event organisers, and social media campaigns such as Arab Spring, Ice Bucket Challenge, hashtags such as #SomeonetellCNN, #AfricaIsNotaCountry and the pan-continental satire #IfAfricaWasABar among others.
It stiffles intellectual debate
I think we can all agree that the internet, particularly social media has been instrumental to activists, event organisers, and social media campaigns such as Arab Spring, Ice Bucket Challenge, hashtags such as #SomeonetellCNN, #AfricaIsNotaCountry and the pan-continental satire #IfAfricaWasABar among others.
However, all this has in one way or another watered down participation in serious debates about public affairs. Issues that range from politics, social affairs, economy and sports have been affected by social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter.
Although these sites have brought together more people to voice their opinions, it has created a situation where some people are less likely to say what they think particularly when they know that their views differ from those of other people. Such a scenario happens because people have a choice on who to interact with, basically, people who they think share their views.
We often see comments like, "if you don’t like my opinion feel free to unfriend me,” or "It’s my page I say what I want.” Such words usually diminish intelligent debate that would have otherwise culminated into better ideas. To make this worse, it looks like most social media companies embed their algorithms to connect people to those they have a lot in common.
When it comes to politics especially in Africa, many people are rebuked and insulted if one person doesn’t agree with another person’s favourite political figure. However much social media has created a platform for such debates, people tend to forget that there’s a difference between political participation and deliberation.
The same effect can be seen when there are social or economic debates going on. For example, when it’s a debate about homosexuality, people will unfriend those with opposing views and befriend like-minded people. In the long run, people are less likely to express opinions so as not to be exposed to the other side and eventually kill the exposure we’d like to see in social media ‘democracy’.
And there’s also an issue of online bullying that deeply affects people who express their opinions and it has certainly become a difficult problem for social media sites and users. With social media, we find that we are our own worst enemy and we are using it as our smoking gun to expand our differing views and destroy the bitter-truth that held societies.
Usually, such vital issues rely on ideas from an informed public that is willing to engage in intellectual debate.
However, the failure of social media to empower these debates is disappointing. Maybe we need a new social media app that helps people use great advances in technology for public discussion and participation.
Otherwise, we might have to go back to the old way of debate; where people seek approval from others and always watching out for telltale signs to establish if people agree with them.
It enhances political debate
What is a layman’s interpretation of good governance? Well, some will tell you that good governance is the ‘art’ of keeping citizens content and happy. I don’t actually know how else one can achieve this if they don’t start with listening to their pain points. The youth in Rwanda cover over 70 per cent of the entire population and with the recent rollout of the 4G LTE all over the country, more and more of these youth are using social media as a tool of communication. This gives social media and the youth a lot of power to actively participate in political debates wherever they are and whenever they feel the need.
Just last week, CNN made waves on social media when they referred to Kenya as a "hotbed of terror” ahead of the US President’s visit to Kenya.
"President Barack Obama is not just heading to his father’s homeland, but to a hotbed of terror,” the CNN report read, raising concerns about al-Qaeda affiliated terror group al-Shabaab.
Kenyans on Twitter didn’t take this lightly and went up in arms with hashtag #SomeoneTellCNN – which appeared in 75,000 tweets on the first day alone - to criticise the US network and demand an apology.
As the criticism continued on Twitter, CNN changed the headline to refer only to unspecified "security concerns”, with an editor’s note below reading: "The headline and lead of this article has been recast to indicate the terror threat is a regional one.”
Is Kenya really a hot bed of terror? The jury is still out on that. What is obvious though is that someone at CNN thought that it was, but thanks to social media, Kenya was able to change the story and CNN complied. That is one among the many other ways through which social media compliments and betters public debate.
Social media only makes sense when it is a number of people speaking up on a particular subject and when a variety of opinions from different people talking about the same subject are aired. There isn’t any other platform that can capture such masses at ago and that is why today social media is complimenting political debate.
Social media has also created a virtual space of communication between decision makers and their citizens. We are in a day and era where demonstrating on the street is only done when extreme measures have to be taken.
With many other issues, people create a hash tag and type their views. When a bill is about to be passed in parliament and there is an outcry in public, politicians usually wait and rethink about it.
Basically, social media is a tool that the masses use today to get audience, and it isn’t a threat to politicians but a space where debates can take place openly, push politicians to act on certain issues and bring out the pain points of citizens.
editorial@newtimes.co.rw