A review of Internet Democracy in 2025.

 Democracy, at its core, is about participation, representation, and the free exchange of ideas. In theory, the internet should be the ultimate democratic tool—allowing voices from all walks of life to engage in political discourse, mobilise movements, and challenge authority. But does technology really make democracy more accessible, or has it simply given autocrats a new way to manipulate public opinion?

Social media platforms present themselves as neutral spaces for free expression, but in reality, they are often weaponised by those in power. Facebook, for example, has been used by authoritarian governments to distort public perception and consolidate control. During the 2017 Honduran elections, the page of President Juan Orlando Hernández benefited from 90% of all known fake engagement in the country—effectively giving the illusion of overwhelming popular support. When a whistleblower exposed the manipulation, Facebook sat on the information for nearly a year before taking action. The company simply “didn’t care enough to stop them.”

Fast forward to 2025, and digital disinformation is more rampant than ever. In Turkey, the government has cracked down on independent media while flooding social platforms with pro-state propaganda, making it increasingly difficult for citizens to access objective news. Meanwhile, the genocide in Gaza has been met with an unprecedented wave of online manipulation, with AI-generated fake news and state-sponsored bot networks drowning out evidence of war crimes. Governments and tech giants alike have played a role in this digital obfuscation, ensuring that the dominant narratives benefit those in power rather than the victims on the ground.

The consequences of digital manipulation extend far beyond rigged elections. In Myanmar, the military used Facebook to spread anti-Muslim propaganda, inflaming ethnic tensions and contributing to the genocide of Rohingya Muslims. Soldiers posing as pop stars and social commentators systematically spread misinformation for years, leading to mass violence, forced displacement, and international condemnation. This wasn’t just the failure of a few rogue actors—it was the product of an algorithm designed to amplify engagement, regardless of the human cost.

But algorithmic bias doesn’t just affect authoritarian regimes. The way social media companies prioritise content creates an uneven playing field in global discourse. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter have been quick to crack down on political manipulation in Western countries, while turning a blind eye to similar tactics in Afghanistan, Iraq, and much of Latin America. This selective enforcement ensures that democratic processes in wealthier nations are protected while others are left vulnerable.

Even when social media is used for democratic mobilisation, it can be a double-edged sword. The so-called “Twitter Revolution” during the 2009 Iranian protests demonstrated how social media could be used to rally dissent. However, it also made it easier for the government to track and target activists. Protestors’ names and faces were circulated online, leading to arrests and brutal crackdowns. What was meant to be a tool of liberation became an instrument of oppression.

Tech optimists once argued that the internet would dismantle tyranny. Ronald Reagan famously said, “The Goliath of totalitarianism will be brought down by the David of the microchip.” But as we’ve seen, access to technology alone does not create democracy—it can just as easily be used to subvert it. Leaders from Donald Trump to El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele have leveraged digital platforms for self-promotion, bypassing journalistic scrutiny and reducing complex political discourse to Instagram posts and viral tweets.

None of this is to say that the internet is devoid of democratic potential. It has empowered grassroots movements, provided a platform for marginalised voices, and facilitated unprecedented political engagement. However, as long as social media companies remain indifferent to their role in global governance, and as long as algorithms prioritise profit over public good, digital democracy will remain a fragile illusion. The question isn’t whether the internet can be democratic, but whether those who control it will ever allow it to be.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Rise of E-Cigarette Sticker Bins: A New Social Habit in Nicotine Culture (Southwark News Issue)

As vaping continues to replace traditional smoking, a curious new habit is emerging in urban spaces. Beyond the growing popularity of e-cigarettes, there is a subtler, often-overlooked trend—one that plays out not in the act of vaping itself but in what happens after. Increasingly, bins outside convenience stores are being transformed into makeshift sticker boards, covered in the remnants of e-cigarette branding. Take a walk down Borough High Street, and you’ll see the evidence firsthand. Outside the Tesco Express, the dustbin near the entrance is thick with overlapping vape stickers, forming a chaotic mosaic of Elf Bar, Lost Mary, and Elux branding. Just 20 feet away, a second bin remains curiously untouched, as if unofficially designated for actual rubbish rather than nicotine memorabilia. The same pattern repeats further down the road—by the Sainsbury’s Local near  Southwark  Station, and outside the corner shops along Great Suffolk Street, where bins double as impromptu ca...
Read more