Nowadays, social media has a pivotal role in political communication. Politicians, parties, and the public engage in social networks like Twitter or Facebook. This panel focuses on election campaigns and policy-making process in social... more
Nowadays, social media has a pivotal role in political communication. Politicians, parties, and the public engage in social networks like Twitter or Facebook. This panel focuses on election campaigns and policy-making process in social media. How do politicians use social media during elections? How can we identify the public opinion of voters through the application of text-mining in social media? The US presidential election in 2016, possess big discussions and critics about the general social media usage in the context of election campaigns. Considering the case of Cambridge Analytica, information leakage, privacy issues, and trust also play an essential role as well. In respect of truthfulness, how can we encourage more robust and wide-reaching sharing of trustworthy material, such as scholarly research? Besides politicians, the public comes more and more into the focus as a political stakeholder in social media. How does the public engage in policy-making? Electronic-petitioning serves as a medium to mobilize support and interest of the public. The panel provides the possibility for speaker and participants to exchange both, information as well as methodological approaches of political communication in social media.
Research Interests:
This report addresses key questions about foreign actors’ use of digital communication technologies (DCTs) to interfere in democratic elections. It does so by employing the schema of a cyber-security “threat model.” A threat model asks... more
This report addresses key questions about foreign actors’ use of digital communication technologies (DCTs) to interfere in democratic elections. It does so by employing the schema of a cyber-security “threat model.” A threat model asks the following key ques- tions: What in a system is most valued and needs to be secured? What actions could adversaries take to harm a system? Who are potential adversaries, with what capacities and intentions? What are the system’s key vulnerabilities? What will be the most effective counter-measures to address these threats? The authors of this report draw on existing research to engage these questions to make several observations. First, foreign actors employ four key digital techniques. The report details how foreign actors pursue hacking attacks on systems and databases; mass misinformation and propaganda campaigns; micro-targeted manipulation; and trolling operations. Second, the threat of digital interference is not limited to its impact on electoral outcomes. Foreign actors using digital techniques can undermine three critical elements of democratic elections: fair opportunities for citizen participation, vibrant public deliberation, and effective rules and institutions. Third, domestic actors often serve as de facto 'partners' of foreign actors who use these techniques to interfere in elections. Fourth, countries differ in the extent to which they suffer from key forms of vulnerability to digital interference: deficits in digital literacy; shortcomings in the design and policies of social media platforms; high levels of political polarization; and electoral regulations; and the lack of international laws and practices to address cyber-attacks and information operations. Finally, there are many possible counter-measures to digital interference, but no proven solutions.
Research Interests:
“Deliberative democracy” is a compound term. In both theory and practice, it connects deliberative influence through reason giving, reciprocity, and publicity to a family of political systems that broadly enable popular control of the... more
“Deliberative democracy” is a compound term. In both theory and practice, it connects deliberative influence through reason giving, reciprocity, and publicity to a family of political systems that broadly enable popular control of the state and government through empowerments such as voting, petitioning, and contesting, as well as the electoral and judicial systems that enable them. These empowerments are democratic when they are distributed to, and usable by, those affected by collective decisions in ways that are both equal and equitable.
While deliberative influence is best protected and incentivized by democratic political systems, not all deliberation is democratic, and not all approaches to democracy are deliberative. We should distinguish and relate these terms: we need to differentiate the practice of deliberation from the contexts of democratic enablements and empowerments in which it occurs. We can then focus on the pre- deliberative conditions that will enable or limit the extent to which deliberation is democratic. Two pre- deliberative democratic features stand out as particularly important in this context: popular participation—how individuals come to have standing and voice as participants, and agenda- setting—how concerns come to be defined as issues. We further argue that since deliberation typically occurs downstream from agenda-setting, and since popular participation both shapes and is shaped by this practice, theorists and practitioners of deliberative democracy should pay close attention to each well before deliberation begins.
To make this case, we first theorize the democratic dimensions of deliberative democracy through the concepts of equity and equality. Second, we focus on agenda setting and popular participation as important, though not exclusive, pre-deliberative determinants of equality and equity during deliberation. Finally, we offer suggestions about how theorists and practitioners of deliberative democracy might think about responding to the challenges generated by the tension between equality and equity prior to democratic deliberation.
While deliberative influence is best protected and incentivized by democratic political systems, not all deliberation is democratic, and not all approaches to democracy are deliberative. We should distinguish and relate these terms: we need to differentiate the practice of deliberation from the contexts of democratic enablements and empowerments in which it occurs. We can then focus on the pre- deliberative conditions that will enable or limit the extent to which deliberation is democratic. Two pre- deliberative democratic features stand out as particularly important in this context: popular participation—how individuals come to have standing and voice as participants, and agenda- setting—how concerns come to be defined as issues. We further argue that since deliberation typically occurs downstream from agenda-setting, and since popular participation both shapes and is shaped by this practice, theorists and practitioners of deliberative democracy should pay close attention to each well before deliberation begins.
To make this case, we first theorize the democratic dimensions of deliberative democracy through the concepts of equity and equality. Second, we focus on agenda setting and popular participation as important, though not exclusive, pre-deliberative determinants of equality and equity during deliberation. Finally, we offer suggestions about how theorists and practitioners of deliberative democracy might think about responding to the challenges generated by the tension between equality and equity prior to democratic deliberation.