CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 465Social Media and PoliticsMedia Influence and PoliticsPolitical Conflict and Governance

Corrupting the Cyber-Commons: Social Media as a Tool of Autocratic Stability

Open access
Gunitsky, Seva·2015·Perspectives on Politics
DOI 10.1017/s1537592714003120
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Non-democratic regimes have increasingly moved beyond merely suppressing online discourse, and are shifting toward proactively subverting and co-opting social media for their own purposes. Namely, social media is increasingly being used to undermine the opposition, to shape the contours of public discussion, and to cheaply gather information about falsified public preferences. Social media is thus becoming not merely an obstacle to autocratic rule but another potential tool of regime durability. I lay out four mechanisms that link social media co-optation to autocratic resilience: 1) counter-mobilization, 2) discourse framing, 3) preference divulgence, and 4) elite coordination. I then detail the recent use of these tactics in mixed and autocratic regimes, with a particular focus on Russia, China, and the Middle East. This rapid evolution of government social media strategies has critical consequences for the future of electoral democracy and state-society relations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1537592714003120

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Authorities co-opt social media, flood the web with distracting messages, and thereby influence what is communicated.

    “Authorities co-opt social media (Gunitsky, 2015), flood the web with distracting messages (Munger etal., 2018; Roberts, 2018), and thereby influence what is communicated.”

    From How Dictators Control the Internet: A Review Essay (2020) · cites this paper as Gunitsky, 2015

  • Through e-governance, authorities can retrieve information on mass preferences, calibrate policies, and increase perceived responsiveness.

    “In this way, authorities can retrieve information on mass preferences, calibrate policies, and increase perceived responsiveness (Gunitsky, 2015; Kalathil & Boas, 2003).”

    From How Dictators Control the Internet: A Review Essay (2020) · cites this paper as Gunitsky, 2015

  • The internet can mitigate the information dilemma autocrats face: they want to learn public preferences and grievances to avert unrest while restricting civil liberties and media freedom that would help obtain this information.

    “Finally, the internet can also mitigate the information dilemma autocrats are faced with (Wintrobe, 1998): while they want to learn about public preferences and potential grievances in order to avert threats of unrest (Chen & Xu, 2017; Gunitsky, 2015), they simultaneously restrict civil liberties and media freedom that would help them obtain this information.”

    From How Dictators Control the Internet: A Review Essay (2020) · cites this paper as Gunitsky, 2015

  • Digital repression allows surveillance to happen at scale when done at the Internet backbone or ISP level, providing regimes unprecedented windows into public discontent, social movements, and even the performance of lower-level state functionaries.

    “While traditional surveillance is often done on specific targets or smaller groups of targets, digital repression allows surveillance to happen “at scale” when done at the Internet backbone or Internet Service Provider (ISP) level, providing regimes unprecedented windows into public discontent (58), social movements (59), and even the performance of lower-level state functionaries whose incompet”

    From Physical and virtual repertoires of contention (2022) · cites this paper as [59]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Bandurski, David. 2008. "China's Guerilla War for the Web." Far Eastern Economic Review 171(6): 41-44.
  2. Ronald J. Deibert, John G. Palfrey, Rafal Rohozinski and Jonathan Zittrain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  3. Gill, Graeme. 2010. "Elections." In The Encyclopedia of Communism, ed. Silvio Pons and Robert Service. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  4. MacKinnon, Rebecca. 2011. "China's 'Networked Authoritarianism'." Journal of Democracy 22(2):32-46. . 2012. Consent of the Networked: The Worldwide Struggle for Internet Freedom. New York: Basic Books.
  5. Morozov, Evgeny. 2011a. The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom. New York: PublicAffairs Books. . 2011b. "Whither Internet Control?" Journal of Democracy 22(2): 6274.
  6. Noesselt, Nele. 2014. "Microblogs and the Adaptation of the Chinese Party-State's Governance Strategy." Governance 27(3): 449-68.
  7. Qiang, Xiao. 2011. "The Battle for the Chinese Internet." Journal of Democracy 22(2): 47-61.
  8. Shirky, Clay. 2009. Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. New York: Penguin. . 2011. "The Political Power of Social Media: Technology, the Public Sphere, and Political Change." Foreign Affairs 90(1). http://fam.ag/1jBPc4b, accessed June 18, 2014.
  9. Rebecca Kollins Givan, Kenneth M. Roberts, and Sarah A. Soule. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gunitsky, S.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Gunitsky, Seva
ORCID
Gunitsky, Seva
Venue
Perspectives on Politics
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2015-03
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
42-54
ISSN
  • 1537-5927 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0986
DOI
10.1017/s1537592714003120
OpenAlex
W2086860722
Cited by
465
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 76 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 59 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 54 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 5 · 2013: 1
FWCI
67.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 5 d)
Locations
  • Perspectives on Politics (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
Funders
University of Cambridge
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
Keywords
regime durability, non-democratic regimes, counter-mobilization, discourse framing, elite coordination, Russia, China, Middle East, electoral democracy, state-society relations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review