From Liberation to Turmoil: Social Media And Democracy
Open accessAbstract
How can one technology—social media—simultaneously give rise to hopes for liberation in authoritarian regimes, be used for repression by these same regimes, and be harnessed by antisystem actors in democracy? We present a simple framework for reconciling these contradictory developments based on two propositions: 1) that social media give voice to those previously excluded from political discussion by traditional media, and 2) that although social media democratize access to information, the platforms themselves are neither inherently democratic nor nondemocratic, but represent a tool political actors can use for a variety of goals, including, paradoxically, illiberal goals.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Social media can be a liberating technology, giving marginalized voices who are normally excluded the chance to speak, but it can also be a repressive technology, providing bad actors, conspiracy theorists, or propagandists with the opportunity to spread harmful messages.
“This creates a paradox: Social media can be a liberating technology, giving marginalized voices who are normally excluded the chance to speak, but it can also be a repressive technology, providing bad actors, conspiracy theorists, or propagandists with the opportunity to spread harmful messages (Tucker et al. 2017).”
From Social Media and Morality. (2024) · cites this paper as Tucker et al. 2017
More aggressive tactics, such as spreading discrediting information on opposition actors or harassing users online, are commonly employed.
“However, more aggressive tactics, such as spreading discrediting information on opposition actors, or even harassment of users online, are also commonly employed (Tucker etal., 2017).”
From How Dictators Control the Internet: A Review Essay (2020) · cites this paper as Tucker et al., 2017
Cites
A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization
Bond, R. M., Fariss, C. J., Jones, J. J., Kramer, A. D. I., Marlow, C., Settle, J. E., & Fowler, J. H. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11421 · Cited by 2,575 · see citing works
How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression
KING, G., PAN, J., & ROBERTS, M. E. (2013) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055413000014 · Cited by 2,415 · see citing works
Self-citationKING, G., PAN, J., & ROBERTS, M. E. (2017) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055417000144 · Cited by 1,028 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Critical Periphery in the Growth of Social Protests
Barberá, P., Wang, N., Bonneau, R., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J., & González-Bailón, S. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0143611 · Cited by 348 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Weaponized Interdependence: How Global Economic Networks Shape State Coercion
Farrell, H., & Newman, A. L. (2019) · International Security · doi:10.1162/isec_a_00351 · Cited by 1,879 · see citing works
OSMUNDSEN, M., BOR, A., VAHLSTRUP, P. B., BECHMANN, A., & PETERSEN, M. B. (2021) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055421000290 · Cited by 614 · see citing works
Political Effects of the Internet and Social Media
Zhuravskaya, E., Petrova, M., & Enikolopov, R. (2020) · Annual Review of Economics · doi:10.1146/annurev-economics-081919-050239 · Cited by 560 · see citing works
Social Media, Echo Chambers, and Political Polarization
Barberá, P. (2020) · Social Media and Democracy · doi:10.1017/9781108890960.004 · Cited by 373 · see citing works
Self-citationUnpacking the Social Media Bot: A Typology to Guide Research and Policy
Gorwa, R., & Guilbeault, D. (2020) · Policy & Internet · doi:10.1002/poi3.184 · Cited by 270 · see citing works
How behavioural sciences can promote truth, autonomy and democratic discourse online
Lorenz-Spreen, P., Lewandowsky, S., Sunstein, C. R., & Hertwig, R. (2020) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-020-0889-7 · Cited by 223 · see citing works
How Dictators Control the Internet: A Review Essay
Keremoğlu, E., & Weidmann, N. B. (2020) · Comparative Political Studies · doi:10.1177/0010414020912278 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
Van Bavel, J. J., Robertson, C. E., del Rosario, K., Rasmussen, J., & Rathje, S. (2024) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-022123-110258 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
Who Falls for Online Political Manipulation?
Badawy, A., Lerman, K., & Ferrara, E. (2019) · Companion Proceedings of The 2019 World Wide Web Conference · doi:10.1145/3308560.3316494 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
At Home and Abroad: The Use of Denial-of-service Attacks during Elections in Nondemocratic Regimes
Lutscher, P. M., Weidmann, N. B., Roberts, M. E., Jonker, M., King, A., & Dainotti, A. (2020) · Journal of Conflict Resolution · doi:10.1177/0022002719861676 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Self-citationDemocratic Backsliding in Africa?
(2022) · Oxford University Press · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192867322.001.0001 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Tucker, J. A. (2023) · Handbook of Computational Social Science for Policy · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-16624-2_20 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Tucker, J. A., Theocharis, Y., Roberts, M. E., & Barberá, P.
- Venue
- Journal of Democracy
- Publisher
- Project MUSE
- Published
- 2017
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 46-59
- ISSN
- 1045-5736 (ISSN-L)
- 1086-3214
- OpenAlex
- W2763409530
- Cited by
- 395
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 34 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 68 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 51 · 2020: 68 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 13
- FWCI
- 67.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- eprints.lse.ac.uk
- Locations
- Journal of democracy (publishedVersion)
- London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (submittedVersion)
- Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
- Keywords
- social media, authoritarian regimes, political repression, democratization, access to information, illiberalism, political participation
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
