Popular, Accessible, Inclusive:
Social Media as an Ideal for Decision-making in a Democracy

Rhea Ledesma-Gumasing1 and Regina Mendoza-Armiendo2

1 Associate Professor 2, Institute for Governance and Rural Development, College of Public Affairs and Development, University of
the Philippines Los Baños
2 Research Extension Personnel and PhD Student in Extension Education, University of the Philippines Los Baños

誰もがスマートフォンを持ち、何らかのSNS（ソーシャルメディア）を使っている今の時代、これを政治的な意思決定に活用す
ればオンラインで真に参加型の民主主義を実現できるかもしれない。
その可能性と問題を検証した。

Abstract

Limitations on citizen participation in a democracy lead to skepticism about the ability of ordinary citizens to participate in political decision-making. These skepticisms are addressed by social media platforms by defining features that can facilitate responsible civic engagement and participation, crucial to preserving democracy. Platforms
like Facebook, Twitter, and Google, which include algorithms and AI, are considered to be better mediums withwhich to make political decisions than precarious settings such as face-to-face deliberations or political representations because they remove bias, access, and power imbalances. Additionally, technological interventions areused to promote consensus and unbiased content. As the role of technology in decision-making is yet to be examined, assertions on the effectiveness of social media in a democratic society require an examination of the cognitive and normative ideals for decision-making. An analysis of the arguments for the ubiquity of social media as atool for democracy and a discussion of technological advancements for enabling online participation in politicalprocesses is presented in this paper.
Keywords

social media, decision-making, inclusive, democracy

Introduction

Democracy is built on citizen participation, but many
citizens are still ambivalent about taking part in government decisions. In a democratic society, citizens are free
to express their preferences, political or otherwise, but
may also be constrained by elected officials and administrators. Citizens who participate in face-to-face interactions or through social media become more involvedin their community, and officials and institutions alike
become more responsive and accountable to their citizens. In these circumstances, participation is not only
desirable but also practical, especially with the proliferation of social media, a facility through which many canaccess the government. A key question to ask is whether
participating in social media, a form of informal, open,

and unmoderated communication, is legitimate or valid
as input into decision-making processes in government.
It is argued by the authors that participation in social
media can be beneficial to government decision-making, even ideal. In the argument, the focus is on normative ideals of inclusivity and accessibility, as well as the
epistemic value of participation as an important condition of democratic participation.
The idea that many people can take part in a politicalprocess by using social media undermines the value ofparticipation from an epistemic perspective. The authors
contend that building epistemic capacities for participation in social media does not conflict with a more inclusive polity. By epistemic, this signifies the idea thatparticipation traces the truth according to some025Rhea Ladesma-Gumasing, et al.

independent standard such as the common good, justice,and empirical reality. In participation, efforts toward
reasoning are rooted primarily in truth (Cohen, 1997).
In contrast, participation produces shared values among
citizens and endorses public policy. At the very least,
participation in social media contributes to the validityof arguments and the consensus decisions that result
from discussion.
In the paragraphs following, the first section argues
that social media make it possible for citizens to speakwith one another, listen to one another, and learn fromeach other, leading to a better collective social understanding. The second section looks at the epistemic
value of participation through social media, which filters out biases and errors inherent in face-to-face participation. In the third section, the authors argue that social
media’s value in connecting people justifies its importance in making decisions. Finally, the authors argue
that the benefits of social media and other technology
can offer an alternative to the traditional way of facilitating face-to-face participation in political decision-making. In this article, all data analyzed in thisstudy are cited in the references section.
Social media: an inclusive communication platform
According to the Global Social Media Stats of 2021
(Kemp, 2021), there were 4.2 billion social media users
worldwide in January 2021, of which Facebook (FB)
remained the top platform with 2.74 billion active users.
Then came YouTube, WhatsApp, and Facebook
Messenger. An increase of 490M users was seen in thelast 12 months, seeing a demographic change in the process. Once dominated by millennials, Facebook’s fastest-growing audience consisted of both men and womenover 65, living outside of major metropolitan areas. As
social media users increase, they facilitate information
spread, making them a major source of information andcommunication.
Globally, the internet and social media have been
widely used in political protests, social movements, andelection campaigns. Arab springs and the #MeToo
Movement all gained momentum with the help of theinternet and social media. However, social media

026

platforms like Facebook and WhatsApp may have been
singled out for spreading misinformation, and perpetrating political manipulation, violence, and hate crimes(Pew Research Center, 2019). The occurrence of internet blocks in many countries as well as platform restrictions may indicate that the internet and social media
platforms have been politicized (Kemp, 2021). This is
not surprising, given the previous finding that activists
resort to social media for collective action, according to
Storck (2011).
As social media’s presence and use have grown,
many view it as a one-stop shop. In addition to its easeof access, social media is used by many for connecting,engaging, and being engaged, in news, gossip, e-commerce, e-government, and even politicking. More
importantly, social media appears to be a safe space formany to express their views and, in a way, their genuine
thoughts and feelings. It alters how we think and absorbs
information, which leads to a range of reactions andactions.
Social media’s interactive nature (Ansari and Khan,
2020) plays a major role in transforming citizens frompassive observers to active participants. With theirinherent openness, social media platforms can change
the message, even changing politics and values, andfeeding off conflicts and understandings. Rainie, Smith,
Scholzman, Brady, and Verba (2012) support this, arguing that users gain knowledge of politics and evenbecome more engaged in politics. In the US alone, 39%of adults use social media to express their political andcivic views. Furthermore, Gibson and McAllister (2012)
found that online social ties enhance political interactions, while online social contacts increase offline participation. Additionally, Doris (2014, as cited in Ahmad
et al, 2019) asserts that people use social media to makepolitical changes by providing information on social
media feeds to promote political awareness, as well as
mobilizing citizens to take part in politics. FB, the mostpopular social media platform, has been found to play a
crucial role in political efficacy (Abdulrauf, 2016).
According to his study, he found that online participation in politics is positively correlated with the cognitive
engagement and political involvement of young people

6th AFC Best Papers (2022)

in Malaysia and Nigeria. The interactive nature of
Facebook makes this possible.
Through social media, one can build a communitythat fosters both diversity and unity. Biswas, Ingle, andRoy (2014) found that social media is a powerful tool forbringing people together, whether they come from thesame political party or not. It allows people to connect
with whomever they want, whenever they want. It allows
the expression of opinions with limited censorship andrestraint. It allows them to share their opinions, criticize
others, lend their voices, and even change their minds(Dolan, Conduit, Fahy & Goodman, 2015).
Social media creates a venue where information canreach a multitude of audiences in such a short period.
Through social media, global conflict, diplomacy
around the world, and politics have become accessible
and sensitive to public perception (Singer and Brooking,2018).
Social media empowers people. Barry (2012) explainsthat when one participates in social media, one becomesa content creator, thus empowering the users (Jay, 2015)
to be engaged in political discourses. Even the disenfranchised citizens can now actively participate, giving
them access to and even perhaps influence politicalinformation. Owen (2017) refers to this phenomenon as
the new media populism, which may revitalize
democracy.
In contrast to mainstream media which is often characterized by a centralized and top-down approach, notto mention one-way information dissemination(Andrejevic, 2013), social media provides the users withthe capacity to challenge existing political hierarchy as
users have the power to dictate content. Insofar as content preference is concerned, Hellweg (2011) found outthat voters use social media to influence constituent perceptions and that voters react positively to the politician’s content as compared to their professional
information.
In the shift of control over the content of the users insocial media, there appears to be a redistribution of control and power. The producer becomes now a regulator
and not the main actor. Borrowing from the words ofKarl Marx — “the tools and the means of production are

now in the hands of the workers.”
However, while many proponents think that social
media heralded the entry of participatory democracy,
survey data reveal that social media users are largely
passive, and content participation is dominated by a few
yet popular users who post comments and create new
inputs (Newman and Levy, 2013). Additionally, participation in social media has been found to differ per country, with domestic political structures playing a powerfulrole that social media in determining citizen participation in political processes (Filer and Fredheim, 2016).
Beauchamp (2019) on the extreme argues that others
would even say that social media destroys democracy.
This was supported by Deibert (2019) saying:“The world of social media is more conducive toextreme, emotionally charged and divisive types of content than it is to calm, principled consideration of competing or complex narratives.”
Ingram (2018) counters Deibert’s argument by sayingthat social media is for democracy as it opens possibilities to informing people, amplifying their voices, allowing for understanding to realize, dissipating apathy, andfurthering trust in the institutions.
The epistemic value of participation in social media
This paper has already shown how social media plays
a role in collective learning and how its increased accessibility has made it a central platform for the dissemination of knowledge (Notley, 2009). In this section, we
demonstrate how social media create opportunities forcommunity-wide inclusion, which supports a community’s capacity to define and address public issues (Quick& Feldman, 2011). It has been said that the more inclusive a community is, the higher the chance of participation, i.e., that the public will emphasize its input on thecontent of government programs, policy-making, ordecision-making.
In recent years, social media has gained a reputation
for being an enabler and facilitator of participation
because of its ability to alleviate inhibitions common to
face-to-face interactions. Particularly, it has contributed
to the emergence of a new form of political and social
engagement. Nevertheless, some people argue that027

Rhea Ladesma-Gumasing, et al.

participation in an online environment is distinct fromparticipation in the offline environment (Oser et al.,2013) because there is a lack of proximity to the actors,
a detachment between actions and their outcomes, and aminimal hierarchy within the online environment(Machackova & Serek, 2017), all of which may impact
its epistemic value.
At its core, the traditional meaning of participation is“the process of sharing decisions which affect one’s life
and the life of the community in which one lives” (Hart,
1992, p.5, as cited in Notley, 2009). Yet, many social andpolitical practices and relationships are now organised
and built into online public spaces. According to Notley(2009), when participation takes place online, the physical context of the community “in which one lives” isdiminished. However, this does not mean that the impactof participation — and the knowledge it generates — arealso diminished. Postmodernists, highly skeptical ofuniversal definitions and explanations, agree with thisstatement because it encourages looking beyond a dominant discourse (Kennedy & Sommerfeldt, 2015).
Though knowledge does not have a clear nor unified
definition, it remains an abstract concept, nonetheless, apowerful one as it is generally understood to be a preparation for action (Russell, 1992, as cited in Matthews,2015). Knowledge evolving from online practice —where anyone can have a say regardless of ideology,
credibility, and authenticity — is no different, and in
this regard, may pose a conflict with the epistemic valueof participation (Torres et al, 2018). Due to the anonymity of the online environment, participants no longer feel
ambivalent to participate and can be themselves without
inhibition. What it cannot verify, though, is the knowledge source’s legitimacy and agenda.
Considering the prevalence of “fake news,” defined
as false or misleading information (Allcott & Gentzkow,
2017, cited in Torres et al, 2018) with the intent to manipulate (Torres et al, 2018), it is crucial to establish a verification process for online content. It is also suggested
that more research be carried out to further understandthe role of social media in participation. Matthews(2015) states that these researchers must be combinedwith philosophy, interaction design, and qualitative028

methods to arrive at a better understanding of how theplatform can serve as a tool for human knowledge. False
news is widespread and poses a threat not only to social
interactions but also to the epistemic value of participation (Torres et al, 2018).
According to Benkler (2006, as cited in Notley,2009), there is currently a fundamental shift in how
individuals engage in democracy and their role as citizens, resulting in the need for new communication andlinkage tools. In this paper, we contend that the growthof virtual networks and the emergence of digital collaboration technology offers citizens the possibility ofmoving beyond being consumers of information andbecoming “participants in a conversation” (Benkler,
2006, p. 272, cited in Notley, 2009) without sacrificing
its epistemic value.
Online participation may indeed take away the physical sense of community, but what it brings, on the other
hand, is an opportunity for people to participate indebates and decision-making that may have been previously either too intellectual or too restricted. Spinner(2012) evaluated that digital tools, when used properly,
can contribute to democracy. She stated that the featuresof these technologies — speed, cost, and flexibility —can potentially assist and enhance the democratization
process. The very nature of social media, for instance, islike the conditions of democracy — popular, accessible,
and inclusive — and these outweigh the seeming drawbacks of it being too open, unmoderated, and informal.
Moreover, social media has, in recent years, materialized to be a medium that filters the common biases
and errors found in face-to-face deliberations, e.g., feeling of empathy due to proximity with other actors, orcontrol of the flow of information from government
agencies. The platform has allowed citizens and governments to be more transparent while engaging in direct
dialogue with each other, thereby building public trust
and accountability. This is supported by Velasquez andRojas (2017) who posit that the online setting may be
more politically diverse than the traditional offline mode
(Baek, Wojcieszak, & Carpini, 2012; Bakshy, Messing,& Adamic, 2015, as cited in Velasquez and Rojas, 2017)
and that it may offer a political venue for marginalized6th AFC Best Papers (2022)

groups (Bekafigo & McBride, 2013, as cited in Velasquez& Rojas, 2017). Robertson (2013) also advanced this byclaiming that including the perspectives and interests ofthe marginalized groups in the construction and generation of knowledge is of epistemic value.
Correspondingly, Ahmad et al (2019) probed how
online political activities influence offline political participation and political efficacy. The findings of thestudy show that most respondents use social media forpolitical awareness and information, specifically, by discussing government happenings with local politicians(something not easily achieved in the traditional context), sharing political content with the online community, and actively campaigning to take part in real-life
political engagements. The authors conclude that online
political activities trigger participation in offline political activities and that these have a significant relationship with political efficacy.
Setbacks of participating in social media
Atton (2001) states that zines and mixed forms ofelectronic communication — small-scale media —account for alternative media that aim for social andpolitical action (Atton, 2001, citing Traber, 1985). In
addition, Hamilton (2000), posits that any source of
information that forgoes “conventional…formulas toadvocate programs of social change” can be classified asalternative media.
One of the most common alternative forms of social
movement media nowadays is social media; it has facilitated the sharing of ideas and information throughonline communities. According to Hemsley, et al,(2018), many individuals from different parts of theworld have high expectations for the “democratizing
force of social media” (Hemsley, et al, 2018). The authors
cited Twitter as an example of having served as a stitching mechanism to organize social movements in thecase of Occupy Wall Street (Hemsley, et al, 2018, citing
Gerbaudo, 2012). However, the rise of false narratives,
fake news, and troll farms has shown the dark side ofsocial media.
First, individuals can weave false narratives and misinform the public (Molina, et al, 2019). False narratives,

as Hemsley et al (2018) would stress, are constructed notby a single person but by multiple actors and “slowly
emerge as a plausible reality” which makes them dangerous. Second, social media can fabricate fake news,e.g., how headlines are framed, how videos are labeled,or how a partial picture of a whole is presented — which
can deceive perceptions and shape opinions. As an
example, a YouTube video labeled “European migrantcrisis,” tended to generate comments aligned with how
it is framed: positive or negative towards refugees (Leeand Nerghes, n.d., as cited in Hemsely, et al, 2018).
Third, troll farms, defined as “groups of organized
online agitators” (Barsotti, 2018), have been emerging,sowing division, and in the process, affecting decision-making. Barsotti (2018) draws attention to the pronouncements that these troll farms are “finding tensions
that exist on Facebook or Twitter…and amplify them;”and Lightman (2018, as cited in Barsotti, 2018)), that this
could, later on, become a bigger issue since “people…
check their News Feed more often than they may checkon actual news.”
Social media has been changing the way peopleinteract. For instance, crowdsourcing, the term used for
obtaining content or services from a large group ofpeople, usually takes place online. The problem now is
how to gauge the credibility of these online users knowing that web-savvy individuals and organizations arelikely to take advantage of the networked world thatallows them to reach a wider audience in a more efficient manner (Paniagua & Korzynski, 2017), without
much consideration for authenticity.
Despite the drawbacks, high hopes remain for the
epistemic value of participation in social media.
Lievrouw (2010) discusses that social media may form
venues for scientific communication that brings together
the qualities of “immediacy, trust, credibility…and‘communism’ with novel forms of documentation.” Anexample shared by academics from Malaysia is the
medical case of a 15-year-old patient with Acquired
Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) which was
solved in three weeks with the use of an online site thatallows users to take part in decoding complex proteins(Ghazali, et al, 2016). This suggests that the utilization

029

Rhea Ladesma-Gumasing, et al.

of social media in the knowledge-sharing process and in
improving scholarly and research work has bearing.
Also, Godler, et al, 2020, mention that a young philosophical field, “social epistemology,” is growing,
which sees the participation of society in the knowledge
acquisition process as unavoidable. The case of Estonia’s“Immigrant Inclusion by e-Participation” project
explores how social media can be used for increasing
the involvement of minorities in policy-making, to generate information that will serve as the basis for creating
policies and regulations concerning their life (Laanpere,
et al, 2011).
Furthermore, a study by Chan, et al, (2014), examined if there is a promotion of epistemic cognition whenpeople are placed in social contexts, and if online interactions mediate social epistemic cognition. Their findings introduced a fresh construct of social epistemic
cognition which points out that epistemic cognition canbe fostered in online social environments as facilitatedby online interactions. The authors indicate that social
interactions among community members — including
those of netizens on online platforms — can aid knowledge construction (Chan, et al, 2014).
Justifying the use of social media in democracy
The potential for social media to be a technology forcommunication, learning, and liberation, specifically ina democratic setup, is evident. It cannot be denied thatthe platform has made it easier for people to have a voicein government; nowadays, many are channeling theirpolitical energy online to discuss current events, organize causes, and hold leaders responsible. And those ingovernment also observe and interact.
A series of interviews done by Harbath (2018) covered the topic of social media and democracy. Sunstein,
Professor at Harvard Law School, said that a fundamental requirement for people to govern themselves is forthem to have information and for this information to betransferred to others. This is supported by Vromen, aProfessor at the University of Sydney, who asserted thatsocial media enables collective social action but that itneeds to have content moderation. Ilves, Distinguished
Visiting Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover

030

Institution, echoed this concern. He likened the powerof social media to the power of companies supplying
utilities such as energy and water during the Industrial
Revolution — they are so vital that they need to be regulated. Chakrabarti, Facebook’s Product Manager for
Civic Engagement, meanwhile, says that the convergence of social media and democracy is a new frontier
and that the search for answers continues. One basic
truth about social media, according to him, is that intensifies human intent, both good and bad. He also believes
that ultimately, “a more connected world can be a moredemocratic one.”
As said, inclusion aids political participation and discussion of issues, including the unacceptable conditions
in society that require intervention, commonly referred
to as public problems. According to Kraft and Furlong(2015), what politicians choose to do to address thesepublic problems should be an extension of the citizens
they represent, many of which can be solved by largescale collective action. In this age and time, there is no
better tool to gather social input and create publicknowledge than social media. It is an effective, efficient,equitable, socially acceptable, and technically feasiblemeans for decision-making. It could be a good alternative to the traditional mode of face-to-face participationin public affairs.
A healthy democratic society can flourish when citizens participate and engage in a rational debate, in aspace where one can express ideas as equals, as suggested by Juergen Habermas. This translates to the needfor free speech, accessible platforms, and some extent
free press — characteristics offered not only by face-toface deliberations but also by social media like Facebook,
Youtube, Twitter, and the likes. In effect and theory,social media may be considered an enabler of
democracy.
Participation of citizens in political processes is one
measure of democracy and in doing so, can influence
decision making that has the potential to change individual and group behavior. Research has shown the benefits of face-to-face deliberations, including those ofbeing exposed to other perspectives (Min, 2007) but
whether online deliberations through social media are6th AFC Best Papers (2022)

equally beneficial, remains to be seen.
Conversely, Sunstein (2001) has already counteredand suggested that online public spheres are not themost ideal, even inferior to face-to-face deliberations.
There have been many arguments in both cases and thispaper, we go one extra step and posit that participationof the public in debates on social media may be a goodalternative to aid decisions in an ailing democracy.
Bulmer and DiMauro (2010) mentioned that decision-making is accelerated by participating in online
discussions, noting that reading social media posts,
sharing, and retweeting, provides the information necessary to facilitate decision making. However, by
acknowledging the importance of social media in maintaining a healthy democracy, there are additional considerations that should be met –those citizens andinstitutions are trustworthy and trusted. In both cases,
we need to examine whether social media like FB,
Twitter, Instagram, Linkedin, among others possess
those characteristics or at least provide mechanisms inplace to protect and promote information flow, privacy,
safety, and security, and perhaps, truth.
Social media platforms have changed the way how
information is made available and presented to theworld. It has provided opportunities that stimulate trust
as well as distrust threatening legitimacy, fostering
inequality, and instigating protests (Bekmagambetova
et al., 2018). A case in point would be evidence that
Twitter played in 2012 in the revolution of Egypt (Fuchs,
2014).
Further, with almost four billion users of social
media, the security risks associated with it include identity theft, malware, and damage to public service reputation (Senthil Kumar, et al., 2016). To address theseconcerns, serious efforts are being made by governments and social media companies to regulate and void
the publishing of misleading information through social
media. For example, in Germany, they have launched
the Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG law) in 2017,
which obliges social media platforms to send suspectedcriminal content to Federal police, directly upon a reportof a user. Such provisions of the law would like toaddress the rising right-wing extremism and hate crimes

and the spreading misinformation of fake news, which
can undermine democracy. Another interesting practicein regulating social media platforms includes Indias’s
assertion that allows the government to remove content
where they deemed it objectionable and also conducts
internet shutdowns. A similar practice is also seen in
Kenya and Ethiopia. Meanwhile, countries like Saudi
Arabia, Russia, China have been found to have the mostrestrictive social media. China bans western social
media platforms and Chinese social media platforms
equivalent are likewise closely monitored by its government. In Saudi Arabia, online discourses are extensively
manipulated by Monarchy (Siripurapu and Merrow,2021).
On another note, social media giants like Facebook,YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, and Linked in are largely
self-regulated but they have put in place some content
moderation policies. These policies would include barring posts that contain hate speech or that encouragehate speech, sexually explicit posts. They have also
taken steps to limit disinformation including fact-checking posts, labeling the accounts of state-run media, andbanning political ads (Siripurarpu and Merrow, 2021).
Additionally, these platforms are compliant with thelaws of the countries where they operate, which can
restrict speech and use even further. These policies are
implemented by social media companies by employing
thousands specifically to screen posts for violations andby the use of moderation software that is powered byartificial intelligence.
Meanwhile, fake news continues to proliferate onsocial media content and they have been considered apotential threat not only to press freedom but o democracy in general.
Fake news has been recognized to have existed since1439 when the printing press was first introduced(Klyuev, 2019). It gained prominence during thePresidential election in 2016 in the US (Gereme & Zhu,
2019; Kshetri & Voas, 2017; Zhou & Zafarani, 2018).
Fake news, according to Lazer et al (2018) is “fabricated information that mimics news media content inform but not in organizational process or intent.” Fakenews comes in many forms including hoaxes, clickbait,031

Rhea Ladesma-Gumasing, et al.

propaganda, satire and parody, and others. Among the
fake news, hoaxes are considered cause the most damage
to their victim, usually aiming at public figures (Rubinet al., 2015).
In characterizing these different forms of fake news,
we recognize the potential damage they will cause inmisleading people of the truth but let us not overlook thediscerning capacity of those who engage in debates onsocial media and that while disinformation may be
spreading fast, such is not impossible to extricate(Groebler, 2017; (Kraft et al., 2015) Further, Sunstein(1996) mentioned that finding just enough common
middle ground based on “incomplete theorized agreements” may be enough to move forward in deciding as it
is rare to find where a group completely agrees on all
fronts. The important this is people who participate,
whether on social media or face to face ground theirbeliefs and attitudes and adjust their political judgments
based on one hand — the merit of the case and on theother, heuristics — not perfect but helpful in guiding
political decisions.
Some mechanisms that have been employed include
those that have been initiated by the government and thesocial media giants. Further, the spread of information
literacy (Bluemle, 2018) as a political literacy andagency has seen a continuing rise and appreciation when
one engages in political discourses. Examples would
include civic education on varying topics including
election reforms, tax forum intellectual freedom among
the youth, working class, college students, and the like.
At the heart of this civic education is the notion that critical information literacy is key to countering the effectsof fake news (Cooke, 2017).
If a healthy democracy requires participation, thencertainly social media provides that mileage for inclusion and access, so discounting the benefits of social
media as a useful tool for decision-making will have to
be looked at differently. After all and we support, that
democracy does not ask that discourses in public spaces
be devoid of distortions or concealment, but rather tohave these spaces where mechanisms for addressing
such distortions are addressed (Buschman, 2019).

032

Conclusion

When democracy spelled out in terms of access,inclusivity, validity, and participation are prized, considering political decision-making through social media
can have its merits with impediments in terms of censorship, regulation, and legitimacy. Using the normative
ideals of inclusivity and epistemic value of participation
to justify the use of social media is a biased argument,
particularly when the conditions under which the biases
are developed and explained are held. In the end, accepting social media as an ideal for decision-making indemocracy should not be accepted as is, unless theorization of the role of social media and justification of its
merits is made. Without such, we may fail to account forwhat we seek in social media to support democracy.

References
1) Abdulrauf, A. A. (2016). Cognitive engagement and online political participation on Facebook and Twitter among youths in
Nigeria and Malaysia (Doctoral thesis). Universiti Utara
Malaysia, Changlun. 1)
2) Ahmad, T., Alvi, A. & Ittefaq, M. (2019). The Use of Social
Media on Political Participation Among University Students: An
Analysis of Survey Results from Rural Pakistan. SAGE Open
July-September 2019: 1–9 DOI:10.1177/2158244019864484 journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo
3) Andrejevic, M. (2013). Public Service Media Utilities: Rethinking
Search Engines and Social Networking as Public Goods. MediaInternational Australia. 146 (1): 123–132. doi:10.1177/1329878x
1314600116. ISSN 1329-878X. S2CID 107705623.
4) Ansari, J.A.N., & Khan, N.A. (2020). Exploring the role of social
media in collaborative learning the new domain of learning.
Smart Learn. Environ. 7, 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-02000118-75) Atton, C. (2001). Approaching Alternative Media: Theory andMethodology. Napier University, Scotland.
6) Barry, W. (2012). Networked: The New Social Operating System.
MIT. ISBN 978-0262017190.
7) Barsotti, S. (2018). Weaponizing Social Media: Heinz Experts on
Troll Farms and Fake News. https://www.heinz.cmu.edu/media/
2018/October/t roll-fa r ms-a nd-fa ke -news-social-mediaweaponization
8) Beauchamp, Z. (2019). Social media is rotting democracy fromwithin. Vox. Retrieved 25 May 2020 from https://www.vox.com/
policy-and-politics/2019/1/22/18177076/social-media-facebook-farright-authoritarian-populism9) Bekmagambetova, A., Wagnerb, K.M., Gainousc, J., Sabitovd,
Z., Rodionovd, A. and Gabdulinad, B. (2018), “Critical social
media information flows: political trust and protest behaviour
among Kazakhstani college students”, Central Asian Survey,

6th AFC Best Papers (2022)

Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 526-545.
10) Biswas, A., Ingle, N., & Roy, M. (2014). Influence of social media
on voting behavior. Journal of Power, Politics & Governance, 2,
127-155.
11) Bluemle, S. R. (2018). Post-facts: Information literacy andauthority after the 2016 election. Libraries and the Academy,
18(2), 265–282. http://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2018.0015
12) Bulmer, D. and DiMauro, V. (2010), The New Symbiosis ofProfessional Networks: Social Media’s Impact on Business andDecision-Making, The Society for New Communications
Research, CA.
13) Buschman, J. (2018). On democracy and libraries. Library
Quarterly, 88(1), 23–40.
14) Chan, R.Y., Li, S., & Hui, D. (2014). Social Epistemic Cognitionin Online Interactions. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2556977
15) Cohen, J. (1997.) Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy.
Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, ed.
James Bohman and William Rehg. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
16) Cooke, N.A. (2017), “Post-truth, truthiness, and alternative facts:
information behavior and critical information consumption for a
new age”, Library Quarterly, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 211-221.
17) Deibert, R. J. (2019). The Road to Digital Unfreedom: Three
Painful Truths About Social Media. Journal of Democracy. 30(1): 25–39. doi:10.1353/jod.2019.0002. ISSN 1086-3214. S2CID
149696774.
18) Dolan, R., Conduit, J., Fahy, J. & Goodman, S. (2015): Social
media engagement behaviour: a uses and gratifications perspective, Journal of Strategic Marketing, DOI: 10.1080/0965254X.2015.
109522219) Filer, T. & Fredheim, R. (2016). Sparking debate? Political deaths
and Twitter discourses in Argentina and Russia. Information,
Communication & Society. 19 (11): 1539–1555. doi:10.1080/1369
118X.2016.1140805. S2CID 147004912.
20) Fuchs, C. (2014), Social Media: A Critical Introduction, Sage,
London.
21) Gereme, F. B., & Zhu, W. (2019). Early detection of fake news
“before it flies high”. In ACM International Conference Proceeding
Series (pp. 142–148). https://doi.org/10.1145/3358528
22) Gibson, R. K., & McAllister, I. (2012). Online social ties andpolitical engagement. Journal of Information Technology &Politics, 10, 21-34.
23) Ghazali, S., Sulaiman, N.I.S., Zabidi, N.Z., Omar, M.F., and Alia,
R.A. (2016). The Impact of Knowledge Sharing through Social
Media among Academia. AIP Conference Proceedings 1782,
030003 (2016); doi: 10.1063/1.4966060
24) Godler, Y., Reich, Z. & Miller, B. (2020). Social epistemology as
a new paradigm for journalism and media studies. SAGE
Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1461444819856922
25) Groebler, V. (2017), “Trust me, I’m lying”, available at: www.
eurozine.com/trust-me-im-lying/ (accessed December 13, 2017).
26) Hamilton, J. (2000). Alternative Media: Conceptual Difficulties,
Critical Possibilities. Journal of Communication Inquiry 24.4
(October 2000): 357 - 78.

Democracy. Facebook Newsroom. Retrieved 21 March 2021 fromhttps://about.fb.com/news/2018/01/hard-questions-democracy/28) Hellweg, A. (2011). Social media sites of politicians influence
their perception by constituents. The Elon Journal of Undergraduate
Research in Communications, 2, 22-36.
29) Hemsley, J. Jacobson, J., Grudz, A., & Mai, P. (2018). Social
Media for Social Good or Evil: An Introduction. SAGE
Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2056305118786719
30) Ingram, M. (2018). Can social media have a positive effect on
democracy?. Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 18 March
2021 from https://www.cjr.org/the_new_gatekeepers/social-media-democracy.php
31) Jay, R. (2015). The People Formerly Known as the Audience.
PressThink. Retrieved 12 March 2021 from https://www.researchgate.net /publication /291188722 _The_People_For merly _Known_as_the_Audience32) Kemp, S. (2021). Digital 2021: Global Overview Report.
Retrieved 12 March 2021 from https://datareportal.com/reports/
digital-2021-global-overview-report33) Kennedy, A.K. & Sommerfeldt, E.J. (2015). A Postmodern Turnfor Social Media Research: Theory and Research Directions for
Public Relations Scholarship, Atlantic Journal of Communication,
23:1, 31-45. DOI: 10. 1080/15456870.2015.972406
34) Klyuev, V. (2019). Fake news filtering: Semantic approaches. In
2018 7th International Conference on Reliability, Infocom
Technologies and Optimization (Trends and Future Directions)35) Kraft, M. E. & Furlong, S. R. (2015). Public policy: Politics, analysis, and alternatives. (5th ed.) Los Angeles: CQ Press.
36) Kshetri, N. and Voas, J. (2017). The Economics of “Fake News”
in IT Professional, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 8-12, November/December
2017, doi: 10.1109/MITP.2017.4241459.
37) Laanpere, M., Sousa, S., & Tammsaar, K. (2011). A case study on
using social media for e-participation: design of initiative mapper
web service. DOI: 10.1145/2072069.2072120 · Source: DBLP
38) Lazer, D. M. J., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J.,
Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., Metzger, M. J., Nyhan, B.,
Pennycook, G., Rothschild, D., Schudson, M., Sloman, S. A.,
Sunstein, C. R., Thorson, E. A., Watts, D. J., & Zittrain, J. L.
(2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094–1096.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao2998
39) Lievrouw, L. A. (2010). Social Media and the Production of
Knowledge: A Return to Little Science?, Social Epistemology,
24:3, 219-237, DOI: 10.1080/02691728.2010.499177
40) Machackova, H., & Šerek, J. (2017). Does ‘clicking’ matter? The
role of online participation in adolescents’ civic development.
Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on
Cyberspace, 11(4), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2017-4-541) Matthews, P. D. (2015). Social Epistemology and Online
Knowledge Exchange (Doctoral Dissertation). University of theWest of England, Bristol.
42) Molina, M. Sundar, S.S., Le, T. & Lee, D. (2019). “Fake News” Is
Not Simply False Information: A Concept Explication andTaxonomy of Online Content. SAGE Publications. https://doi.
org/10.1177%2F0002764219878224

27) Harbath, K. (2018). Hard Questions: Social Media and033

Rhea Ladesma-Gumasing, et al.

43) Newman, N. & Levy, D. (2013). Reuters Institute Digital News
Report 2013. reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk. Archived fromthe original (PDF) on 2013-12-07.
44) Notley, T. (2009). Young People, Online Networks, and Social
Inclusion. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. No.
14, 2009, pp. 1208-1227. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01487.x
45) Oser, J., Hooghe, M. & Marien, S. (2013). Is Online Participation
Distinct from Offline Participation? A Latent Class Analysis ofParticipation Types and Their Stratification. Political Research
Quarterly, 66(1), 91-101. Retrieved March 20, 2021, from http://
www.jstor.org/stable/23563591
46) Owen, D. (2017). The Age of Perplexity: Rethinking the World
we Knew. Radically Reassessing “The Economic”. Madrid,
BBVA, OpenMind, Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial.
47) Paniagua, J. & Korzynski, P. (2017). Social Media Crowdsourcing.
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-6616-1_200009-1
48) Pew Research Center. (2019). Publics in Emerging Economies
Worry Social Media Sow Division, Even as They Offer New
Chances for Political Engagement. Pew Research Center Internet& Technology. Retrieved 12 March 2021 from https://www.
pewresearch.org/internet/2019/05/13/publics-in-emerging-economiesworry-social-media-sow-division-even-as-they-offer-newchances-for-political-engagement/49) Quick, K. S. & Feldman, M. S. (2011). Distinguishing Participation
and Inclusion. Journal of Planning Education and Research.
Volume 31, Issue 3, pp. 272-290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456
X11410979
50) Rainie, L., Smith, A., Schlozman, K. L., Brady, H., Verba, S.
(2012). Social media and political engagement. Washington, DC:
Pew Research Center’s Internet.
51) Robertson, E. (2013). The Epistemic Value of Diversity. Journalof Philosophy of Education, Vol. 47, No. 2, 201352) Rubin, V. L., Chen, Y., & Conroy, N. J. (2015). Deception detection for news: Three types of fakes. Proceedings of the
Association for Information Science and Technology, 52(1), 1–4.
https://doi. org/10.1002/pra2.2015.145052010083
53) Senthil Kumar, N., Saravanakumar, K. and Deepa, K. (2016),“On privacy and security in social media: a comprehensive
study”, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 78, pp. 114-119.
54) Seong Jae Min (2007). Journal of Computer-MediatedCommunication 12 (2007) 1369–1387 ª 2007 International
Communication Association1369
55) Singer, P.W. & Brooking, E. (2018). Like war: The Weaponizationof Social Media. Boston. ISBN 9781328695741.
56) Siripurarpu, A. and Merrow,W (2021).Social Media and Online
Speech: How Should Countries Regulate Tech Giants? Council
on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/social-mediaand-online-speech-how-should-countries-regulate-tech-giants
57) Spinner, M. (2012). The Effects of Social Media on
Democratization (Master’s Thesis). City College of New York.
58) Storck, M. (2011). The role of social media in political mobilisation: A case study of the January 2011 Egyptian uprising(Master’s thesis). University of St Andrews, Scotland.
59) Sunstein, C. (2001). Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

034

University Press.
60) Sunstein, C. (1996). Incompletely Theorized Agreements.
Harvard Law Review Vol. 108 no. 7. Pp. 1733-1772. Harvard Law
Review Association. https://doi.org/10.2307/1341816 1733 andLegal Reasoning and Political Conflict, New York: O61) Torres, R. R., Gerhart, N., & Negahban, A. (2018). Epistemology
in the Era of Fake News: An Exploration of Information
Verification Behaviors among Social Networking Site Users. The
DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems. Volume 49,
Number 3.
62) Velasquez, A. & Rojas, H. (2017). Political Expression on Social
Media: The Role of Communication Competence and Expected
Outcomes. Social Media + Society. SAGE Publications. DOI:
10.1177/2056305117696521
63) Zhou, X., & Zafarani, R. (2018). Fake News: A Survey of Research,
Detection Methods, and Opportunities. 63) http://arxiv.org/abs/
1812.00315