Connect with us


Elected through Facebook : have Europeans lost control of their politics ? – Le Taurillon –



Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has come under fire from the EU in recent months under accusations that he has lost control of the social media platform he founded.
Anthony Quintano

What people see on their social media feeds can determine who gets to run the country. Calls for platforms like Facebook to fact-check political ads forget to include public authorities in the process. If European governments want to retain the power to regulate elections in their countries, they need to renegotiate their rights with online giants. In this endeavour, the EU can provide invaluable bargaining clout.

In his campaign to be elected as US President in 2008, Barack Obama irreversibly brought the Internet into the world of politics. One of his primary tools for mobilising activists and young supporters was a platform created just four years earlier on the University of Harvard campus: Facebook. The Obama campaign was a victory for grassroots movements, engaging individual citizens in politics in a new way and slightly loosening the party machine’s grip on the campaign.

When Americans were electing Obama’s successor in 2016, social networks once again played a central role in the election. This time, the party machineries were seemingly losing their grip on the type of information shared, as hordes of anonymous accounts flooded the Internet with their messages. Some Facebook ads were created by the official presidential campaigns, but some came from unknown sources.

Same old: Money in politics

The jump into social network-based campaigning has required politicians and party organisations to adapt to a new situation where the Prime Minister and @Dave69 from Sheffield are technically on the same footing. At the same time, any individual working or volunteering for a small organisation knows that mobilising an effective online campaign requires money and skills. In the US, Donald Trump spent more than $20 million on Facebook ads in 2019; this year, Mike Bloomberg topped that by splashing almost $45 million in just a few weeks. Running a state-of-the-art troll army is not cheap fun either: the American Department of Justice asserted that the budget for the high-profile Russian operation to interfere in the 2016 American elections was $1.25 million a month.

New technologies may have arrived, but well-resourced actors like parties, governments and business leaders remain the ones best capable of exploiting them. In this sense, the way to create a more level playing field is the same as before: regulating the amount of ‘money in politics’. The fact that the Vote Leave campaign in the 2016 British EU referendum could be found in breach of campaign finance rules for overspending on its Facebook ads illustrates the potential of regulation, although a ruling made two years after a vote hardly remedies the wrongdoing. To retain a sense of perspective, though, one should remember that the same problem faced election watchdogs even before the era of Facebook. The scandal around the victorious Centre Party’s electoral financing in the 2007 Finnish election only unfolded the following year, when the party was already in office.

But where does the money come from?

The porosity of national borders is what makes social media-based campaigning truly different. Even on social media, it’s well-resourced actors who run the most influential campaigns. But if a foreign power wants to stir up things without getting caught, a social media operation is much easier than putting up billboards on the side of local roads. To protect transparency, Facebook has started requiring political advertisers in various countries to confirm their identity. Twitter has gone even further, deciding to ban all political ads.

News pieces about social media platforms’ decisions demonstrate another novel phenomenon: private corporations have emerged as a key player in regulating political campaigns, alongside state watchdogs. Pressure is mounting on Facebook to fact-check campaign ads and decide which ones should be allowed. Although the debate about standards for advertising is promising, it is based on the problematic premise of relying on (foreign-owned) companies’ goodwill and judgement for how Italian or Greek politicians can campaign.

A solution occasionally presented to the abuse of adverts and of individuals’ personal data is ‘nationalising Facebook’. But if the objective is to stop ‘dark’ or fraudulent ads from targeting citizens of your country, ensuring that content published on social media complies with the relevant legislation on campaign finance and on political speech should be sufficient. Demanding Facebook to, for example, grant public authorities the right to check ads before they can be circulated would already be an incursion into a private company’s operations, but a justified one. You could imagine a billboard company getting into trouble with the law for agreeing to put up banners with illegal content on them.

What role for the EU?

In the EU, many of the relevant rules are national competence: for example, it is the nation states that determine what is hate speech, or what kinds of targeting are allowed for ads. Precedent shows, however, that the EU is better placed to face off with digital giants. The European Commission has been able to give hefty fines to Google for not following the rules, in the knowledge that Google cannot afford to compromise its access to the European market. Even if it is national governments that participate more actively in regulating social media, the EU might provide invaluable negotiating clout in the governments’ efforts to gain expanded access to the platforms.

Though social media has changed the world of political communication and campaigning, many of the fundamentals remain the same. Money buys exposure, which is why citizens should have the right to know who is behind the messages. Someone has to decide what kind of communication is beyond the pale – and ideally, that someone should still be the state. If Europe wants to avoid losing control of how the competition for citizens’ votes and support works, it should take on social media giants as a united front.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link


Mandryk: We need to tweak our politics to deal with COVID-19 – Regina Leader-Post



Article content

We’ve always known our democratic system based on the need to get elected every four years has never exactly been the best method for solving big, long-term problems.

Why we still have debt, pollution, poverty, inadequate health care or man-made global warming isn’t because there aren’t solutions. It’s because solutions would mean big public investments (read: taxes) that would hinder voters’ lifestyles in the here and now.

So politicians feed off the less-charitable aspect of human nature and reassure us the big problems can be addressed by our future generations at some later date. Then it’s off to the polls every four years where governing parties remind us of their “balanced budgets”, big spending commitments and lower taxes and opposition parties argue that the government didn’t do nearly enough of all that.

But what happens if a crisis can’t be postponed to some later date?

What if it’s thrust upon on our political system in real time? What if we are hit by an immediate crisis with the capability of simultaneously swamping our health system and social safety nets and shutting down our industrialized economy?

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading


Coronavirus could reshape politics as we know it – New Internationalist



28 March 2020

A McDonald’s employee holds a banner in protest of the Statutory Sick Pay offered by the government
as the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) continues, in London, Britain, March 23, 2020. REUTERS/Russell Cheyne

There are times in history when sudden events – natural disasters, economic collapses, pandemics, wars, famines – change everything. They change politics, they change economics and they change public opinion in drastic ways. Many social movement analysts call these ‘trigger events.’

During a trigger event, things that were previously unimaginable quickly become reality, as the social and political map is remade. On the one hand, major triggers are rare; but on the other, we have seen them regularly in recent decades. Events such as 9/11, the Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina, and the financial crash of 2008 have all had major repercussions on national life, leading to political changes that would have been difficult to predict beforehand.

COVID-19, the coronavirus pandemic, is by far the biggest trigger event of our generation. It is a combination of natural disaster and economic collapse happening at the same time. Topping it off, this public health crisis is coming right in the middle of one of the most consequential political seasons of our lifetime.

In the wake of such an event, organizers often find themselves in a ‘moment of the whirlwind’, in which the standard rules of how politics works are turned on their head

Trigger events can create confusion and unease. But they also present tremendous opportunities for people who have a plan and know how to use the moment to push forward their agendas.

These agendas can be reactionary, as when conservatives and fascists pass harsh austerity measures and spread xenophobia – the type of activity documented in Naomi Klein’s ‘The Shock Doctrine’. Yet, this type of response need not prevail. With a counter-agenda rooted in a commitment to democracy and a deep sense of collective empathy, communities can flourish, even amid a crisis.

In fact, we can find many examples in history of how progressive and solidaristic impulses have come to the fore in response to trigger events. The New Deal’s emergence as a response to the Great Depression of the 1930s is one example, as is the more recent Occupy Sandy’s mobilization in New York City to support hurricane-ravaged communities in 2012. Rebecca Solnit’s 2009 book ‘A Paradise Built in Hell’ contains myriad more examples of humane, collective efforts that responded to disaster.

Today, as we face the prospect that hundreds of thousands of people in the United States – and millions around the world – may die, the only way we can prevent some of the worst tragedy and destruction is with such a response.

In my writing on social movements, I have argued that triggers create liminal spaces that mass protest movements can use to mobilize the forces of grassroots democracy. In the wake of such an event, organizers often find themselves in a ‘moment of the whirlwind’, in which the standard rules of how politics works are turned on their head. Many of the great social movements of the past have been born out of these moments.

But these moments require skillful navigation, the ability to use ‘prophetic promotion’ to spread a humane vision, and the faith that mass mobilization can open new avenues to change that, at the outset, seem distant and improbable.

In order to craft a people’s response to the pandemic, we should draw both on the possibilities of new technology that allow for decentralized action and some time-honored lessons from past social movements.

Social movements are the vehicle for mass participation

Right now, lots of people are formulating action plans and policy demands, focusing on how the government should respond or measures that elected officials might pass by way of emergency response. These include plans by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s call for an emergency universal basic income, and proposals by groups like the Working Families Party, National Nurses United and collections of grassroots organizers

What’s missing is a platform and vision for mass participation – a means through which people can join in and collectively take part in a movement to create the type of just response our society needs. A movement can support, amplify, and fill in the gaps left by government and the health care infrastructure.

Obviously, social distancing and the isolation required to slow the spread of the pandemic presents unique challenges. For one thing, people are limited in their ability to physically come together and congregate. Meanwhile, many of the traditional tools and tactics of social movements cannot be deployed under current circumstances.

This should not, however, blind us to the things that can be done. From mutual support in local areas to collective responses of protest from home, we can build a powerful people’s response that brings us together and uses our combined effort to provide care in our communities and reshape the limits of what is politically possible.

What’s missing is a platform and vision for mass participation – a means through which people can join in and collectively take part in a movement to create the type of just response our society needs

A social movement response to major trigger events often emerges from unexpected places. Major structure-based organizations have infrastructure and resources that seem like they would make them natural candidates for rallying the wider public into a response.

However, they also face institutional limitations that prevent them from scaling their efforts to meet the enormity of the challenge. Groups like labour unions are commonly preoccupied with responding to how the crisis is affecting their own membership, making them essential hubs of action for people within their structures but leaving them with little capacity to engage people outside of their ranks or to absorb the energy of others who might want to get involved.

Meanwhile, politicians and leading advocacy organizations are often focused on the details of the inside game – carefully monitoring and attempting to use insider leverage to influence the policies that are being debated at the local, state and federal levels. This is an important role, but it does not address the vacuum that exists in terms of mobilizing large numbers of people to change what are perceived as needed and possible solutions to the crisis. Therefore, it is often scrappy, decentralized and sometimes ad hoc groups that play vital roles in shaping a social movement response – which more institutionalized organizations can get behind once underway.

The people have responded before

The good news is that there are clear historical examples in which social movements have been able to step into the vacuum of a crisis.

After Hurricane Sandy hit the East Coast in 2012, the mutual support operation Occupy Sandy – which drew on networks and infrastructure built during Occupy Wall Street – coordinated thousands of people into a fast and efficient response, providing food and medical attention to those in need.

It also opened a collection and distribution centre for needed supplies, kept track of individuals who might otherwise have been isolated and abandoned, and moved debris from homes and streets.

Likewise, Common Ground – one of the most significant relief organizations to quickly form and respond in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans – served some of the city’s most impoverished neighbourhoods, set up temporary medical clinics and repaired damaged homes.

Meanwhile, in recent years, the DREAM movement, which works in communities of undocumented immigrants, has provided services such as scholarships, job opportunities and legal support for immigrants denied services from state and federal governments.

Millions of people stuck in their homes can still pursue action on two tracks: one focused on mutual aid and the other building political pressure around a platform of people’s demands.

Looking back at another public health emergency, we can remember that, during the AIDS crisis of the 1980s, the LGBTQ community came together to respond to the sickness and death of thousands of individuals – even as society ostracized people who were HIV-positive, and the medical establishment often turned a blind eye to their suffering.

Groups like Gay Men’s Health Crisis in New York City organized the community to raise money for research, distribute information about prevention and care, and provide counselling and social workers for thousands who needed it. At a time when the doctors and hospitals were either overwhelmed, indifferent, or antagonistic, they stepped up to fill the gap and meet basic human needs.

Meanwhile, the decentralized affinity groups of the more militant ACT UP worked tirelessly to raise public awareness about the crisis, rallying under the motto ‘Silence Equals Death’.

They quickly became on-the-ground experts in the community impact of the disease – publicly confronting leaders who spread misinformation or were hesitant to adequately fund public health efforts, calling out drug companies more fixated on profits than humane treatment and brashly insisting that health professionals be in dialogue with patients themselves. Ultimately, ACT UP fundamentally changed the country’s response to AIDS.

‘They helped revolutionize the American practice of medicine,’ The New Yorker’s Michael Specter wrote in 2002. ‘The average approval time for some critical drugs fell from a decade to a year, and the character of placebo-controlled trials was altered for good … Soon changes in the way AIDS drugs were approved were adopted for other diseases, ranging from breast cancer to Alzheimer’s.’

In 1990, the New York Times paid reluctant tribute to the group with a headline reading, ‘Rude, Rash, Effective, Act Up Shifts AIDS Policy.’

In response to the current coronavirus epidemic, the only thing that most people have been given to do is to participate in social distancing and join pre-emptive measures to slow the spread of disease.

But if people really believed they could participate meaningfully in a mass campaign to care for others and pressure public officials to adopt humane emergency policies, we can be confident that hundreds of thousands would quickly join in.

How to make it happen

If we know that we need a mass social movement response, how do we make it happen – especially in times of social distancing?

Millions of people are stuck in their homes, unable to go to work. But they can still pursue action on two tracks: one focused on mutual aid and the other building political pressure around a platform of people’s demands.

This article was republished, originally appearing in

Paul Engler is the director of the Center for the Working Poor in Los Angeles, movement director at the Ayni Institute, and co-author, with Mark Engler, of ‘This Is An Uprising’.


Help us produce more like this

Editor Portrait
Patreon is a platform that enables us to offer more to our readership. With a new podcast, eBooks, tote bags and magazine subscriptions on offer,
as well as early access to video and articles, we’re very excited about our Patreon! If you’re not on board yet then check it out here.

Support us »

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading


When a Pandemic Is a Political Opportunity – The Atlantic



Joe Raedle / Getty / The Atlantic

With Bernie Sanders all but defeated and Joe Biden a near lock for the Democratic presidential nomination, the American left should be inconsolable right now. But these are not normal times. Instead of despairing, leading progressives say they are invigorated, and eager to use the coronavirus crisis to convince Biden—and millions of other Americans—that major reforms are necessary.

“These ideas we’ve been touting for a while are quickly coming to fruition as great policy measures to tackle [in] this moment,” Varshini Prakash, a co-founder and the executive director of Sunrise Movement, a youth-led group advocating for climate action, told me. A great many significant social reforms have been triggered by periods of intense economic upheaval. The Tea Party seized the Great Recession in 2008–09 and its aftermath, for example to reshape the trajectory of the Republican Party. Progressives argue that the next few weeks and months present a similarly crucial juncture during which they can galvanize the American public behind their causes.

“Now is our time,” says Matt Morrison, the national director of Working America, the community affiliate of the AFL-CIO.

Progressives’ optimism could be misplaced. Social scientists have found that economic crises often benefit far-right parties. Americans may well emerge from this pandemic with increased hostility toward the government and its societal interventions; after all, failed leadership helped get us to this point. And progressive activists are still figuring out exactly how to mobilize Americans when social-distancing guidelines prevent in-person gatherings and most people are more concerned with staying healthy and employed. But already organizations say they’re working to engage Americans virtually, calling for them to pressure their members of Congress, and encouraging fellow progressives inspired by this crisis to run for office up and down the ballot.

“We have millions of people sitting in their homes, some working, some not, some aching to do something,” says Paco Fabian, the director of campaigns for Our Revolution, the political-action organization born out of Sanders’s 2016 presidential campaign. The group is mobilizing homebound people to make phone calls and do social-media outreach for candidates and causes. The Sunrise Movement has launched an online class to educate young people about the connection between the coronavirus and climate change. “We’re in a moment of crisis, but we’ve got a plan to heal: the Green New Deal,” the class description reads.

Morrison’s organization is focused now on helping Americans navigate the health-care and unemployment-insurance systems in this fraught moment, but it says it’s simultaneously trying to build a worker-led movement. “This has got to be a call to arms for changing the fundamental posture that working people take as it relates to this economy,” Morrison told me. What we are prioritizing is shifting that power imbalance so working people who are saving all of our asses are the ones who are put in the driver’s seat of this economy going forward.”

Sanders, who still hasn’t dropped out of the race for the Democratic nomination, has effectively converted his presidential campaign into a coronavirus-messaging apparatus, and he is holding regular broadcasts with other progressive lawmakers, including Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Pramila Jayapal, to explain how the current crisis demonstrates the need for Medicare for All. “As we do everything possible to grapple with this crisis … it is also appropriate to ask ourselves how we got here and what this says about the financial and economic structure of our country,” Sanders said in a live-streamed video Wednesday night. “People are understanding that there is something wrong that we are the only major country on Earth not to guarantee health care to all as a human right.”

For its part, the Democratic Socialists of America says it has seen a spike in membership since Super Tuesday, some of which the group attributes to the pandemic. “We saw one of the largest ever number of attendees for an online DSA call last week on the topic of COVID-19 organizing,” a DSA spokesperson told me via email.

Progressives will be carefully monitoring shifts in Biden’s policy positions to see whether their efforts are having an impact. Already, Biden has announced his support for Sanders’s plan to make public colleges free for some students, and he’s endorsed Senator Elizabeth Warren’s proposal to fix America’s bankruptcy system. But it’s not enough, progressive leaders say. If he “is serious about attracting progressives and the Obama coalition—which included young people—he needs to articulate a bold policy agenda that meets the scale of the crisis people are experiencing right now,” Maurice Mitchell, the director of the Working Families Party, told me.

At the end of this pandemic, more Americans will view the government as capable of solving big societal problems, progressives argue. New emergency-aid legislation dramatically expands paid sick and family leave for millions of workers and suspends work requirements for food assistance, two agenda items progressives have long supported. And the $2 trillion stimulus package that the president just signed into law would provide a $1,200 direct payment to most American adults—similar to the Freedom Dividend championed by former presidential candidate Andrew Yang—and another $250 billion in unemployment-insurance benefits. “There’s going to be an amazing shift where we recognize the impact government can have on our lives for the better,” says Charles Chamberlain, the executive director at Democracy for America, a progressive political-action committee.

Progressives still have to convince members of their own party that their solutions are workable. Leftist activists and lawmakers, such as Ocasio-Cortez, who have lobbied for a so-called People’s Bailout—which would prioritize economic relief for workers over businesses—have been disappointed with Democratic leadership. The same stimulus package that offers direct payments to Americans supplies half a billion dollars to corporations, with some strings attached. Environmental protections that some Democrats wanted in the bill were left out of the final package. “I do not support the Green New Deal,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Tuesday. “There is no Green New Deal in our bill.” Perhaps most crucially, none of the policies passed in recent days—federally mandated paid sick leave among them—are likely to remain on the books permanently after the crisis is over.

But the longer the virus ravages American communities, and the longer stores and businesses stay closed, the more likely people are to appreciate progressive policies, the leaders I spoke with said. “It’s an inflection point” for the left, Prakash said. “To what end remains to be seen by the strength of our organizing.”

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to

Elaine Godfrey is an assistant editor at The Atlantic.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading