Online messages on #culturewars issues like migration & trans rights push #GE2024 voters to political bubbles
Professor Oliver Escobar, Chair of Public Policy and Democratic Innovation at The University of Edinburgh, says the trend is part of the “marketisation of elections” - and outlines three major forms of microtargeting:
- Reinforcement;
- Disruption;
- Attraction.
“Reinforcement speaks to our wants and fears and needs and aspirations,” Professor Escobar says. “It’s often issues like migration or transgender rights, which trigger passions and can drive a wedge between the population.
“Messages are tailored to the individual and it doesn’t matter which platform you use. You might see something on TikTok, then look at YouTube and there’s a similar message - and maybe on Facebook too. You get the impression of a [varied and] pluralistic environment, but you are actually in a bubble.”
[Oliver Escobar is a speaker at Data, Deepfakes and Democracy on 26th September in Edinburgh, presented by The Scotsman and the Data-Driven Innovation initiative.]
Professor Escobar is concerned about the democratic impact of disruption, which places doubts in voter’s minds.
“It might be that a party knows it won't get certain votes, so it tries to plant enough doubt to stop people voting for someone else,” he explains. “If you can’t get a vote, you don’t want anyone else to get it. We should be really concerned about this dissuasion strategy.”
Attraction is an attempt to draw groups of people that are on the extremes into the political process.
Prof Escobar says the huge number of global elections in 2024 - including the UK, United States, India and European Union - is the “largest real-life experiment we have had in data-driven democracy”.
It is much more important to pay attention to this challenge because of the rise of authoritarian populism, which was pushing us into a place of democratic recession, he says.
Professor Escobar also warned that underestimating voters could undermine democracy: “We have the highest educated citizenry in the history of the UK but [political parties] are just offering simplistic messages, and fake solutions to problems that are far more complex. Doing that is undermining the capacity of a democracy to see itself as a system with the ability to tackle these challenges.”
He believes the solution is to move away from “uni-directional” messages to individuals via social platforms and to rebuild the ‘public sphere’ - opening up places for conversations with family, friends, and members of different organisations.
“If we treat democratic elections as a market, it’s all about political elites microtargeting you as an individual, holding you in your bubble and echo chamber, and having that unidirectional relationship, between you and the political messenger.
“That's leadership and followership, rather than democratic engagement and citizenship. The public sphere is where we can combat disinformation.
“You might be micro-targeted with a piece of disinformation which will have a stronger effect if you're isolated from your community, family or friends. But if you are connected, we see the ‘laundering effect’; once you share your views, others say, ‘Oh, but have you considered this?’ Or ‘I don't know if that's a credible source. Let's look into that.’
“Those conversations are the most powerful way of keeping things in check.”
Prof Escobar accepts that it is “easy to focus on gloom and doom”, but says there is a positive side to the story: “We have many new digital platforms allowing large groups of people (potentially a global community) to come together online and wrestle with an issue, have that meaningful deliberation, weigh up options, consider alternatives, get a range of perspectives and then reach firm conclusions.”
Prof Escobar highlights Taiwan as a country that has embraced these new digital spaces to have conversations which feed into policy-making.
He says platforms like pol.is are also emerging, using algorithms and AI to create clusters of discussion spaces where you can propose arguments or perspectives and offer counter-arguments.
Prof Escobar is optimistic about the future - for pragmatic reasons (“pessimism is paralysing”) and for idealistic reasons: “I believe democratic renewal is possible; it will be hard work but we can tap into the promise of democracy; the ideas, energy and problem-solving capabilities of our populations.”