Roger McNamee was Mark Zuckerberg's early mentor and a previous investor in Facebook, but has now changed perspectives to become a social media critic and eventually wrote *Zucked*. The use of data mining, AI, and social media platforms' vision to be news outlets are the reasons why social media has a "pervasive influence on culture and politics." My points are all drawn from a discussion with McNamee. Social media is manipulative to the average person's understanding of politics and causes them to lose interest in democracy because news media is imposed on us by these platforms. It has to be remembered that social media platforms are following a business model for engagement. News exists throughout these platforms regardless, but to truly learn about politics involves doing genuine research and considering points for yourself. That's where an effective democracy can be achieved. Without educating yourself about what is ingrained into the political landscape, you're encouraged to follow the feed. https://lithub.com/roger-mcnamee-on-the-incompatibility-of-social-media-and-democracy/

Social media is constantly informing people about a range of political issues and encouraging interest in democratic politics as people seek to find solutions to issues reported in online news outlets. Online media platforms are vital for the spread of news in the modern age. Social media is able to help us alert each-other many different problems and stories from all across the world. In the process, the existence of social media encourages us to engage ourselves further into understanding democratic ideologies, politics, and policies, as a way for us to debate and discuss solutions to issues and injustices in the world. Thanks to social media, it is easier for people to have a clear and influential political voice. It gives everyone an equal free space to read and discuss issues, as well as critique those in power. For the most part social media motivates people to be democratic in the sense that it gives us all a new form of free speech to ensure that social justice is met throughout society, and therefore I find that it actually encourages people to be interested in democracy. Although the presentation of politics on different online platforms have their flaws, social media has now become vital for political knowledge, discussion, and participation. Rather than encouraging a loss of interest in democracy, I believe that it actually inspires people to do further research into democratic politics so that they might engage and discuss politics in a more knowledgeable way.

Initially, I would have disagreed with this opinion. I thought that social media was a great tool to spread education and information about differing political opinions / theories etc. However, I recently read a book named '10 arguments for deleting your social media accounts' by Jaron Lanier. This book made me realise how social media can be dangerous and disadvantageous to democracy. The aim of many social media apps is to keep us constantly engaged so that we consume as much time as possible on the platforms. To do this, the apps have created algorithms that show us what we want to see - this particularly effects the political content that we view. For example, the algorithm can quickly identify if someone is politically conservative, they will then keep showing content to this person that aligns with their political ideology. That person may then think that everyone thinks / feels the same as them regarding politics as they are hardly ever exposed to differing viewpoints. For me, democracy is able to research all sides of a political debate before coming to a conclusion on your own viewpoints. However, social media minimises the element of debate and exposure through their algorithms. This is responsible for contributing to political polarisation. So I do agree that social media encourages a loss of interest in democracy, but I also think that it runs deeper than this and that social media can be very dangerous for democracy too. Jaron Lanier, 'Ten arguments for deleting your social media accounts right now' (August 2019).

If 'interest in Democracy' is a conviction that we build the best polity and the best policies by deeply engaging with all sides, that our political opponents are our most important partners in crafting our nation's politics, then I don't think Social Media is helping. If 'interest in Democracy' is engagement with politics, however, then Social Media is killing it...

**While I agree with the proposition, I find the arguments unconvincing and problematic.** In my opinion, social media has damaged many democratic institutions. Authoritarian actors have often used these platforms to spread misinformation and reduce people’s faith in democracy. The lack of trust in institutions has fueled fringe movements such as QAnon and anti-vax. However, I feel somewhat perplexed and disturbed by some of the arguments for this notion. First, some arguments seem focused on news algorithms. I see these algorithms as harmful and polarizing. They damage democracy since polarization makes democratic deliberation more difficult. However, I do not think I would characterize the harm as “people losing interests in a democracy.” The original author did not specify how having customized news leads to a loss of interest. If one examines voter participation, the current level of voter engagement seems similar to the 1980s. [1] Hence, a far strong argument should revolve around the damage of social media on institutional trust, rather than interest. Second, I disagree about the link between political knowledge and democracy. To start with, social media did not take away people’s access to balanced information. It merely distracts people from it. However, such influences on people’s political opinions existed before social media. Churchs, communities, and industrial leaders often convince people to vote in particular ways. Asking everyone to stay independent and deliberative about their political views is untenable and unreasonable. The standard would reduce the concept of “effective democracy” to mere fantasies. Lastly, political knowledge should not become a prerequisite for democratic participation. Requiring people to “educate themselves” about politics seems to be an absurdly elitist idea. The concept of democracy needs the participation of common people, not educated people or politically interested people. Tying this notion to effective democracy can lead to dangerous implications about the voting rights of underprivileged people. None of this justifies social media platforms. They have knowingly poisoned political discourses in many democratic countries. Regulations need to emerge to curb such toxic influences. That said, the original argument seemed to have gone a step further. It tasks average voters to gain a significant understanding of politics. While that would serve as good advice, it is terrible as a requirement for effective democracy. In the context of this argument, that seems like an unnecessary burden with dangerous implications. [1]. "Voter Turnout In Presidential Elections | The American Presidency Project". 2021. Presidency.Ucsb.Edu. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/voter-turnout-in-presidential-elections.