Yeni-sosyal medyanın sosyo-siyasi boyutu

Abstract

Yeni-sosyal medyanın yükselişi, ekonomik ve siyasi fırsatlara eşit erişimin sağlanması, kolektif eylemi mümkün kılma ve yeni ifade biçimlerini kolaylaştırma potansiyeli ilgili literatürde büyük bir iyimserliğe ilham vermiştir. Bu çalışmada yeni-sosyal medyanın sosyo-siyasi boyutu ele alınmıştır. Yeni medyanın sosyo-siyasi boyutu genel bir çerçevede farklı düşünceleri ortaya koyarak tartışıldıktan sonra, yeni-sosyal medya ve sokak protestoları alt başlığı altında, yeni-sosyal medyanın sokak protestolarına katkısı, bu protestoları kolaylaştırıp kolaylaştırmadığı, sosyal hareketlere bir araç olarak hizmet edip etmediği tartışılmaya açılmıştır. Yeni medyanın sosyo-siyasi boyutu başlığı altında yer alan diğer önemli bir alt başlık, yeni medya yankı odaları ve siyasi kutuplaşma olarak sunulmaktadır. Söz konusu bu alt başlık altında yeni medyanın toplumda kutuplaşmaya ve yankı odaları yaratmaya kolaylık sağlayıp sağlamadığı, ayrıca yeni–sosyal medyanın bu konuyla ilgili ne ölçüde etkili olduğu tartışılmaktadır. Yeni-sosyal medyanın sosyo-siyasi boyutu başlığı altında ele alınan bir diğer önemli konu, yabancı düşmanlığı ve nefret söylemidir. Söz konusu bu alt başlık altında yeni-sosyal medyanın nefret söyleminin dolaşımını kolaylaştırıp kolaylaştırmadığı, nefret suçlarından yeni-sosyal medyanın sorumlu tutulup tutulmadığı ve sosyal medyanın kullanılabilirliğinin nefret suçlarının tetiklemesinde oynayabileceği rol tartışılmıştır. Son olarak, yeni-sosyal medya ve siyasi ikna konusu tartışılmaya açılmış ve yeni medyanın siyasi ikna konusundaki etkisi ve yeni-sosyal medyanın demokratik söyleme katkısı ele alınmıştır.

Keywords

• yeni-sosyal medya
• sokak protestoları
• yankı odaları

The Socio-Political Dimension Of The New-Social Media

Abstract

Abstract abstract abstract abstract abstract. The rise of new-social media, its potential to provide equal access to economic and political opportunities, enable collective action, and facilitate new forms of expression has inspired great optimism in the relevant literature. In this study, the socio-political dimension of new-social media has been discussed. After discussing this issue in a general framework by presenting different ideas, under the sub-title of new-social media and street protests, the contribution of new-social media to street protests, whether it facilitates these protests, whether it serves as a tool for social movements has been opened to discussion. Another important sub-title under the socio-political dimension of new media is presented as new media echo chambers and political polarization. Under this sub-title, it is discussed whether the new media facilitates polarization and creating echo chambers in the society, and how effective the new-social media is on this issue. Another important issue under the socio-political dimension of new-social media is xenophobia and hate speech. Under this sub-title, it has been discussed whether new-social media facilitates the circulation of hate speech, whether new-social media is held responsible for hate crimes, and the role that social media can play in triggering hate crimes. Finally, new-social media and political persuasion issue was opened to discussion and the effect of new media on political persuasion and the contribution of new - social media to democratic discourse were discussed.

Keywords

• new-social media
• streers protests
• echo chambers

References

1. Algan, Y, Guriev, S., Papaioannou, E. &Passari, E. (2017). The European trust crisis and the rise of populism. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, s. 309-382.
2. Arceneaux, K. & Johnson, M. (2015). More a symptom than a cause. J. Thurber & A. Yoshinaka(Ed.), In American gridlock: The sources, character, and impact of political polarization(s. 309-36) Cambridge University Press.
3. Bail, C. A. (2016). Emotional feedback and the viral spread of social media messages about autism spectrum disorders. American Journal of Public Health, 106(7), 1173- 1180.
4. Bailon, G. S., J, Borge-Holthoefer., Rivero, A & Moreno, Y. (2011). The dynamics of protest recruitment through an online network. Scientific Reports, 1(197) DOI: 10.1038/srep00197.https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1111/1111.5595.pdf
5. Bakshy, E., S. Messing & Adamic, L. (2015). Political science. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science348(6239):1130–2. doi:10.1126/science.aaa160.
6. Barbera, P. (2014). How social media reduces mass political polarization: Evidence from Germany, Spain, and the United States. http://pablobarbera.com/static/barbera_polarization_APSA.pdf
7. Barberá, Pablo., John, T. J., Nagler, J. et al (2015). Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber? Psychological Science. 26(10): 1531-1542.
8. Barnidge, M. (2015). The role of news in promoting political disagreement on social media. Computers in Human Behavior 52(211). doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.011.

9. Benhabib, S. (1996). Toward a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy. In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 67–94.
10. Berinsky, A. J.(2017). Rumors and health care reform: Experiments in political misinformation. British Journal of Political Science. 47(2): 241-262.
11. Besley, T& Prat, A. (2006). Handcuffs for the grabbing hand? Media capture and government accountability. Am. Econ. Rev.See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4901755
12. Bode, L. (2016). Political news in the news feed: Learning politics from social media. Mass Communication & Society, 19(1), 24–48. doi:10.1080/15205436.2015.1045149.
13. Bode, L., Edgerly, S., Sayre, B., Vraga, E. K., & Shah, D. V. (2013). Digital democracy: How the Internet has changed politics. In A. N. Valdivia & E. Scharrer (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of media studies (s. 505–524). New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
14. Boros, D & Glass, J.(2014). Re-imagining public space: The Frankfurt School in the 21st century. Palgrave Macmillan, NY, (s. 19–45).
15. Brady, William., Willis, Julian., Jost, J. T., Tucker, Joshua., A & Bavel,J.J. (2017). Emotion shapes diffusion of moral content in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 114(28): 7313-7318. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1618923114.
16. Bright, J. (2016). The social news gap: How news reading and news sharing diverge. Journal of Communication, 66(3), 343–365. doi:10.1111/jcom.12232
17. Bursztyn, L., Egorov, G., Enikolopov, R., Petrova, M. (2019). Social media and xenophobia: Evidence from Russia. NBER Working Paper No. 26567
18. Cho,J., Shah,D.V., McLeod,J.M., McLeod,D.M., Scholl,R.M., Gotlieb,M.R. (2009). Campaigns, reflection, and deliberation: Advancing an O-S-R-O-R model of co mmunication effects. Communication Theory 19(1),66–88. doi:10.1111/j.1468- 2885.2008.01333.x.
19. Cohen, C. (1973). Democracy. Philosophical Review,82(2),249–252.
20. Curran, J., Iyengar, S., Brink, Lund, A., & Salovaara-Moring, I. (2009). Media system, public knowledge and democracy: A comparative study. European Journal of Communication, 24 (1), 5–26. doi:10.1177/0267323108098943.
21. Dahlgren, P. (2005). The internet, public spheres, and political communication dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication 22(2), 147–162.
22. Dal Bó, E., Finan, F., Folke, O., Persson, T., Rickne, J. (2018). Economic losers and political winners: Sweden’s radical right.
23. DellaVigna, S&La Ferrara, E. (2015). Economic and social impacts of the media. S, Anderson., J, Waldfogel& D, Stromberg(ed.) In Handbook of Media Economics, Vol. 1, 723–68. Amsterdam: Elsevier
24. Dewey, J. (1988). The public and its problems, in: Later Works, Vol. 2 Carbondale, University of Southern Illinois Press.
25. Diamond, Larry.& Plattner, M.F. (2012). Liberation technology: Social media and the struggle for democracy. : Johns Hopkins University Press.
26. Diani, M. (1992). The concept of social movement. Sociological Review, 40(1), s.1–25. doi:10.2307/2183775
27. Diehl, T., Weeks, B.E & Zuniga,H.G.D. (2016). Political persuasion on social media: Tracing direct and indirect effects of news use and social interaction. New Media and Society, 18(9), s. 1875–1895. DOI: 10.1177/1461444815616224
28. Edmond, C. (2013). Information manipulation, coordination, and regime change. Review of Economic Studies, 80(4), s.1422–1458.
29. Enikolopov R, Petrova, M. )2015(.Media capture:Empirical evidence.Anderson, S.P., Waldfogel,J & Stromberg,D (Ed.), Handbook of Media Economics, (S. 687–700). Amsterdam: Elsevier
30. Enikolopov, R., Makarin, A & Petrova, M. (2020). Social media and protest participation: evidence from Russia. Econometrica, 88( 4) , s.1479–1514.
31. Enslin, P., Pendlebury, S & Tjiattas, M. (2001). Deliberative democracy, diversity and the challenges of citizenship education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 35(1), (s.115–130).
32. Eveland, W. P., Jr., & Schmitt, J. B. (2015). Communication content and knowledge content matters: Integrating manipulation and observation in studying news and discussion learning effects. Journal of Communication, 65(1), (s.170–191). doi:10.1111/jcom.12138
33. Falck, O., Gold. R& Heblich. S. (2014). E-lections: Voting behavior and the Internet. Am. Econ. Rev. 104(7),(S.2238–65).
34. Feldman, L. (2011). The opinion factor: The effects of opinionated news on information processing and attitude change. Political Communication 28(2),(S.163–81). doi:10.1080/10584609.2011.565014.
35. Feldman, L., E. W. Maibach, C. Roser-Renouf, & A. L. (2012). Climate on cable: The nature and impact of global warming coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. The International Journal of Press/Politics 17 (1),(s.3–31). doi:10.1177/1940161211425410.
36. Festinger, L.( 1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
37. Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Soc. Text 25 (26), (s.56–80).
38. Garrett, R. K. (2009). Echo chambers online? Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(2), (S.265–285). doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01440.x.
39. Garrett, R. K., Weeks, B. E & Neo, R. L. (2016). Driving a wedge between evidence and beliefs: How online ideological news exposure promotes political misperceptions. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication 21(5), (s.331-348).
40. Gavazza, A., Nardotto, M& Valletti, T. (2019), Internet and politics: evidence from U.K. local elections and local government policies. Rev. Econ. Stud. 86(5),(s.2092–2135).
41. Gentzkow, Matthew & Shapiro,J.M. (2011). Ideological segregation online and offline. Quarterly Journal of Economics 126(4), (s.1799-1839).
42. Ghonim, W. (2012). Revolution 2.0: The power of the people is greater than the people in power: A memoir. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
43. Gil, de, Zuniga., Barnidge,M & Diehl,T. (2018). Political persuasion on social media: A moderated moderation model of political discussion disagreement and civil reasoning. The Information Society, 34(5), (s.302-315). DOI: 10.1080/01972243.2018.1497743)
44. Goel, S., Anderson, A., Hofman, J., & Watts, D. J. (2015). The structural virality of online diffusion. Management Science, 62(1), (s.180-196).
45. Gottfried, J. A., Hardy, B. W., Holbert, R. L., Winneg, K. M., & Jamieson, K. H. (2017). The changing nature of political debate consumption: Social media, multitasking, and knowledge acquisition. Political Communication, 34(2), (s.172–199). doi:10.1080/10584609.2016.1154120
46. Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), (s.1360–1380).
47. Guiso, L., Herrera, H., Morelli, M& Sonno, T. (2018). Populism: Demand and supply. EIEF Work. Pap. 17(03),(S.1-49). Einaudi Inst. Econ. Finance, Rome.
48. Guriev, S.,Melnikov. N& Zhuravskaya. E. (2020). 3G Internet and confidence in government. CEPR Work. Pap. 14022, Cent. Econ. Policy Res,London. https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/3ff0cd3bf0d813bec233f3583aaa4691 0050022021/original/3G-Internet.
49. Halberstam, Y., Knight, B. (2016). Homophily, group size, and the diffusion of political information in social networks: Evidence from Twitter. Journal of Public Economics ,143,(S.73–88).
50. Hampton, K., & Wellman, B. (2003). Neighboring in Netville: how the internet supports community and social capital in a wired suburb. City & Community, 2, (S.277–311).
51. Heatherly, K, A., Y. Lu & J, K,Lee (2017). Filtering out the other side? cross-cutting and like-minded discussions on social networking sites. New Media & Society 19 (8)(s.1271–89). doi:10.1177/1461444816634677.
52. Hendel, I., Nyhan, B& Reifler, J. (2017). Consumers activism: The cottage cheese boycott. Rand J. Econ. 48(4),(s.972– 1003). https://seminars. wcfia. harvard. Edu/files/pegroup/files/dalboetal2018.
53. Hubspot. (t.y). Hubspot Erişim adresi (01.10.2022):https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/visual-content-marketing-strategy).
54. Huckfeldt, R., J. Mendez, &T. Osborn. (2004). Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: The political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political Psychology 25 (1),(S.65–95). doi:10.1111/j.1467- 9221.2004.00357.x.
55. Hwang. H., & Kee,O, Kim (2015). Social media as a tool for social movements: The effect of social media use and social capital on intention to participate in social movements. International Journal of Consumer Studies 39 (5), (S.478–488). VC 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
56. Katz, E. (2006). Rediscovering gabriel tarde. Political Communication, 23(3), (s.263–270).
57. Kellner, D. (2014). Habermas, the public sphere, and democracy: A critical intervention. https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/habermaspublicspheredemocracy.
58. Kim, J., R. O. Wyatt& E. Katz (1999). News, talk, opinion, participation: The part played by conversation in deliberative democracy. Political Communication 16 (4)(S.361–85).
59. Klandermans, B. (1997). The Social Psychology of Protest. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, England.
60. Kosloff, S., Jeff G., Tom, S., Tom, D& David, W. (2010). Smearing the opposition: Implicit and explicit stigmatization of the 2008 U.S. presidential candidates and the current U.S. president. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 139(3),(s. 383-398).
61. Kwon, K, H., M, A, Stefanone& G. A. Barnett (2014). Social network influence on online behavioral choices: Exploring group formation on social network sites. American Behavioral Scientist 58 (10), (s.1345–1360). doi:10.1177/0002764214527092.
62. Laer,V. J & Aelst, P.V (2010). Internet and social movement action repertoires: Opportunities and limitations. Information, Communication & Society, 13(8), (S.1146–1171). doi: 10.1080/13691181003628307.
63. Laub, Z. (2019). Hate speech on social media: Global comparisons. Backgr. Rep., Counc. Foreign Relat., New York. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/hate-speech-social-media-global-comparisons.
64. Lee, P,S,N., Clement, Y,K, Sob ., Francis, L ., Louis, L & Michael, C. (2018 A). Social media and political partisanship – A subaltern public sphere’s role in democracy. Telematics and Informatics 35 (7), (S.1949–1957).
65. Levendusky, M. S. (2013). Why do partisan media polarize viewers?. American Journal of Political Science ,57(3), (s.611-623).
66. Levitan, L. C & P. S. Visser (2009). Social network composition and attitude strength: Exploring the dynamics within newly formed social networks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45 (5),(s.1057–1067).
67. Lippmann, W. (1955). Essays in the public philosophy. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
68. Meek, D. (2011). YouTube and social movements: A phenomenological analysis of participation, events and cyberplace. Antipode, 44(4) ,(S.1429-1448).
69. Mitchell, A., Gottfried J., Fedeli. S., Stocking, G & Walker, M. (2019). Many americans say made-up news is a critical problem that needs to be fixed. Tech. Rep. Pew Res. Cent. Washington, DC.
70. Morozov, E. (2011). The net delusion: The dark side of internet freedom. New York: Perseus.
71. Muhlberger, P. (2005). Human agency and the revitalization of the public sphere. Political Communication, 22(2), (s.163–178).
72. Mutz, D.C & P. S. Martin (2001). Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media. American Political Science Review 95(1)(s.97–114).
73. Mutz, D.C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
74. Müller, K & Schwarz, C. (2019). Fanning the flames of hate: Social media and hate crime. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321959002_Fanning_the_Flames_of_Hate_Social_Media_and_Hate_Crime
75. Nelson, T, E., Z, M, Oxley& R, A, Clawson (1997). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior 19 (3), (S.221–46). doi:10.1023/A:1024834831093.
76. Oeldorf-Hirsch, A. (2018). The role of engagement in learning from active and incidental news exposure on social media. Mass Communication and Society, 21(2), (S.225–247). doi:10.1080/ 15205436.2017.1384022
77. Park, C, S & Kaye, B, K. (2018). News engagement on social media and democratic citizenship: Direct and moderating roles of curatorial news use in political involvement. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95(4), (S.1103–1127).
78. Park, C, Sup. (2019). Learning politics from social media: Interconnection of social media use for political news and political issue and process knowledge. Communication Studies, 70(3), (s.253-276). DOI: 10.1080/10510974.2019.1581627
79. Pennycook, G., Cannon, T, D & Rand, D, G. (2017). Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. American Psychological Association. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. https://psycnet.apa.org/manuscript/2018-46919-001.
80. Pirro. A. L.,Taggart,P& Kessel.S.T. (2018). The populist politics of Euroscepticism in times of crisis: Comparative conclusions. Poltics, 38(3), (s.378–390) sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI:10.1177/0263395718784704
81. Pomerantsev, P. (2019). This is not propaganda: adventures in the war against reality. New York: Faber & Faber Price, V., Nir, L & Cappella, J, N. (2006). Normative and informational influences in online political discussions. Communication Theory, 16(1), (s.47–74). Prior, M. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
82. Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
83. Rojas, H. (2015). Egocentric publics and perceptions of the worlds around us. H. Gil de Zuniga (Ed.), In New technologies and civic engagement: New agendas in communication, (s.93 –102). New York: Routledge.
84. Rojas, H., Barnidge, M., & E, P, Abril (2016). Egocentric publics and corrective action. Communication and the Public 1 (1):27–38. doi:10.1177/2057047315619421.
85. Rojas, H., Puig,I ,Abril, E. (2009). Mobilizers mobilized: Information, expression, mobilization and participation in the digital age. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 14(4), (s.902–927).
86. Rojecki, Andrew&Sharon, Meraz (2016). Rumors and factitious informational blends: The role of the web in speculative politics. New Media & Society 18(1),(s. 25-43).
87. Scheufele, D, A. (2002). Examining differential gains from mass media and their implications for participatory behavior. Communication Research, 29(1), (s.46–65). doi:10.1177/ 009365020202900103
88. Schudson, M. (1997). Why conversation is not the soul of democracy. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 14(4), (s.297–309).
89. Sear, D& Freedman, J. (1967). Selective exposure to information: A critical review .The Public Opinion Quarterly, 31 (2) , (s. 194-213). http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0033-
90. Shah, D, V. (2016). Conversation is the soul of democracy: Expression effects, communication mediation, and digital media. Communication and the Public, 1(1), (s.12–18). doi:10.1177/ 2057047316628310
91. Shah, D. V., Cho, J., Eveland, W. P& Kwak, N. (2005). Information and expression in a digital age modeling Internet effects on civic participation. Communication Research, 32(5), (s.531–565).
92. Shah, D. V., Cho, J., Nah, S., Gotlieb, M. R., Hwang, H & et al. (2007). Campaign ads, online messaging, and participation: Extending the communication mediation model. Journal of Communication, 57(4), (s.676–703).
93. Shehata, A & Strömbäck, J. (2018). Learning political news from social media: Network media logic and current affairs news learning in a high-choice media environment. Communication Research, 48(1),(s.125-147).
94. Sifry ML. (2011). Wikileaks and the age of transparency. Berkeley, CA: Counterpoint.
95. Simon, B., Loewy, M., Strmer, S., Weber, U & et al. (1998). Collective identification and social movement participation. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 74(3),(s.646–658).
96. Stenberg, G. (2006). Conceptual and perceptual factors in the picture superiority effect. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18(6), (s.813-847).
97. Stroud, N,J. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication,60(3), (s.556–576).
98. Sunstein, C,R. (2001). Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
99. Sunstein, C,R. (2017). #republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
100. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
101. Thies, J., Zollhofer., M., Stamminger, M., Theobalt, C & Nießner, M. (2016). Face2face: Realtime face capture and reenactment of rgb videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (s. 2387-2395).
102. Tucker ,Joshua A., Vaccari, Cristian., Andrew, Guess.,et al.(2018). Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation. A Review of the Scientific Literature. prepared for Hewlett Founation. Article in SSRN Electronic Journal • January 2018.
103. Tufekci, Z. (2018). How social media took us from Tahrir Square to Donald Trump. MIT Technology Review, Aug. 14. https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/08/14/240325/how-social-media-took-us-from-tahrir-square-to-donald-trump/
104. Uzzi, B. (2017). Why echo chambers are becoming louder and more polarizing. Kellogg School of Management. Retrieved from https://journal.thriveglobal.com/whyecho-chambers-are-becoming-louder-and-more-polarizing-44aba2a231e7.
105. Valenzuela, S. (2013). Unpacking the use of social media for protest behavior the roles of information, opinion expression, and activism. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(7), (s.920–942).
106. Wang, Y, Dai, Y, Li ,H & Song, L. (2021). Social Media and Attitude Change: Information Booming Promote or Resist Persuasion? Frontiers in Psycholgy, 12,(s.1-9). doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.596071.
107. Weeks, Brian, E. (2015). Emotions, partisanship, and misperceptions: How anger and anxiety moderate the effect of partisan bias on susceptibility to political misinformation. Journal of Communication 65 (4),(s.699-719).
108. Wojcieszak, M. E & Mutz, D, C. (2009). Online groups and political discourse: Do online discussion spaces facilitate exposure to political disagreement? Journal of Communication, 59(1), (s.40–56).
109. Wright, S. (2004). Informing, communicating and ICTs in contemporary anti-capitalist movements. In Cyberprotest: New Media, Citizens and Social Movements. Routledge, London, UK.
110. Young, I, M. (1996). Communication and the other: Beyond deliberative democracy. Benhabib,S (Ed.), Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, (s.120–136).
111. Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina., Maria, Petrova& Ruben, E. (2020). Political effects of the internet and social media. Annual Reviews of Economics.. 12, (s.415–38).