How Use of the Social Media Could Destroy Democracy

pn442

An analysis of the role of social media in the UK European election campaign has warnings for democracy everywhere.  We've already seen Donald Trump use some of these tactics, but the Brexiteers seem to have developed it into a fine art, making rational debate —or, indeed, any debate—  almost impossible.

Here's the lesson learnt on how to win an election:

• Have a very active social media presence, especially on Facebook and Twitter.
• Keep the message short, simple, unequivocal and emotionally charged.
• Paint everything in blacks and whites— “Save democracy, support Brexit.” “This isn’t about left or right, it’s about right and wrong."
• Attack the opposition.   Concede no possible merit in their case.
• Focus on a single issue; avoid the more complex and controversial.
• Focus only on your target groups and areas. Ignore the rest.
• Invent false accounts so you seem to have more support than you have.
  

The analysis found some accounts " tweeted dozens to hundreds of times a day, and posted almost exclusively about Brexit."

Not only did the Brexiteers win the election, their campaign cost less than one-tenth of their opponents. Their use of social media reached more people and engaged with them more than the opposition. .

 -- ACW

Extracts from the analysis:

The analysis found, "The Brexit party’s posts were more direct and emotionally charged, compelling followers to, or help Britain avoid humiliation. The Brexit party’s Facebook posts were an average of 19 words long. Change UK’s were 71 – more than three times longer. 

In 212 posts, the Brexit party avoided talk of immigration or the benefits of Brexit, focusing instead on the idea that cancelling Brexit would be undemocratic, or as they’d put it: “This isn’t about left or right, it’s about right and wrong.”
The analysis looked at each party’s impact on Facebook and Twitter, their top-performing content, and the impact of their party leaders. The analysis found the Brexit party generated more than 45 times as many shares through “simpler, stronger messaging and a deeper understanding of their audience”. The campaign was “overwhelmingly negative”, focused 39% of all ads on attacking Labour and prioritised older Facebook users in England rather than 18-24-year-olds, or residents of Scotland and Northern Ireland.

From posts made between 5 April and the election, The Brexit party made 212 posts to Change UK’s 62.. It received 325,900 shares, compared to Change UK’s 7,200 shares. 

Change UK’s messaging was criticised as complex, suggesting that a vote for them would lead to a second referendum, which would in turn allow the British public to have a final say. The Brexit party’s posts were more direct and emotionally charged, compelling followers to “save democracy, support Brexit”, or help Britain avoid humiliation. The Brexit party’s Facebook posts were an average of 19 words long. Change UK’s were 71 – more than three times longer.

In 212 posts, the Brexit party avoided talk of immigration or the benefits of Brexit, focusing instead on the idea that cancelling Brexit would be undemocratic, or as they’d put it: “This isn’t about left or right, it’s about right and wrong.”

Mike Harris, the chief executive of 89up, said: “The Brexit party’s social media campaign is a lesson for the pro-Remain parties who were significantly less effective during the European elections. The Brexit party spent less than a tenth of Change UK, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats in the last week before the elections, but had significantly more reach and engagement with the public.

“While some of this was potentially due to inauthentic bot activity, a lot was due to the clarity and simplicity of their messaging which the Remain parties must learn from.”

  Read the complete,  original article here.