Social media is everywhere and its reality is beyond doubt. Most people are on social media and they can say and do much of what they want which as some people say is what was missing in the general media and the political scene before. These two elements are the great promoters of "democracy" and the HR and most are naturally sourced in the Western world 's value source.

The public birth in Arab spring

The West greatly promoted social media when it served its purpose. During the Arab Spring, the US officially did so and even claimed that its US think tankers who had developed the idea of using social media for "democracy and against "Islam". Here is what Wikipedia says, on the issue.

"Social media played a significant role in facilitating communication and interaction among participants of political protests. Protesters used social media to organize demonstrations (both pro-governmental and anti-governmental), disseminate information about their activities, and raise local and global awareness of ongoing events. Research from the Project on Information Technology and Political Islam found that online revolutionary conversations often preceded mass protests on the ground, and that social media played a central role in shaping political debates in the Arab Spring."

"In various countries, governments have used social media as a tool to engage with citizens and encourage their participation in governmental processes. Conversely, some administrations have engaged in monitoring internet traffic, restricting access to websites, and in notable cases such as Egypt, entirely cutting off internet access. These measures were often implemented in an effort to suppress potential uprisings. Extensive research into the role of social media during the Arab Spring has led many scholars to recognize its significant impact in terms of mobilization, empowerment, shaping opinions, and influencing change."

What they say now

Yet almost 64% of Americans say social media have a mostly negative effect on the way things are going in the U.S. today. Only about 10 % think it's positive. It was once considered a great positive space for political pluralism and as long as the West, particularly the US controlled most of the social media products this position didn't change.

It was a peak moment of US's political policies and Americans were declaring the "end of history" and "peace dividends". In that framework the US stood alone and tall particularly after the collapse of the USSR. But the events didn't follow the American dream. Two events stand out. the market crash of the US economy in 2008 and the rise of China. Worse, social media is now controlled by many forces and exposing the limits of social media as the new tool of political pluralism.

"Toxic" social media and other anxieties

The US's anxieties over social media and its transition from a tool of democracy to a tool of collective manipulation is a recent development. Now many are studying the negative aspects of social media and most verdicts are rather thumbs down. Several issues are very prominent as per research.

The impact of social media on the mental health of the young and the vulnerable are clear. It's one of the biggest producers of anxiety and actively encourages suicidal tendency among the vulnerable.

It is a very powerful bullying tool and people can gang up to "media lynch" to shut down any voice. Such organized and collective social media groups have been compared to "ferocious out of control mobs" manipulated by a smart few. By attacking any target they choose they also can cower down any groups or individuals. It allows these groups to become as powerful as a political construct.

These groups use hate and it shows that hate is very popular. Human beings are either insecure or domineering and both types resort to hate and social media is the best place to use hate to gain both power and popularity.

In other words, social media is not exactly spreading democracy as the West had initially tried to sell.

Social /Collective politics and social media

A more challenging argument emerging is that if social media is not considered a legitimate democratic tool, should other expressions including voting be accepted as such? While social media groups may be anti-democratic in the sense, they are not ready to abide by the "equal space for all" principle, do elections follow other rules?

Social media responses are basically gut based rather than rational reactions pushed by how they feel at the moment-be it anger, happiness or apathy. The same principle applies to voting as well since voters on any given day may be feeling whatever and vote accordingly. Even in the case of Bangladesh's 1970 elections, many were influenced by the emotional response to the cyclone of 1970 rather than the political party principles of any construct.

Such points are raising questions not just about the value of social media but the decision making machinery of any collective construct, groups on social media and political parties in the electoral world. Clearly, nothing it seems can be taken for granted no matter how historical or taken for granted. Questions must be asked.