Many who use social media say they regularly see false and misleading content along with new ideas
In
Vietnam, about half of adults say social media are at least somewhat
important for keeping up with political news and other developments.
Above, Vietnamese activist La Viet Dung has alleged Facebook may be
helping to suppress online dissent.
In
recent years, the internet and social media have been integral to
political protests, social movements and election campaigns around the
globe. Events from the
Arab Spring to the worldwide spread of
#MeToo
have been aided by digital connectivity in both advanced and emerging
economies. But popular social media and messaging platforms like
Facebook and WhatsApp have drawn attention for their potential role in
spreading
misinformation, facilitating political manipulation by
foreign and
domestic actors, and increasing
violence and
hate crimes.
Recently, the Sri Lankan government shut down several of the country’s social media and messaging services immediately after
Easter day bombings at Catholic churches killed and wounded hundreds. Some technology enthusiasts
praised
the decision but wondered if this development marked a change from
pro-democracy, Arab Spring-era hopes that digital technology would be a
liberating tool to a new fear that it has become
“a force that can corrode” societies. In
the context of these developments, a Pew Research Center survey of
adults in 11 emerging economies finds these publics are worried about
the risks associated with social media and other communications
technologies – even as they cite their benefits in other respects.
Succinctly put, the prevailing view in the surveyed countries is that
mobile phones, the internet and social media have collectively amplified
politics in both positive and negative directions – simultaneously
making people more empowered politically and potentially more exposed to
harm.
When
it comes to the benefits, adults in these countries see digital
connectivity enhancing people’s access to political information and
facilitating engagement with their domestic politics. Majorities in each
country say access to the internet, mobile phones and social media has
made people more informed about current events, and majorities in most
countries believe social media have increased ordinary people’s ability
to have a meaningful voice in the political process. Additionally, half
or more in seven of these 11 countries say technology has made people
more accepting of those who have different views than they do.
But
these perceived benefits are frequently accompanied by concerns about
the limitations of technology as a tool for political action or
information seeking. Even as many say social media have increased the
influence of ordinary people in the political process, majorities in
eight of these 11 countries feel these platforms have simultaneously
increased the risk that people might be manipulated by domestic
politicians. Around half or more in eight countries also think these
platforms increase the risk that foreign powers might interfere in their
country’s elections.
Similarly, the widespread view that
technology has made people more informed about current events is often
paired with worries that these tools might make people vulnerable:
Majorities in 10 of these countries feel technology has made it easier
to manipulate people with rumors and false information. Further, a
recent report
by the Center found that a median of 64% across these 11 countries say
people should be very concerned about exposure to false or incorrect
information when using their phones.
What is a median?
Publics
in these countries are also conflicted over the extent to which
technology is broadening people’s personal horizons or causing their
politics to become more tribal – and many seem to see elements of both.
An 11-country median of 52% say technology has made people more
accepting of those who have different views than they do, while a median
of 58% say it has made people more divided in their political opinions.
In most countries, larger shares say technology is causing people to be
more divided than say it has caused them to be open to different groups
of people.
The public’s opinion is easily manipulated
through social media. Videos circulating about politicians can either
make them famous and likable or break them down.WOMAN, 23, TUNISIA
Those most attuned to digital technology’s potential benefits are often also most aware of its downsides
It
is not simply the case that certain segments of the public have
consistently positive views about the political impacts of digital
technology while others feel consistently more negative. In many
instances, individuals who are most attuned to the potential benefits
technology can bring to the political domain are also the ones most
anxious about the possible harms.
For instance, in 10 of the 11
countries surveyed, the view that technology has made people more
informed is correlated with the view that technology has made people
easier to manipulate with rumors and false information. And in most
countries, the view that technology has made people more accepting of
each other is correlated with the view that it has made people more
divided in their political opinions.
The social media landscape in the 11 countries surveyed
Certain
groups – such as those with higher levels of education and those who
are social media users – are especially likely to note both the positive
and negative impacts of technology.
1,
2
Across all 11 countries, adults with a secondary education or higher
are more likely to say technology has made people more informed about
current events relative to those who do not have a secondary education.
Yet, in nine countries, those with higher levels of education are also
more inclined to say technology has made people more subject to false
information and rumors. More highly educated adults are also more likely
to say technology has contributed to both political divisions and
tolerance of opposing viewpoints in seven of these countries (Colombia,
India, Kenya, Lebanon, the Philippines, Tunisia and Vietnam).
Similarly,
social media users in all 11 countries are more likely than non-users
to say technology has made people more informed about current events.
Users are also generally more likely to say technology has made people
more accepting of those with different views, and more willing to engage
in political debates. However, users are also more likely to say
technology is making people more divided in their political opinions and
easier to mislead with misinformation.
The public’s sense that
technology brings both promise and problems is mirrored in social media
users’ experiences on these platforms
These
broad public views about the positive and negative impacts of
technology on the political and information environment are echoed in
social media users’ lived experiences on these platforms.
In
some respects, social media users indicate that the nature of the
content on these platforms is quite positive. In every country surveyed,
for instance, majorities of social media users say they frequently or
occasionally encounter content there that introduces them to new ideas.
Similarly, pluralities of social media users in most countries say the
news and information they get on these platforms is more up to date and
more informative compared with other sources.
But
as was true of views of the overall technology landscape, social media
users see challenges as well as benefits. Most notably, majorities of
social media users in 10 of these 11 countries frequently or
occasionally encounter content that seems obviously false or untrue, and
majorities of users in six countries regularly encounter content on
these platforms that makes them feel negatively about groups of people
who are different than they are.
Social media users also express
mixed opinions about the characteristics of the social media
environment relative to other information sources. Only in Vietnam do a
plurality of users say these platforms are more reliable than other
sources they encounter. In other countries, users are more divided about
whether the information on social media is about as reliable – or less
so – than what they see elsewhere. Opinion is also relatively mixed
across the 11 countries as far as whether the news people get on these
platforms is more hateful than what they get elsewhere.
We
have to understand that there are scores of websites and articles on the
internet that are false and inaccurate, purely opinion, or extremely
biased or slanted.WOMAN, 22, PHILIPPINES
This range of
experiences and attitudes is also reflected in at least some users’
personal interactions on social media platforms. An 11-country median of
36% of social media users – including around half in Kenya and
Venezuela – say they have learned someone’s political beliefs were
different than they had thought based on things that person posted to
social media. In all 11 countries surveyed, those who have been
surprised by someone’s political beliefs in this way are more likely to
say technology has made people more divided in their political opinions.
In seven countries, however, these users are also more likely to say
access to technology has made people more accepting of those who have
different views.
More people are comfortable talking politics in person than in digital spaces
Even
as social media have offered citizens new ways to encounter and share
information, more people are comfortable speaking about politics in
person than via mobile phones or social media. These differences are
especially pronounced in Lebanon: 78% of Lebanese overall say they are
comfortable discussing political issues in person, but 48% of Lebanese
mobile phone users are comfortable discussing these issues on their
phones and just 39% of Lebanese social media users say they are
comfortable broaching these issues on those platforms.
People
who are comfortable discussing politics in digital spaces tend to be
more optimistic about the impact these technologies have on politics in
their country. For example, social media users who are comfortable
discussing politics there are more likely to say the internet has had a
good impact on politics and that social media have increased ordinary
people’s ability to have a meaningful voice in politics. They also are
usually more likely to describe the news they get on social media
platforms positively – as more up to date, informative, reliable and
focused on issues they care about – compared with other sources. And
they are more likely to say they see articles on social media that
introduce them to new ideas. But they are also somewhat more likely to
say they regularly encounter articles or other content that makes them
feel negatively about groups of people who are different from them.
Although
publics in most countries are more comfortable discussing politics in
person than via digital methods, people in certain countries are
generally more comfortable discussing politics – whether in person,
using their mobile phone or over social media – than people in other
countries. The Philippines, Vietnam, Kenya and India are countries where
majorities are comfortable discussing politics in person, and
majorities of users are comfortable talking politics on a mobile phone
or via social media. However, people’s comfort levels have little
relationship with overall measures of
civil liberties in their country or measures of
how democratic the country
is (or is not). And countries with higher levels of interpersonal trust
are not more likely to be comfortable discussing politics in any of
these venues.
3 You
know, there’s a politician that sends text messages to us saying ‘Happy
birthday, from Senator this-and-that.’ Even with that, they have
already got your number. What more [do they have] if you’re already on
social media?MAN, 44, PHILIPPINES
These are among the major
findings from a new survey conducted among 28,122 adults in 11 countries
from Sept. 7 to Dec. 7, 2018. In addition to the survey, the Center
conducted focus groups with diverse groups of participants in Kenya,
Mexico, the Philippines and Tunisia in March 2018, and their comments
are included throughout the report.
Users say they regularly encounter false and misleading content on social media – but also new ideas
By
Aaron Smith,
Laura Silver,
Courtney Johnson,
Kyle Taylor and
Jingjing Jiang Social media use has
increased
in emerging and developing nations in recent years. And, across the 11
emerging economies surveyed for this report, a median of 28% of adults
say social media are very important for helping them keep up with
political news and other developments happening in the world.
Pluralities
of social media users in most countries find the information they get
on these platforms to be more up to date, informative and focused on
issues important to them than what they get from other sources.
4
Large majorities of social media users in most countries also say they
regularly see articles and other content that introduce them to new
ideas.
At the same time, opinions are divided when it comes to
the reliability, bias and hateful nature of social media content when
compared with other sources. And when asked about the kinds of material
they encounter on these sites, majorities in most countries report at
least occasionally seeing content that seems obviously false or untrue
or that makes them feel negatively about groups different from them.
Across almost all these measures, those who say social media are very
important sources of political information see these platforms in
different – and often more extreme – terms than other social media
users.
Fewer rely on or trust social media for political news than say the same of in-person discussions
Even as social media use
has become more common
in many emerging countries, in only four of the 11 countries surveyed
do a majority of people say these platforms are an important source of
political information – and nowhere does a majority say social media are
very important for learning about politics. All told, a median of 28%
of adults say social media are very important for helping them keep up
with political news and other developments happening in the world.
In
every country, many fewer people say social media are very important
for helping them keep up with political events than say the same about a
more traditional form of social networking – having discussions in
person with people they see regularly. In every country but Mexico, a
majority says in-person discussions are an important way they stay
informed. Around four-in-ten or more in most countries say these
conversations are very important.
Some of the reason people place less importance on social media might stem from the fact that social media use can
vary widely
across these 11 countries – from a low of 31% in India to a high of 85%
in Lebanon. But even among those who use these platforms, only in four
of the 11 countries surveyed (South Africa, Tunisia, Venezuela and
Kenya) do about half or more social media users say these platforms are
very important sources for helping them keep up with political news and
global happenings.
In every country, younger and more educated
people are more likely to say social media are very important to them
for political news.
5
However, in many instances this is largely due to high levels of social
media adoption among the young and more educated. Among those who say
they use social media, people with higher and lower levels of education
are equally likely to say these platforms are a very important source of
political news in seven of these 11 countries, and the same is true of
older and younger social media users in six countries.
If you haven’t watched the news today, at least you can still watch it on Facebook.MAN, 40, PHILIPPINES
Publics in these countries more likely to trust political information from in-person conversations than from social media
More
broadly, relatively few adults in these countries say they trust the
information they get from social media platforms. Among all adults, a
median of 35% trust the political news they get on social media,
including a median of just 10% who trust it a great deal. Among the
subset of adults in these countries who use social media, an 11-country
median of 55% say they trust the information they find on social media
at least somewhat – ranging from highs of about seven-in-ten in the
Philippines, Kenya, India and Venezuela to lows of less than half in
Colombia and Mexico. Few users in most countries trust the news they get
on social media a great deal – varying from only 8% of Jordanian social
media users to 31% of Kenyan users.
These
levels of trust stand out in comparison with the faith people place in
the information they gather from face-to-face conversations with people
they see regularly. When it comes to in-person conversations, a median
of 72% of adults say they trust the information they glean from these
discussions, and in eight countries, around a quarter or more say they
trust the information a great deal.
Social media users regularly see incorrect information and content that makes them feel negatively about other groups
Social
media users report a mix of positive and negative experiences related
to the content they see on these platforms. This survey asked about the
frequency with which people encounter three specific types of content on
social media: content that introduces them to new ideas, that seems
obviously false or untrue, or that makes them feel negatively about
groups of people who are different from them. Although in no country do a
majority of social media users see any of these types of content
frequently, in many countries a majority reports seeing all of them at
least occasionally.
A median of three-quarters of social media
platform and messaging app users say they frequently or occasionally see
articles or other content that introduce them to a new idea, ranging
from more than eight-in-ten in Tunisia to about half in Mexico. Smaller
shares see this content frequently – around four-in-ten or fewer in most
countries.
Publics are more likely to say they regularly see
content that introduces them to a new idea than to say they regularly
see content that seems obviously false or untrue, or that provokes
negative feelings toward others. Still, majorities of social media users
in most countries surveyed see both at least occasionally, including
about two-thirds or more in Tunisia, Lebanon and Vietnam. And very few
social media users say they never see content like this: A median of 17%
of social media users report never seeing articles that make them feel
negatively toward groups of people different from them, and just 8%
never see content that appears to be obviously false or untrue.
Social
media users who access more than one platform are more likely than
those who just use a single platform to come across all three kinds of
content. The differences are especially large in Lebanon: 83% of
Lebanese who access multiple social media sites regularly see articles
that seem obviously false or untrue, compared with only about half (48%)
of those who use a single site. In Tunisia, on the other hand, access
to multiple platforms is not linked with someone’s likelihood of coming
across these kinds of content.
These
differences in platform use are themselves related to social media
users’ age and education. Older and less educated social media users are
more likely to use only one site, while younger and more educated users
are more likely to use many. Consequently, younger and more educated
social media users are generally more likely to encounter all kinds of
content than older and less educated users.
It’s bad enough
that websites like Facebook already cocoon users because the author
serves you information that he thinks you want to see and hear, based on
what you’ve already seen and heard …. Now we learn on top of this, the
information may not be true.MAN, 25, PHILIPPINES
Users have mixed opinions about the nature of the content they find on social media
In
addition to encountering a mix of positive and negative content on
these platforms, social media users in these countries also have mixed
opinions about the nature of what they see on social media relative to
other information sources. In most countries, larger shares say these
social media platforms are more up to date, informative and focused on
issues that are personally important to them. But there is much more
disagreement over whether these platforms are more reliable, hateful or
biased than other information sources.
Pluralities in most countries see social media as more informative than other sources
Pluralities
of social media users in most countries surveyed say social media are
more informative and focused on issues important to them compared with
other sources: Six-in-ten or more in Lebanon and Vietnam say these
platforms are more informative, while about half say the same in
Venezuela, South Africa, Tunisia and the Philippines. But Mexicans and
Colombians take a different view. In these countries, only about a
quarter of social media users say these platforms are more informative
than other sources, with roughly half saying they are similarly
informative.
[Facebook] identifies you and it sends you
whatever you like the most. The information is more precise and it
corresponds to your personality.WOMAN, 34, MEXICO
Meanwhile, in
no country does a majority say the news and information they get on
social media is more focused on issues important to them compared with
other sources. Instead, many say the news they get on social media is
about as focused on issues they care about as other sources, if not less
so. Half of Colombian social media users, for example, say the news and
information they get on social media is about as focused on issues that
are important to them as the news they get elsewhere. And about
four-in-ten Kenyan users feel it is less focused on personally relevant
issues.
These
views are closely related to one another. In every country surveyed,
social media users who feel these platforms deliver content that is more
personally relevant than other sources are also more likely to say
social media are more informative – and the reverse is also true.
More say social media deliver timely material than say the platforms are reliable
In
most countries, about half or more social media users say the content
they get from social media is more up to date than what they get from
other sources. Jordanians, Lebanese, Venezuelans and Vietnamese are
especially likely to rate social media as more up to date than other
sources, while Colombians are least likely to do so.
When
I compare social media and the media houses, the media houses are more
reliable … on social media you find some bloggers who are conveying
false information and false news just to hurt other people, or to just
lie.MAN, 26, KENYA
By contrast, in each of the 11 countries
surveyed, smaller shares say the news and information they get on social
media is more reliable than what they get elsewhere. But although
relatively few think social media are more reliable than other sources,
in no country does a majority think social media are less reliable.
Instead, many say that social media are about as reliable as other
sources. Only in the Philippines and Vietnam does the largest share of
users view these platforms as more reliable than other sources.
In
addition, individuals who rate social media positively in one of these
respects are also more likely to rate it positively in the other. Those
who say the news and information on social media is more up to date are
also more likely to say it is more reliable, and vice versa. Consider
South Africa: More than half of South Africans (53%) who say social
media news is more up to date also say it is more reliable than other
sources, and a majority of South Africans who say it is less up to date
(55%) say it is less reliable than other sources.
Social media users divided over whether content there is more biased, hateful than other sources
Social
media users have mixed views when it comes to the degree of bias they
see on social media. Pluralities in five countries – Colombia, Mexico,
the Philippines, Venezuela and Tunisia – view content on social media as
comparably biased to what they get elsewhere. But in other countries,
the balance of sentiment points in different directions: A plurality of
Indian and Lebanese social media users say social media content is more
biased, while a plurality of Kenyan users say it is less biased.
There
is also a nearly even split across countries in people’s views of how
hateful the news and information on social media is. A median of 31% say
social media content is more hateful than content from other sources,
while 30% say it is less hateful and 34% say they are about the same.
Four-in-ten or more Lebanese and Colombians see more hateful content on
social media than elsewhere, while similar shares of Kenyans and
Vietnamese see less.
As with assessments of the timeliness and
reliability of social media, views of bias and hatefulness also go
together. People who say social media are more biased than other sources
are more likely to say these sources are more hateful, and vice-versa.
Before
and during the election, there was incitement and violence and social
media fueled this. … But the same social media brings togetherness and
peace in this country.MAN, 26, KENYA
These attitudes vary only
modestly by age and educational attainment. Larger shares of social
media users with a secondary education or more say social media are more
biased and hateful than other sources in Colombia, India and Mexico,
but these assessments do not vary by educational attainment in the other
countries surveyed. And age-related differences are even less common.
Only in Mexico, Kenya and Vietnam do those ages 50 and older and those
under 30 differ in their views of the bias on social media, and only in
India do they differ when it comes to hatefulness.
Those who view
social media as a very important source of political information tend to
have more positive views of these platforms
Across many of
these attributes, those who say social media are very important for
helping them get political information stand apart from social media
users who do not say these platforms are very important political news
sources. They are more likely than other social media users to call the
news and information they get on social media more informative, timely,
reliable and focused on issues important to them than other users in
every country but Venezuela. In eight countries, they are more likely to
call the information they get from social media more biased compared
with other sources. But when it comes to the potentially hateful nature
of news on social media, in most countries, social media users tend to
view news on these platforms in similar terms.
More people are comfortable discussing politics in person than on their phones or via social media
By
Aaron Smith,
Laura Silver,
Courtney Johnson,
Kyle Taylor and
Jingjing Jiang Some
people in the 11 countries surveyed stand out for their comfort
discussing politics in a variety of venues – whether face-to-face, via
mobile phone or on social media. In general, those who identify with a
political party, younger people and those with higher levels of
education tend to be more comfortable discussing political news and
issues, regardless of the way in which the discussions take place. But
in most countries, more people are comfortable talking about political
issues and news face-to-face, rather than digitally.
You can
comment on something [on social media] – maybe a product. But
politically, there is some fear of posting things. I don’t think we are
free to say something politically.WOMAN, 35, KENYA
Those who do
feel comfortable discussing politics via mobile phone or on social media
tend to be more positive about the influence digital technologies have
on politics and tend to say social media are a very important source in
their lives for acquiring political news and information. People who are
comfortable discussing politics on social media are also more likely to
say the news they get there is more informative, up to date, reliable
and focused on issues they care about compared with other sources.
More prefer in-person conversations about politics to discussions on mobile phones or social media
In
nearly all of the emerging economies surveyed, more than half of adults
say they feel comfortable discussing political issues or news by
talking to someone in person. This feeling is most widespread in the
Philippines, Lebanon, Vietnam and Kenya, where about three-quarters or
more say they would feel comfortable talking about politics
face-to-face. The only country where fewer than half say they are
comfortable talking about politics in person is Venezuela: 51% say they
would not be comfortable discussing politics face-to-face, while 45% say
they would be comfortable doing this.
Both politics and
religion are controversial to even consider talking [about], so you’d
better spare yourself the trouble.WOMAN, 39, MEXICO
In 10 of the
11 countries surveyed, people who are comfortable discussing politics
in person are far more likely to describe these discussions as very
important for helping them keep up with political news and other world
developments. They are also more likely to trust the news and
information they get from these face-to-face discussions. In Lebanon,
for example, the vast majority (84%) of people who are comfortable
talking about politics face-to-face say they trust the information they
get from in-person discussions, compared with only 42% of those who say
they don’t feel comfortable engaging in such discussions.
But
although majorities of adults in most of the countries surveyed say
they feel comfortable discussing politics in face-to-face settings,
people are often less likely to feel comfortable talking about these
issues on their mobile phones. Across the 11 countries, Filipinos are
the most comfortable with using their mobile phones to discuss political
issues: 72% of Filipino mobile phone users say they’d be comfortable
doing so, including around a quarter who would be very comfortable.
Majorities
of mobile users also say they would be comfortable discussing politics
on their phone in Vietnam, India, Kenya and South Africa. Other publics
stand out for their apprehension in using mobile phones to discuss
political issues or news. Majorities of mobile users in Venezuela,
Jordan and Colombia say they would be uncomfortable talking about
politics with someone via mobile phone, with Jordanians feeling
particularly strongly: A majority of the country’s mobile users (57%)
say they would be not at all comfortable discussing politics on their
phones. About half of Venezuelan mobile users (49%) also say they would
not feel comfortable at all discussing politics via mobile device.
In
every emerging economy surveyed, mobile phone users are more likely to
say they would be comfortable talking about politics in person than on
their mobile phones. In Lebanon, for example, a majority of mobile users
(78%) say they would be comfortable talking about politics with someone
in person, but only about half (48%) say they would be comfortable
doing so on their mobile phones. In nearby Jordan, a similarly large gap
is seen.
In 10 of the 11 countries surveyed, people who are
comfortable discussing politics on their mobile phones are more likely
to say mobile phones have had a good influence on politics. In the
Philippines, for example, a majority of mobile users who are comfortable
discussing politics on their phone (57%) say these devices have had a
good influence on politics, compared with just 42% of those who are
uncomfortable talking about politics on their phone.
Substantial variation across countries in people’s willingness to discuss political topics on social media
Country
to country, social media platform and messaging app users vary widely
in their comfort discussing political issues or news on social media.
6
Again, Filipino users (69%) are the most likely to say they would feel
comfortable discussing politics on social media. Majorities of users
also say they would be comfortable discussing politics on social media
in Vietnam, Kenya and India.
Jordanians,
Venezuelans and Colombians – who are the most likely to feel
uncomfortable talking about politics on mobile phones – also stand out
for their hesitancy to discuss politics on digital platforms. More than
six-in-ten social media users in these countries say they would not be
comfortable discussing politics on social media. A majority of Mexican
users (58%) also say they would be uncomfortable discussing political
news and issues on social media. Users in South Africa, Tunisia and
Lebanon are somewhat divided over whether they would be comfortable
discussing politics on social media platforms.
As was the case
with mobile phones, social media users are more likely to say they would
feel comfortable discussing politics face-to-face than on social media.
For example, 78% of Lebanese social media users say they would be
comfortable talking about political issues with someone in person, but
just 39% say they would be comfortable doing this on social media.
If
you express your political opinion on social media, it could impact
your work life. You might get in trouble for that. That’s why we prefer
to remain neutral.WOMAN, 29, TUNISIA
People who are comfortable
talking about politics on social media tend to feel more positively
about the internet’s impact on politics more broadly in nine of the 11
countries surveyed. And no matter the medium of conversation –
face-to-face, mobile phone or social media – people who identify with a
political party, younger people and those with higher levels of
education tend to feel more comfortable discussing political news and
issues (see
Appendix C for detailed tables).
78
Meanwhile, men in Colombia, Mexico, South Africa and Venezuela report
feeling more comfortable talking about politics than women, regardless
of the setting.
Majorities have not been surprised by someone’s political views on social media or blocked a person for political reasons
In
most countries, a minority of social media and messaging app users say
they have learned that someone’s political beliefs were different than
they originally thought because of something that person posted to
social media. Venezuelans and Kenyans stand out as the two publics where
around half of social media users say they have learned someone’s
political beliefs are different than they originally assumed. By
comparison, a
2016 survey
of U.S. adults found that half of social media users had been surprised
by someone’s political views based on their social media posts.
More-educated
social media users are more likely to say they have been surprised by
someone’s political views on social media. To a lesser degree, age and
gender play a role in some countries; younger social media users and
male users are more likely to have been surprised.
And in
Colombia, India, South Africa, Lebanon and Tunisia, people with partisan
identifications are more likely than those who say no party represents
them to say they have been surprised by someone’s political views on
social media. In six of the 11 countries, people who are comfortable
engaging in political discussions on social media are also more likely
to have been surprised by someone’s beliefs.
Meanwhile,
modest shares of social media and messaging app users (median of 34%)
say they have unfriended, blocked or hidden someone from their social
media feed because of their political views. Blocking another social
media user because of his or her political views is most common in the
Philippines (42% of users) – the country where users are most likely to
say they feel comfortable discussing politics via social media. And in
every country surveyed, people who say they’ve been surprised by
someone’s political views on social media are more likely to have
blocked someone. In Jordan, Lebanon, the Philippines and South Africa,
younger social media users (ages 18 to 29) are more likely than users 50
and older to have blocked someone because of their political views. In
five of the countries surveyed – and particularly in Jordan (by 18
percentage points) – male social media users are more likely to have
blocked people than female users. But in most countries, partisans are
no more likely than nonpartisans to have blocked someone.
One
of my colleagues at work shouted at me when I expressed my opinion. He
deleted me from Facebook because we do not have the same mentality.
WOMAN, 45, TUNISIA
Publics think technology impacts the political environment in both positive and negative ways
By
Aaron Smith,
Laura Silver,
Courtney Johnson,
Kyle Taylor and
Jingjing Jiang Beyond
their views of the personal impact of various technologies, publics in
these countries are divided over how the internet in general has
impacted politics in their societies. An 11-country median of 44% say
the increasing use of the internet has had a good impact on politics,
but 28% feel that impact has been largely bad – and this balance of
opinion is most negative in Tunisia, Jordan and Lebanon.
Adults
in these countries also feel access to technology has had a variety of
both positive and negative impacts on their fellow citizens. On the
positive side of the ledger, a median of 78% say access to the internet,
mobile phones and social media has made people more informed about
current events. And when asked about the impact of social media on the
broader political process, majorities in nine of these 11 countries say
they have increased the ability for ordinary citizens to take part in
the political process.
At the same time, an 11-country median of
72% say these technologies have made people easier to manipulate with
rumors and false information. And majorities in eight countries say
social media have increased the risk that citizens might be manipulated
by domestic politicians.
Mixed attitudes about the internet’s overall impact on politics
Adults in these countries express mixed views about the overall influence of the internet on politics. In
most countries,
larger shares say the internet has had a good impact on politics than
say the same about issues such as children or morality. But notably
smaller shares say the internet has had a good impact on politics than
say this about its effect on issues such as education, the economy or
local culture (for more, see the
first report in this series).
Adults
in these countries also make little distinction between the impact of
the internet and mobile phones when it comes to politics. Nearly
identical shares say the internet and mobile phones have had a good, bad
or negligible impact on politics.
People who themselves use the internet are somewhat more upbeat than non-users about its effect on politics.
9
And in most of these countries there are only modest to nonexistent
differences in attitudes between older and younger adults. But those who
describe social media as a very important source of political news for
them, personally, are more likely to say the internet has had a good
impact on politics relative to those who say social media are less
important, or to those who do not use social media at all.
Across
these 11 countries, public opinion about the internet’s impact on
politics is most negative in Jordan, Lebanon and Tunisia. In Lebanon,
nearly twice as many say the internet has had a bad (42%) rather than
good (23%) influence on politics. And in Jordan and Tunisia, the shares
saying the internet’s impact on politics has been good are comparable to
the shares saying it has been bad.
In addition to having a
comparably negative balance of sentiment relative to the other countries
in this survey, publics in these three countries have also turned
somewhat less upbeat in recent years in their assessments of the
internet’s impact on politics. From 2014 to 2018, the share of adults in
these countries saying the internet has had a good influence on
politics has declined by 11 percentage points in Jordan, 9 points in
Lebanon and 6 points in Tunisia. By contrast, sentiment in the other
seven countries for which trends are available either grew more positive
or stayed largely the same over that time. This positive shift has been
most pronounced in Mexico, South Africa and Venezuela.
Many think technology has made people better informed – but also easier to manipulate
When
asked about the impact of mobile phones, the internet and social media
on various political behaviors and attitudes, people in these nations
tend to express seemingly dual views of how technology has brought
“more” to society: that it has made people more informed, yet more
manipulatable; more divided, yet sometimes more accepting of others.
At
one level, publics in these countries believe that technology
simultaneously makes people more informed and more gullible. Majorities
in every country – and an 11-country median of 78% – say access to
technology has made people more informed about current events. At the
same time, majorities in every country except for Vietnam – and an
11-country median of 72% – say technology has made it easier to
manipulate people with false information and rumors.
We
become numb to the news, like the presidential campaigns in Mexico. A
term ago, we were struggling to get more political awareness, and now
everything is made a meme and laughed at. It defeats the purpose of the
internet.MAN, 28, MEXICO
The survey highlights similar tensions
over whether these technologies make people more divided or more
accepting of others. A median of 58% say access to mobile phones, the
internet and social media has made people more divided in their
political opinions. At the same time, a median of 52% say these
technologies have made people more accepting of those who have different
views than they do. And a median of 55% say they have generally made
people more willing to engage in political debates.
These
positive and negative views of technology’s impact on political
attitudes are often related. In 10 of the 11 countries surveyed, those
who believe technology has made people more informed are more likely
than others to say technology has also made people easier to manipulate.
Similarly, in most countries those who say technology has made
people more accepting of diverse viewpoints are simultaneously more
likely to say it has made people more divided in their political
opinions.
Through our mobile phones, since there is that
social media, it has really led to the spread of hatred and tribalism
amongst ourselves.MAN, 38, KENYA
These same costs and benefits
are visible when it comes to technology’s impact on political news and
discussion. For instance, people in these countries
overwhelmingly feel
mobile phones have improved people’s ability to obtain news. Yet an
11-country median of 64% say people should be very concerned about
exposure to false information when using their mobile devices.
People in some countries stand out for their views on the influence of technology on politics
Especially
large shares of Jordanians feel technology has made people more
receptive to most of the political impacts measured in the survey, and
this is especially true of the notion that technology makes people more
informed but also easier to manipulate. Around nine-in-ten Jordanians
say access to mobile phones, the internet and social media has made
people more informed about current events, but a similar share says this
access makes them more vulnerable to being manipulated with rumors and
false information. And roughly three-quarters of Jordanians say
technology has made people more divided in their political opinions, but
also more willing to engage in political debates.
By contrast,
Vietnamese adults are relatively likely to say access to these
technologies hasn’t changed much compared with those in the other
countries surveyed. One-third or more Vietnamese say these technologies
haven’t had much impact on people’s willingness to engage in political
debates (33%), how divided they are in their political opinions (35%) or
how accepting they are of those with different views (35%), while 26%
say they haven’t had much impact on how easy people are to manipulate.
In each instance, these represent the largest shares among the 11
countries surveyed.
Meanwhile, Mexicans stand out for their
assessment of the impact of technologies on people’s tolerance of
different viewpoints. Some 35% of Mexicans say technology has made
people more accepting of people who have different views than they do,
but a nearly identical share (36%) says technology has had a negative
impact in this regard. Younger Mexicans are especially likely to say
technologies have made people less tolerant to people who hold different
views: 41% hold this view, compared with 30% of Mexicans ages 50 and
older.
Social media users, those affiliated with a political party
and the more educated are more likely to see both positive and negative
political impacts of digital technologies
Certain groups are especially likely to cite both the positive and negative impacts of technology on political engagement.
For
example, social media users are more likely than non-users to say
technology has made people more informed about current events in all 11
countries surveyed; more accepting of people with different views in
eight countries; and more willing to engage in political debates in nine
countries.
10
At the same time, in nine countries a larger share of users say
technology is making people more divided in their political opinions –
and in 10 countries a larger share of social media users say technology
is making people easier to mislead with misinformation (see
Appendix C for detailed tables).
These attitudes also vary by education level.
11
Across all 11 countries, adults with a secondary education or higher
are more likely to say technology has made people more informed about
current events relative to those who do not have a secondary education.
And in nine countries, adults with higher levels of educational
attainment are more inclined to say technology has made people more
subject to false information and rumors.
Meanwhile, adults with
higher levels of educational attainment are more likely to say
technology has contributed to both political divisions and tolerance of
opposing viewpoints in seven of these countries (Colombia, India, Kenya,
Lebanon, the Philippines, Tunisia and Vietnam).
In eight of the
nine countries for which partisan information is available, those who
have a partisan affiliation are somewhat more likely than those who
don’t identify with any particular party to say technology has made
people more willing to engage in political debate.
12
And in five of those countries, those with a partisan affiliation are
more likely to say access to technology has made people more divided in
their political opinions. But in most countries, similar shares of the
affiliated and unaffiliated say technology has made people more
informed, more accepting of those with different viewpoints and more
susceptible to misinformation.
13 Lastly,
social media users’ assessments of the impact of technology on
political attitudes are somewhat related to whether they view social
media as an important news source. In seven out of the 11 countries,
those who say social media are a very important news source for them to
get political news and information are more likely than users who do not
think social media are as important to say technology has made people
more informed about news and current events.
Social media seen to confer benefits – but also risks – on the overall political process
When
asked about different impacts social media have had on their country’s
political process, publics in these countries are more likely than not
to say social media offer new avenues for political engagement. A median
of 57% – and majorities in every country except for Vietnam and India –
say social media have increased the ability for ordinary people in
their country to have a meaningful voice in the political process. And a
median of 53% say these platforms have increased the ability of
nongovernmental organizations to promote their causes.
But these
perceived benefits from social media are matched with perceived costs.
An 11-country median of 65% say social media have increased the risk
that people in their country might be manipulated by domestic
politicians. And when asked whether these platforms might facilitate
foreign interference in their country’s elections, a median of 55% say
these platforms have indeed increased this risk – although a median of
27% feel they have not had much effect either way.
Now it is
much easier for our countrymen to know about the plans of our
government for our OFW [Overseas Filipino Workers].WOMAN, 48,
PHILIPPINES
Among those who use social media, there are only
minimal differences between the views of younger (ages 18 to 29) and
older adults (those ages 50+) on these questions. However, there are
some differences based on how extensively people rely on these platforms
for information. In most countries, those who say social media are a
very important news source are more likely to say these platforms have
increased ordinary people’s ability to have a meaningful voice in
politics, and that they have helped nongovernmental groups to promote
their causes. At the same time, in seven countries this group is also
more likely to say these platforms have increased the risk of people
being manipulated by domestic politicians, compared with users who do
not see social media as a very important source of information.
In several countries, sizable shares say they do not know how these platforms have impacted the broader political system
These
questions were asked of all adults – regardless of whether they
themselves use social media platforms or not. And in several of these
countries, sizable shares of those who do not use any social media
platforms are unable to offer an opinion on how social media have
impacted these aspects of the political process. This is especially true
in Jordan, Lebanon, India and Vietnam. Among people in these countries
who do not use social media, as many as 21% of Vietnamese, 34% of
Jordanians, 41% of Lebanese and 51% of Indians either do not know the
answer to these individual questions or refused to offer a guess.
Similarly,
demographic groups who use social media at low rates (such as older
adults or those with lower levels of education) are often more likely to
say they do not know how social media have impacted these elements of
the political process.
Voters
in Henderson, Nevada, on Election Day 2018. More than half of women who
were eligible to vote cast ballots in the midterms. (Ethan Miller/Getty
Images) 
As
has been the case in the last five midterm elections dating back to
1998, women turned out to vote at slightly higher rates than men. Over
half of women (55%) who were eligible to vote cast ballots in the 2018
midterms in November, as did 51.8% of men, according to a Pew Research
Center analysis of newly released data from the U.S. Census Bureau. 
The
increases in turnout among older adults were more modest. About
two-thirds (66.1%) of eligible adults 65 and older cast a ballot in the
2018 midterm – up from 59.4% in the 2014 midterm election. Those ages 55
to 64 increased their turnout rate by 7.8 percentage points. Older age
groups continued to be much more likely than younger groups to vote in
the midterms. 
As
in 2014, the only age group where turnout was higher for men than women
was among adults ages 65 and older (67.9% vs. 64.7%). 
