The Weaponization of Social Media

how effective social network media are perceived to be, also in countries
at peace, at informing the political discourse, and how governments try to
manage this challenge, even though it is practically unmanageable with
traditional means. The case also shows how the psychological, the economic
and the legal spheres merge and become one (hybrid) “battlefield” in,
through and over social network media.
An overall structural problem or challenge that faces regimes and
governments is that unless you can stop text from being uploaded in the
first place and potentially going viral or just being further disseminated
via, e.g., SMS or other social network media platforms, stopping it does
not really matter. Short of taking steps to taking down an entire network
(nation-wide), not just a website or social network media platform, once
something is out, it is out, and alternative approaches are needed to address
the challenges. 193 Approaches that require political choices.
POLITICAL CHOICES
As the discussion above in “the dictator’s dilemma” shows, oppressive
regimes and liberal democracies’ governments alike are faced with some
quite challenging political choices when it comes to handling the effects
created in and through social network media. On the one side, they
have to assess how much damage that comes from, or the effect of, the
“opposition’s” use of social network media. In the event that the threat is
assessed as sufficiently potent, they need to come up with ways of mitigating
the damaging effect(s). Now does this then become a question of closing
down access to the internet or parts of it, what is the legal basis for this?
And just as importantly, how does this impact the government’s legitimacy?
And also what are the operational losses? To which extent are the regime
or government themselves dependent on the internet to keep civil society
running or for maintaining security? If the consequences or negative effects
are assessed as being too severe, how does a regime or government then
deal with the challenges? Do they intensify monitoring and tracking of
internet traffic and social network media use and content, with possible
human rights or legal implications, or do they themselves actively engage
in the online conversations in order to mitigate the effects and compete
with the opposition and their narrative for the “hearts and minds” of the
audiences in question, either overtly or covertly? If a covert approach is, at
least partially, decided upon, how do they then deal with being exposed by,
e.g., an interest group, internet activists or a corporate entity? Regardless of
the legality of their actions, an exposure will impact their legitimacy and
107