2020
DOI: 10.1177/1940161220909741
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Relatively Democratic: How Perceived Internet Interference Shapes Attitudes about Democracy

Abstract: Individuals’ political internet use has been identified as a determinant of democratic attitudes. But awareness of online government surveillance and content restrictions may prohibit citizens from freely using the internet for democratic socialization. Using a comparative survey in the United States and Russia, this study explores how perceived internet freedom influences support for democracy by relatively constraining or expanding citizens’ worldviews. Implications for global democratic backsliding… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 54 publications
(57 reference statements)
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We know much less about digital media use in non‐democracies. In authoritarian countries with digital repressions, government information censorship, and surveillance, the Internet may not be an effective tool for closing the information gap or providing equal access to information (Morozov 2011; Stoycheff 2020). Authoritarian governments often use digital information tools for economic development, dissemination of propaganda, disinformation, or entertainment to distract the public attention away from politics (King, Pan and Roberts 2013; Morozov 2011; Tufekci 2017) or to reduce censorship awareness and demand for uncensored information (Roberts 2020).…”
Section: Social Media Use and Political Regime Typesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We know much less about digital media use in non‐democracies. In authoritarian countries with digital repressions, government information censorship, and surveillance, the Internet may not be an effective tool for closing the information gap or providing equal access to information (Morozov 2011; Stoycheff 2020). Authoritarian governments often use digital information tools for economic development, dissemination of propaganda, disinformation, or entertainment to distract the public attention away from politics (King, Pan and Roberts 2013; Morozov 2011; Tufekci 2017) or to reduce censorship awareness and demand for uncensored information (Roberts 2020).…”
Section: Social Media Use and Political Regime Typesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Yet the cultural and economic diversity of the various national contexts complicates how these abstract principles are perceived. On the one hand, scholars have argued that it is possible to design multi-level models that demonstrate the complex relationship between the level of democratisation, internet use and internet penetration (Nisbet et al, 2012) although there may be discrepancies between perceived and actual levels of internet freedom (Stoycheff, 2020). On the other hand, opinion research involving internet users (Internet Society, 2012;Pew Research Center, 2014) suggests that demand for internet freedom is itself a function of internet use and digital literacy.…”
Section: Section 3 a Brief History Of Defining Internet Freedommentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Mass electorates are increasingly concerned with the spread of misinformation and disinformation (as documented in this special issue by Koc-Michalska et al 2020), to the point that many doubt whether news can be trusted, question whether truth can be discerned in public debate, or withdraw from the news altogether to stay out of trouble (Vaccari and Chadwick 2020). This may have detrimental effects on satisfaction for democracy and belief in the legitimacy of this complex project (as highlighted in this special issue by Stoycheff 2020). And today, as the world reels amid a global pandemic, the value of quality information has taken on new salience and the vulnerability of some sectors of our media ecosystems and of our societies have been exposed in unprecedented ways.…”
Section: Caught Off Guardmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Russia and the United States are also the focus of Stoycheff’s (2020) contribution, which addresses another potential source of democratic threats—the state itself, insofar as it engages in online mass surveillance and restricts the free flow of information on the Internet. Stoycheff investigates how citizens’ perceptions of state interference with Internet freedom predict the extent to which, and the democratic implications of, citizens’ engagement in what she terms “deliberative internet use,” defined following Bailard (2014) as the combination of “mirror holding” (seeking critical information on government) and “window opening” (consulting global metrics to assess government’s performance).…”
Section: Clarifying Challenges Assessing Solutions: This Special Issuementioning
confidence: 99%