Social Media’s Effects on Policing in Marginalized Communities.

Essays | Pragya Potluri | August 30th, 2024.

In 2020, George Floyd, an innocent Black man, was brutally murdered at the hands of the police. According to Jozie Nummi, Assistant Professor of Sociology at Bemidji State University, and her colleagues, this injustice sparked a modern social media movement – Black Lives Matter (BLM) – which exposed a growing trend of racially targeted police violence in the United States (1050). As part of the BLM movement, millions of African Americans and BLM allies took to social media to share their perspectives, condemning the racial disparities plaguing the nation. Since these historic protests, marginalized groups, including women, people with disabilities, people of color, LGBTQ+ individuals, and those of lower socioeconomic status, have found a voice and community through social media. This approach to social change – through social media – is relatively new, and its consequences are still being explored. Law enforcement agencies are also responding to the changes brought about by social media. They are expanding their jurisdiction to various platforms, monitoring activities and incidents that occur on them. This begs the question: how does the use of social media impact interactions between marginalized communities and law enforcement agencies within the United States? Due to the generalization of police abuse and misconduct, the rise of digital vigilantism, and the increasing surveillance of activists and rallies facilitated by social media, social media has harmed interactions between marginalized communities and law enforcement, perpetuating systems of oppression rather than ameliorating them. Therefore, steps should be taken to regulate law enforcement’s use of social media by expanding legislation on the matter.

Social media has damaged marginalized communities’ perceptions of law enforcement and police work by magnifying anecdotes of police misconduct and abuse, reaffirming race-based violence. Brittany N. Fox-Williams, Ph.D. in Sociology and M.P.A. in Urban Policy from Columbia University, agrees with this, observing in her study that many African American youth respondents perceive social media as a “constant barrage of videos and images of police violence against black citizens” (133). Ronald Weitzer, Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of California, Berkeley, and Steven A. Tuch, Ph.D. from Penn State University, reinforce this perspective, asserting that when people are often exposed to social media, they “typically believe that police abuse is rampant” (309). However, they also acknowledge that while social media may sensationalize incidents of police brutality, “most blacks and Hispanics, like many whites, want law enforcement amplified, though they want it achieved in a fashion that reduces abuses” (Weitzer and Tuch 306-307). While this may be true, Monica C. Bell, Professor of Law and Associate Professor of Sociology at Yale University, combats this idea, arguing that social media is creating a “new form of race-based posttraumatic stress” (2017), resulting in “undesirable behavior [from marginalized communities] such as avoiding the police, refusing to call on them for help, or engaging in law-breaking activity” (2108-2109). As a result, marginalized communities and their fears of law enforcement are valid and are exacerbated by social media. When social media posts depicting police violence and misconduct, particularly towards marginalized communities, become viral, reaching large audiences, animosity between marginalized communities and law enforcement is increased. Thus, while marginalized communities want better law enforcement, social media has created adverse perceptions of law enforcement’s role in community safety, negatively influencing marginalized communities to resist efforts to patch existing social divides.

Complicating matters further, social media has been misused by both law enforcement and marginalized communities, resulting in dangerous outcomes. Aaron M. Cantú, a journalist and a former Lannan Foundation Fellow, highlights how law enforcement fails to wield social media platforms indiscriminately. He calls out the Dallas Police Department, even though it is hailed  “as a model for savvy and engaged social media usage,” being “the first U.S. police department to hire a full-time social media strategist” (Cantú 27). Using social media, the Dallas PD asked the public for help finding a target, a Black man, but they posted incorrect pictures and information, leading to an innocent, unrelated person being bombarded by the public with online death threats; even when confronted about this cruel mistake, they refused to take down the post (Cantú 27). Julie B. Wiest, Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Tennessee, and her colleagues negate this issue, stating, “Policing agencies that formerly enjoyed near-automatic legitimacy for claims-making…must now compete with claims offered by anyone with a social media account” (276). People are now using social media to keep law enforcement agencies accountable and provide marginalized communities affected by police brutality and misconduct with visibility. However, according to Daniel Trottier, Ph.D. in Sociology from Queen’s University in Kingston, Canada, this may be just as harmful, as citizens have been using domesticated technologies for a parallel form of criminal justice (64). When citizens feel offended by others, they retaliate by ‘naming and shaming,’ ‘doxing,’ and harassing online (Trottier 56). Not all blame can be placed on law enforcement; marginalized communities have been bypassing the authority of law enforcement through social media. Gwendolyn Waters, a police captain in the San Bernardino Police Department, struggles with the defamation and malicious exposure of police officers, viewing the lack of repercussions online and the rise of mob mentality as significant threats to a police officer’s safety. This digital vigilantism blurs “boundaries between police and [the] public” and enacts “national identities and hegemonic cultural values through digital media” (Trottier 64). Such can result in “us/them” distinctions, leading to riot participation (Trottier 56). One recent example of this is the January 6th Capital riot, when police officers were harmed due to social media gathering and political outrage. While digital vigilantism efforts, held singularly through social media, aim for increased regulation of law enforcement in order to reduce instances of police violence, it has led to a rise in social and political extremism. Therefore, social media destabilizes the efficacy of law enforcement while putting marginalized communities at the front of a mob, negatively impacting both parties.

While social media can create progress between marginalized communities and law enforcement, behavior like what Trottier described has the power to cause social unrest, motivating law enforcement to carry out operations on social media platforms. Nicole A. Softness, currently the Research Assistant for Columbia University’s Initiative on the Future of Cyber Risk, highlights that “more than 80% of federal, state, and local law enforcement officials regularly [depend] on social media platforms as a means of intelligence” (32). Law enforcement organizations prioritize online predictive analysis as a way to identify behavioral trends (Softness 32). However, most social media platforms do not necessarily support this. Police surveillance of social media can help protect people, but more often it leads to discrimination, especially through predictive policing. Rachel Levinson-Waldman, managing director of the Brennan Center’s Liberty & National Security Program, disagrees with Softness, claiming that predictive policing targets activists and their protests based on information found online, rather than preventing actual organized crime. As a result, social media platforms have set a precedent where they form surveillance regulations for social media based on public opinion (Softness 36). For example, Twitter decided to “cut off access for Snaptrends and Media Sonar, social media monitoring tools, after Media Sonar tracked the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter to geolocate and identify activists for law enforcement” (Softness 35). Despite social media platforms’ efforts to prevent police from engaging in such activities, law enforcement’s attempts at surveillance, regardless of their intentions, have made marginalized communities untrusting of their operations to reduce crime.

Although the presence of social media in interactions between marginalized communities and law enforcement has done more harm than good, one positive is that it has brought contemporary ideas and representations of marginalized communities to the table. Marginalized individuals can make a difference by sharing their beliefs with millions, minimizing the prejudice affecting their everyday lives. Arianne E. Eason, Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Washington, and her colleagues elaborate that social media could reverse how “White American institutions and individuals have overwhelmingly created and defined prevalent representations of racial minority groups, including Native peoples” (71), undermining their “psychological well-being and hopes for future success” (75). For example, “interactions with law enforcement are more likely to end in the use of deadly force for Native Americans than for any other racial group relative to population size” (Eason 72). According to Melinda Janko, a distinguished journalist, Elouise Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet Tribe, witnessed firsthand how her people were oppressed. It took fifteen years for justice, but she did not give up advocating for them. Janko remarks, “What I do know is what kept her going: her passion for Fighting a historic wrong and her love for her people” (26). Similarly, social media can unite people, symbolizing courage and perseverance in the fight for equality. Through social media, Native Americans have spread photography and video campaigns that portray their contemporary culture, breaking down prejudices and stereotypes commonly associated with them (Eason 72). When exposed to the accurate belief systems of Native Americans, people begin to humanize these groups, including those in law enforcement. In a 2011 survey conducted by the Institute for Criminal Justice Education, Robert D. Stuart, an assistant chief agent at the Alabama Criminal Justice Information Center, elaborates on Eason’s point, finding that “over 78 percent of law enforcement respondents had a social media account. Of those, over 38 percent identified themselves on their profile as policing professionals.” Since many law enforcement officers have a social media presence, marginalized communities can use social media to force law enforcement to protect their natural rights.

However, regulation is crucial when ensuring that social media cannot be abused. One piece of legislation in the U.S. that could be amended to regulate some of the issues that social media has created between marginalized communities and law enforcement is the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). According to Orin S. Kerr, Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, the ECPA, enacted in 1986 by Congress, governs the privacy of computer network communications and “limits the government’s power to access a person’s communications and records” (375). Since the 1980s, network technologies have dramatically transformed, and as a result, the ECPA has become outdated. When the ECPA was drafted, electronic storage was costly and inaccessible (Kerr 376). Now that electronic storage has become commonplace, particularly on social media platforms, it raises concerns over privacy as there is nothing preventing law enforcement from surveilling stored records (Kerr 376). Levinson-Waldman agrees, suggesting that “Agencies that use social media monitoring in furtherance of their official missions should have publicly available policies that describe their practices and set out restrictions and oversight requirements.” Changing the ECPA to specifically address law enforcement’s use of social media could provide clearer guidelines on how they can monitor, collect, and use this data. For example, it could require law enforcement to obtain a warrant before accessing someone’s social media data. Additionally, it could establish limitations on the types of data that can be collected to prevent discriminatory practices. These social media protocols would allow law enforcement to conduct their criminal investigations and evaluate social media information but still protect marginalized communities from the profiling and targeting of constitutionally protected activity. Stuart agrees that these protections for individuals’ rights on social media would “reduce incidents of misuse by officers.” However, these efforts may face opposition from law enforcement agencies concerned about its impact on crime prevention and public safety. Issues with standardization across law enforcement agencies, which range from small-town police departments to federal agencies like the FBI, can complicate its implementation. Also, in lawmakers’ agendas, competing legislative priorities may take precedence over attempting to rework the ECPA. Despite the drawbacks, by updating the ECPA, lawmakers and law enforcement can demonstrate a commitment to addressing the needs and concerns of marginalized communities expressed through social media.