• Abstract

    This article explores social networks' theoretical underpinnings and real-world impacts on public administration, law enforcement, and judicial power. It uses netocracy institutionalism to evaluate social networks' diverse effects and the necessity for fresh conceptual frameworks to grasp the intricacies of modern communication societies. The study employs a methodical strategy, incorporating theories such as netocracy, e-government, and legal field theory, as well as concepts about internet communications and information society. It employs structural-functional, institutional, and interdisciplinary methodologies to examine the impact of social networks on public policy and contemporary political communication. Given the increasing reliance on information and communication technologies, social media platforms have become crucial in contemporary public administration. The concept of e-government encompasses various activities facilitated by these technologies, such as service provision, information dissemination, public procurement, and more. A broader e-government perspective emphasises transforming internal and external interactions to optimise management and improve public services, ultimately fostering electronic democracy. Netocratic public management underscores the importance of transparency, collaboration, and public participation in decision-making processes, aligning with the principles of an information-driven society. Netocracy, which consists of a technologically proficient elite, exerts influence and shapes public consciousness and behaviour through advanced communication skills in the digital domain. The research underscores the rising significance of social networks in contemporary governance as netocracy gains prominence as a formidable and impactful entity in the digital age. It also emphasises the necessity for fresh social frameworks and ideas to comprehend the intricacies of present-day communication societies. Within this context, social networks have transformed into vital tools for facilitating communication between authorities and the public, offering numerous channels for interaction and engagement.

  • References

    1. Bard, A., & Soderqvist, J. (2002). Netocracy: The New Power Elite and Life After Capitalism. FT Press.
    2. Bondarenko, S., Makeieva, O., Usachenko, O., Veklych, V., Arifkhodzhaieva, T., & Lernyk, S. (2022). The legal mechanisms for information security in the context of digitalization. Journal of Information Technology Management, 14, 25-58. https://doi.org/10.22059/jitm.2022.88868
    3. Bonson, E., Ratkai, M., & Royo, S. (2015). Citizens’ engagement on local governments Facebook Sites. An empirical analysis: The impact of different media and content types in Western Europe. Government Information Quarterly, 32(1), 52-62.
    4. Bourgon, J. (2011). A New Synthesis of Public Administration: Serving in the 21st Century. Queen’s School of Policy Studies.
    5. Cabinet Office (2014). Social Media Guidance for Civil Servants: October 2014. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-media-guidance-forcivil-servants/ social-media-guidance-for-civil-servants Accessed: March 28, 2024.
    6. Criado, J. V. (2020). Delivering public services through social media in European local governments. An interpretative framework using semantic algorithms. Local Government Studies, 47(2), 253-275. https://doi.org/10.1080/030 03930.2020.1729750
    7. Daxton, S. (2016). Social Media and the Law. A guidebook for Communication Students and Professionals. Routledge.
    8. Fang, Z. (2002). E-Government in Digital Era: Concept, Practice, and Development. International Journal of the Computer, the Internet and Management, 10, 1-22.
    9. Garcia, R., Hoffmeister, T. (2022). Social Media Law in a Nutshell (Nutshells). West Academic Publishing.
    10. Gómez Díaz de León, C., & de la Garza-Montemayor, D. J. (2023). Social networks and public administration: The challenges and opportunities of governments in the era of digital communication. Universitas XX1 (39), 79-101. https://doi.org/10.17163/uni.n39.2023.04
    11. Graves, L., Glisson, W., & Choo, K. (2020). LinkedLegal: Investigating social media as evidence in courtrooms. Computer Law & Security Law, 38, 105408.
    12. Hoffmeister, T. (2014). Social Media in the Courtroom: A New Era for Criminal Justice? Praeger.
    13. Houser, K. (2022). Legal Guide to Social-Media, Second Edition: Rights and Risks for Businesses, Entrepreneurs, and Influencers. Allworth.
    14. Hubanova, T., Shchokin, R., Hubanov, O., Antonov, V., Slobodianiuk, P., & Podolyaka, S. (2021). Information technologies in improving crime prevention mechanisms in the border regions of Southern Ukraine. Journal of Information Technology Management, 13, 75-90. https://doi.org/10.22059/JITM.2021.80738
    15. Janoski-Haehlen, E. M. (2011). The Courts Are All A ‘Twitter’: The Implications of Social Media Use in the Courts. Val. U. L. Rev., 46(43).
    16. Johnston, J. (2017). Courts’ Use of Social Media: A Community of Practice Model. International Journal of Communication, 11, 669-683.
    17. Klang, M., & Nolin, J. (2011). Disciplining Social-Media: An Analysis of Social Media Policies in 26 Swedish Municipalities. First Monday, 16(8). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v16i8.3490
    18. Koliba, C., Meek, J., & Zia, A. (2018). Governance Networks in Public Administration and Public Policy. Routledge.
    19. Kumar, S., & Yadav, S. K. (2023). The Role of Social Entrepreneurship in Addressing Global Social Challenges. Journal of Law and Sustainable Development, 11(6), e1190. https://doi.org/10.55908/sdgs.v11i6.1190
    20. Lipschultz, J. H. (2021). Social Media Law and Ethics. Routledge.
    21. Liu, S. (2011). Changes in Power Structure in the Network Era. Jianghuai Tribune, 5, 15-19.
    22. Luttrell, R., & Wallace, A. (2021). Social Media and Society: An Introduction to the Mass Media Landscape. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
    23. Lytvyn, N., Andrushchenko, H., Zozulya, Y. V., Nikanorova, O. V., & Rusal, L. M. (2022). Enforcement of court decisions as a social guarantee of protection of citizens rights and freedoms. Prawo i Wiez, 2022(39), 80-102. https://doi.org/10.36128/priw.vi39.351
    24. Mangan, D., & Gillies, L. (2017). The legal challenges of social media. Edward Elgar Publishing.
    25. Manoharan, A. P., Ingrams, A., Kang, D., & Zhao, H. (2021). Globalization and worldwide best practices in e-government. International Journal of Public Administration, 44(6), 465-476.
    26. Margretts, H., John, P., Hale, S., & Yasseri, T. (2015). Political Turbulence: How Social Media Shape Collective Action. Princeton University Press.
    27. McDonagh, J. A. (2005). Strategic advisory note on “e-governmen” and the challenge of change in public sector management. Bratislava: UNDP Bra tislava Regional Centre.
    28. McQuiston, J., & Manoharan, A. P. (2021). E-Government and information technology coursework in public administration programs in Asia. Teaching Public Administration, 39(2), 210-226.
    29. Mergel, I. (2013). A Framework for Interpreting Social Media Interactions in the Public Sector. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 327-334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.05.015
    30. Mergel, I., & Bretschneider, S. (2013). A Three-Stage Adoption Process for Social Media Use in Government. Public Administration Review, 73, 390-400.
    31. Mergel, I., Ganapati, S., & Whitford, A. B. (2020). Agile: A new way of governing. Public Administration Review, 81(1), 161-165.
    32. Mulska, O., Vasyltsiv, T., Shushkova, Y., Kloba, L., & Parfenyuk, Y. (2022). Assessment of the population’s social resilience environment (the case of the carpathian region of Ukraine). Problems and Perspectives in Management, 20(1), 407-421. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.20(1).2022.33
    33. Pautrut, B. (2014). Political power of social media. Springer.
    34. Pew, N. (2015). Social Media and the Dynamics of Political Campaigns: A Case Study. Journal of Political Marketing, 14(1-2), 1-22.
    35. Pew, N. (2017). The New Digital Landscape: Politics and the Role of Social Media. In: Handbook of Research on Political Activism in the Information Age (pp. 135-156). IGI Global.
    36. Pew, N. (2020). Online Political Communication and Social-Media: An Analysis of the 2020 US Presidential Election. Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM), 1041-1042.
    37. Prylipko, S., Vasylieva, N., Shatirishvili, D., and Vasylieva, O. (2020). Public Administration of Municipal Transport in the Capital of Ukraine Based on the Client-Oriented Paradigm. Public Policy and Administration, 19(4), 129–141. https://doi.org/10.13165/VPA-20-19-4-09
    38. Reale, G. (2014). Opportunities and differences of open government data policies in Europe. Athens Journal of Social Sciences, 1(3), 195-206.
    39. Schoeller-Schletter, A. (2022). Impartiality of Judges and Social-Media. Konrad Adenauer Stiftung.
    40. Semenets-Orlova, I., Shevchuk, R., Plish, B., Grydiushko, I., & Maistrenko, K. (2022). Innovative approaches to development of human potential in modern public administration. Economic Affairs (New Delhi), 67(4), 915-926. https://doi.org/10.46852/0424-2513.4s.2022.25
    41. Shchokin, R., Soloviov, O., & Tantsiura, I. (2023). The Role of Public Administration in Ensuring State Security: Strategies and Mechanisms of Implementation. Journal of Law and Sustainable Development, 11(8), e1521.https://doi.org/10.55908/sdgs.v11i8.1521
    42. Storozhenko, L. H. (2023). Netocratic vector of formation of public administration in the information society. Modernization of the system of public management and administration in Ukraine: The experience of the Republic of Latvia. Baltija Publishing.
    43. Swann, P. (2019). Cases in Public Relations Management: The Rise of Social-Media and Activism. Routledge.
    44. Tufekci, Z. (2015). Algorithmic harms beyond Facebook and Google: Emergent challenges of computational agency. Colorado Technology Law Journal, 13(2), 203-217.
    45. Tufekci, Z. (2019). We’re building a dystopia just to make people click on ads. TED Talk. Available at: https://www.ted.com/talks/zeynep_tufekci_we_re_building_a_dystopia_just_to_make_people_click_on_ads?language=en Accessed: March 28, 2024.
    46. United States Office of Government Ethics (2016). The Standards of Conduct as Applied to Personal Social Media Use. Available at: https://www.oge.gov/web/oge.nsf/Resources/LA-15-03:+The+Standards+of+Conduct+as+Applied+to+Personal+Social+Media+Use Accessed: March 28, 2024.
    47. Ure, M. (2019). Social Media use in Justice Administration: disintermediation, conversation and collaboration. Global Media Journal, 17(32), 172.
    48. Villodre, J. (2020). Redes sociales (en las administraciones públicas). EUNOMÍA. Revista en Cultura de la Legalidad, 19, 375-390.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2024 The Authors

How to cite

Vasylchyshyn, O., Storozhenko, L., Babkova, T., Kuchmenko, V., & Kovalchuk, V. (2024). Social media as a factor in the transformation of public administration, justice and legality. Multidisciplinary Reviews, 7, 2024spe039. https://doi.org/10.31893/multirev.2024spe039
  • Article viewed - 70
  • PDF downloaded - 30