Commentary | Surachanee Sriyai, "Welcome to the Clubhouse?:" The Digital Ailments of Democratization in Thailand
As Thailand has been gripped by student protests over the last few months, the social media platform Clubhouse has attracted thousands of new users among Thai youths and political enthusiasts alike seeking to virtually create or join ongoing discussions, and even those gathered to “stay silent together.” Without a doubt, one reason for Clubhouse’s sudden popularity in Thailand has been due to the hosting of politically charged chatroom discussions by Thai “political celebs” like Pavin Chachavalpongpun, who joined the app and hosted sessions about the Thai monarchy. Other political influencers soon also flocked the app, such as Pannika Wanich, Piyabutr Saengkanokkul, Parit “Itim” Wacharasindhu, and Thaksin Shinawatra, who joined under the pseudonym of Tony Woodsome.
The vibrant political discourse on Clubhouse provides a glimpse of hope for Thailand against the background of a tumultuous political situation—from the police cracking down on protestors to the leading activists being arrested and charged with lèse-majesté allegations. This audio-based mobile application allows people to speak the unspeakable and interact with political actors who would otherwise remain, for the most part, unreachable. However, if one were to look past the first layer of enthusiasm and dig a bit deeper, they will discover that Clubhouse is afflicted by the same ailments plaguing other social media platforms: the digital divide, the echo chamber effect, and slacktivism—all of which could potentially be counterproductive to the development of democracy in Thailand. If Clubhouse is to be a force for democratization, users must be aware of these drawbacks and make conscious efforts to ensure that the club of democracy in Thailand welcomes and admits all.
“If Clubhouse is to be a force for democratization, users must be aware of these drawbacks and make conscious efforts to ensure that the club of democracy in Thailand welcomes and admits all.”
While Clubhouse’s developers promote the app as an unobstructed place where “people around the world come together to talk, listen and learn from each other in real-time,” in fact, both the application’s availability solely on Apple phones and its current “by-invitation-only” subscription process reinforce a sharp digital divide by effectively excluding the majority of Thai mobile users. Statista’s report on monthly market share of mobile operating systems (OS) in Thailand from 2017-2020, for example, shows that Android is the most popular operating system among Thais, clocking in at a consistent average of 70%+ market share since 2017, rather than Apple IOs. Since Clubhouse is not available on Android phones, this means that as many as 70% of the Thai population are unable to participate in ongoing debates about the future of their nation on the app. While this is only a mild case of digital divide, one may argue, since the developers plan to expand access to the application, the limited access is undeniably adding salt to the wound of the preexisting digital cleavage between the rural and urban areas of Thailand.
On paper, Thailand is one of the most digitally well-connected countries in ASEAN, with as many as 48.59 million internet users (69.5% of the population) as of the beginning of 2021. Yet, this is in contrast to Thailand’s urbanization rate of 51.8% (Kemp, 2021), which is below the global average of 55%, meaning that most Thai internet users reside in more densely-populated metropolitan areas like Bangkok and other regional big cities. The consequences of this digital divide have already been apparent time and time again when the government rolled out several stimulus packages to boost the economy amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, from Chim-Shop-Chai (lit. translation: “Taste-Shop-Spend”) to Kon La Krueng (lit. translation: “Splitting the bill”) and Rao Cha Na (lit. translation: “We Win”). Because each of these campaigns required people to sign up through a government-made mobile app, Pao Tung (lit. translation: “Coin Purse”), those most affected by the economic downturn have been unable to benefit from the policies since they lack access to a smartphone (Wangkiat, 2020).
Quite frankly, are we really having productive and robust political discussions when only a handful of people can access and participate? To note, there have been some recent efforts from the government to reach out to Clubhousers, using it as a platform to clarify some pressing issues such as the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. The fact that they communicate with the public via this application rather than traditional channels shows the government’s desire to be trendy and perhaps appeal to younger people. However, it also widens the information gap between users and non-users, who are, by the way, the majority.
To make matters worse, the nature of how Clubhouse works further worsens the echo chamber effect — a situation in which one develops a cognitive bias from continuously consuming information that aligns with his/her preexisting beliefs. The echo chamber effect is problematic because individuals are more likely to believe the information that fits with their prior beliefs without much verification, especially when the information comes from people in their circle or the so-called “filter bubble,” as a study about fake news during the 2016 US presidential election by Allcott, Hunt, and Matthew Gentzkow found. The echo chamber resonates even worse on Clubhouse, for a number of reasons:
First, from my observation, Clubhouse users in Thailand tend to be young adults and/or those with pro-democracy political stances. The conversations they engage in, naturally, revolve around anti-establishment sentiments, as indicated by the titles of many of the chatrooms, such as “Vajiralongkorn and Australia” hosted by Pavin Chachavalpongpun, and “The Next Step to the New Constitution after the Verdicts of the Constitutional Court” hosted by Piyabutr Saengkanokkul and Parit “Itim” Wacharasindhu, along with sarcastically named chatrooms like “Thailand, a country of which everybody is envious” and “We are here to sincerely praise the government.”
Secondly, like other social media platforms, the purpose of Clubhouse is to gather and connect like-minded individuals. Towards this end, Clubhouse’s algorithms and suggestion system show users the chatrooms that people in their circle are listening to in order to generate more engagement on the platform. This allows people to selectively expose themselves to certain information just based on the name of the chatroom. From the get go, they can expect what they will hear when entering the room. Then, once they are there as a listener, as most are, it is up to the host(s)’ discretion whether a person gets to speak. In this way, Clubhouse chatrooms are intrinsically made to limit opposing opinions – not to mention it is already in human psyche to conform to the surroundings in fear of being rejected (Chater, 2019). Even if one were to disagree with the speakers, he may just prefer to sit back and listen or opt to “leave the room quietly.”
Finally, the podcast-like features of Clubhouse make it difficult to verify either the identity of the speakers in the room or the information they share; and speakers hardly ever cite their sources. Sarinee Achavanuntakul, a writer and social critic, called attention to this point, noting that Clubhouse “caters to gossip-style discussions among people,” in an interview with the Bangkok Post. To be clear, the Thai government’s performance leaves a lot to be desired for the people and is deserving of criticism. But my concern is when politics mix with gossip and rumour, making discussions one-sided and leaving the information unverified. Overall, the potential echo chamber effect and selective exposure to certain information on the application could result in polarization in political views and lower political tolerance—things that are counterproductive to constructive political debates among different groups and, ultimately, to the principle of deliberative democracy.
The final ail of Clubhouse lies in its contribution to slacktivism. Once again, this is not a unique phenomenon; slacktivism has existed alongside the advent of the internet into the realm of social movement, raising the question of what exactly is being accomplished when very little thought or effort is required to express opinions and concerns about political or social issues online (Gladwell, 2011; Morozov, 2012). Then, why is it important to mention it now? You see, Thailand is in a politically precarious situation right now. While social network platforms, including Clubhouse, are great for creating awareness, the last thing we need right now are more slacktivists who believe that they are a part of the change while doing nothing more than tapping on their mobile devices. Several users of Clubhouse have even described the platform to me as a mini protest stage, and admitted that they see less need to join the protests when they can get similar information (and maybe more) online without risking their wellbeing on the streets. This is particularly important because it indicates that the value of traditional, on-the-ground activism may be diluted by people having access to information online, despite the fact that empirical evidence tends to point to the ineffectiveness of digital activism in many countries around the world, including the Arab Spring of 2010 and the Hong Kong protests in 2019.
Although it is also arguable that discussions and information that individuals get from pro-democracy chatrooms may motivate and mobilize them to act and participate in on-the-ground activities, the flipside is also possible. That is, talking about politics among like-minded people may make individuals experience an episodic reprieve from discontentment. To this end, studies have found that venting to supportive listeners (in this case, those who think alike) can make you feel better about your emotional experience (Nils and Rimé, 2012). Thus, by participating in online activism, one may be paradoxically deterred from going out into the streets, too.
In summary, while Clubhouse is indeed an exciting and creative innovation for community-building in the digitized era, it should be treated just as any other social network platforms, be it Facebook or Twitter and the like: with a grain of salt. Its rapid surge in popularity among Thai youths and pro-democracy figures deserve enthusiasm, but it is crucial to understand its inherent shortcomings and potential implications for the future of political discussion and participation. To truly capitalize on the possibilities Clubhouse has brought to the table, we must remain vigilant and not get too carried away by the lure of dis/misinformation disguised in the form of sensationalized gossip. Even when we are speaking the unspeakable, reaching the unreachable (or listening for most of us), we must think about whether that information is truly beneficial to the construction of vibrant political discourse, or discord, in Thailand.
Dr. Surachanee Sriyai is a lecturer in the Faculty of Political Science at Chulalongkorn University. Her research interests include digital politics, political communication, comparative politics, and democratization.
To cite this essay, please use the suggested entry below:
Surachanee Sriyai, "Welcome to the Clubhouse?:" The Digital Ailments of Democratization in Thailand,” criticalasianstudies.org Commentary Board, April 5, 2021; https://doi.org/10.52698/TOXJ5474.