CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW It is assumed that the existence of cyberspace poses a threat to authoritarian regimes. However, scholarship has provided little evidence for this. Many scholars argue that authoritarian regimes treat cyberspace with suspicion and act to repress it, particularly and predictably targeting political and social mobilization against their own aims (Lynch, 2011; Ruijgrok, 2016; Benkler, 2006; Greitens, 2013). The space that the internet provides for opposition to authoritarianism to grow, needs to therefore be balanced against the tools available to such regimes to shut down this space, and also the ways in which such regimes can use the internet to promote their own selective view of the world. In a democratic society, FoE opens avenues for free discussion of issues and plays an important role in the shaping of public opinion on social, political, and economic matters. The internet has evolved into a public sphere as a platform for free expression, albeit heavily controlled by the algorithms of social media platforms, which curate the content for each of us to maximize advertising revenue. Nonetheless, social media has undoubtedly extended the possibilities 16 available to citizens to monitor and respond to government action and public policies (Momen, Myth and Reality of Freedom of Expression on the Internet, 2019) . Underscoring the duality of FoE both as an individual and a collective culture, Balikn (2004) portrays digital technologies as a participatory feature of FoE and argues that the development in technology, including the internet, promotes a culture of democracy and nurtures FoE with additional traits such as interactivity, appropriative mass participation, non-exclusivity and creative transformation. Balkin elaborates that it is due to the high volume of distribution and transmission among diverse segments of society that expression becomes democratized. With the rise of digital social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, the free-expression rules-of-the-game have been transformed in some ways. For instance, historically, FoE norms assumed that network providers are legally responsible for their content, these conditions do not necessary apply in cyberspace (John, 2019). While some argue that unlike traditional media, FoE in cyberspace is interactive and provides everyone (among internet users) with almost equal opportunities to express themselves, the notion of equal opportunities is a false portrayal because several factors including access to internet, digital literacy, and self-censorship perpetuates inequalities – not to mention the afore-mentioned tendency of social media platforms to amplify contentious interactions – because they generate more clicks and thus more revenue. Cyberspace serves as an instigator for media plurality due to the availability of multiple platforms and accessibility to media content. This does, however, need to be balanced against the threat the internet has posed to traditional media outlets, and particularly revenue-generating opportunities for long-form content creation such as investigative journalism – not that consumer expectations are often for free content. Nonetheless, greater media plurality ensures widespread dissemination of diverse opinions and information and supports the effective functioning of a democratic society. The dramatic increase in media platforms since 2012 has