Even if total inclusivity was trying to be attained by those in internet public spaces, the majority of modern forums are being “used as entertainment or personal expression rather than debate” (Poell). There indeed are few forums that participate in critical analysis and rational debates but the majority are seen to express emotional and irrelevant concerns that don’t contain any critical merit. Lets take the Kony 2012 video on Youtube for example. For many this film was a prime example of the media’s power and influence on the public. The short film was funded by Invisible Children to educate the world about Joseph Kony, an african war criminal. The video urged people to donate to the cause and to purchase wrist bands but didn’t encourage people to learn more about the situation. When scandal arose surrounding the video, much of the debate that leaked onto Youtube, consisted of irrational emotionally charged comments, lacking the critical rationality that could have potentially added to any sort of political progress. The majority of comments on Youtube are of profane nature, either consisting of non-constructive anonymous fighting or comments that don’t add to critical discussion at all. The media is so powerful and even though online public spaces strive to include all types of people in order to attain a critical objective truth, the tendency to not research more than what is being fed to you on the surface and the tendency of online communities to become exclusive, makes progressively inclusive online public spaces difficult to come by.

Please feel free to continue with any comments there.

In terms of Norah’s question about rational thought and discourse, vs. emotional and irreverent, I find myself disagreeing with both statements. On one hand, although mass media can seem more formal and rational compared to the seemingly emotional comments on facebook, Mass media has become too staged that I find it almost incomparable to online debates and discussions. As stated in the Dahlberg and Siapera reading, “Mass media are seen as largely isolating individuals and channeling them to media spectacles, publicity stunts, consumer advice, and discourses legitimating dominant ideologies.” I wonder what the presidential debate would look like if it took place only on a live online forum. I’m sure those comments and statements would seem much more emotional and irrational. That is not to say that those discussions on online forums are invalid, but on the contrary, I wonder given the chance for the average individual to cross over to the “rational” mass media side and become part of the discussion, if they would still use the same language as they do in their forums.

So it’s true, like Jesse stated in her comment, that in both realms of debate people put on costumes and act a part, create this alter-ego, so even more, how can that be an accurate description of the public domain? Face-to-face conversations between a comfortable group of individuals seems like a way more accurate description of when people will be most honest, least influenced by advertisements, and a wider variety of people will state their opinions. But I guess it’s a lot easier to make statistical data about online conversations than it is to make about face-to-face conversations between two comfortable individuals. There are obviously pros and cons to both types of debates (online vs. other) as it has been debated on for years now, but regardless, I do think that the lack of coffee houses and salon conversations and their importance has definite negative consequences.

1. On anonymity & the public sphere

A few of you (e.g., Max, Zachary) have pointed to the ways in which online anonymity allows people to hide and avoid responsibility for what they say. There are, however, online (open-source) platforms – wikis like Wikipedia, for instance – that provide detailed documentation of who did or said what, when, in response to what, etc. They would seem to allow the kind of “sourcing” that makes information on a web site traceable, verifiable, and thus more reliable.

Jesse, however, seems to suggest that there’s potential for greater inclusiveness “in a space where a person cannot be seen by their flesh, blood, and guts that profound [profane?] the hearts of what we are actually all united by” — i.e., that anonymity can sometimes be a great boon for those who would otherwise be shunned or be too shy to participate in group discussion.

Perhaps there’s a lesson here: sometimes something (like anonymity) can be a good thing, and other times it might not be. The task for us might be to design the kinds of online spaces that are most appropriate to what we want to accomplish.

Could all the discussion about the internet and the public sphere be similarly nuanced: i.e., might some forms of online communication genuinely contribute to the public discussion of political issues, while others (perhaps most) do not? What are the best sites for such broad public debate? (See, for instance, Open Democracy, Global Voices, and On the Commons – all linked to on the “Links” list above – for examples of sites that seem to be trying to do this.) How could we make them better at it?

And is there anything wrong with having some places where people with a particular perspective – say, Republicans as opposed to Democrats – would get together and carve out their commonalities and differences, and other places where people in a local area (and there are many neighborhood/community blogs and forums out there) could discuss issues across political lines? Weekly magazines have traditionally performed that function in this country (e.g., The Nation on the left, the National Review on the right). Newspapers continue to have that function in other countries: e.g., in the UK, everyone knows that The Telegraph and some of the tabloids will be more conservative/right, while the Guardian will be more liberal/left. Same with the main newspapers in France: Le Figaro on the right, Le Monde and Liberation on the left. It would seem that Fox News (right) and MSNBC (left) play a similar role among US television networks today.

Perhaps it’s more of a matter of balance. Are there trusted sites where everyone comes together to discuss issues of common concern? Might public radio/television perform that function again (as it was intended, and as it arguably does in some countries)? What’s lacking and how do we change that? (Lawrence Lessig, in his video talk “Republic Lost”, has some well developed arguments about that; see http://youtu.be/AxCo2bE9Gtk )

2. On environmental advocacy

Diego wrote:
” The viral media which enthralls so many people can be harnessed to make people more ecologically aware…. I think it has to do with Kahn and Kellner’s democratically active and aware individual harnessing medias of their choice to do so, and steering public discussion towards where they want to see it go….”

This makes me wonder about the relative value of doing this versus traditional means of environmental advocacy. Perhaps a useful project would be to compare the efficacy of media campaigns such as Diego described it. What would be a good way of measuring such efficacy?

3. On Dahlberg & Siapera’s 3 radical-democratic strands

Andrew suggests the internet “greatly supports and facilitates the autonomist strand and offers another means of ‘biopolitical production’ being a place of diverse opinions, perspectives, and representations where the user formulates their own view.” (Thanks, Andrew, for bringing the discussion back to those 3 perspectives.)
What do others think about the internet’s relation to those 3 strands?

If the producer is anonymous, their credibility cannot be interpreted and judged. Further, their anonymity may give them a feeling of freedom that will allow their emotional responses and unpolished sentiments seep through their ideas and saturate their language with a more vulgar tone than would be used in an actual conversation. As Poell’s study points out, the emotional and irrational themes of many online forums detract from their overall usefulness and credibility. However, the size of the forums he discussed were small and his sampling method was not clear or well thought out. Further, his data seemed rather anecdotal and a thorough study across a range of forum types and sizes was not conducted. This being said, I must disagree with the notion that forums are not influential to the “public sphere”.

Clearly, many people seeking information or other’s opinions on the internet are not trained researchers, journalists or those who delve deeper into the actual meaning of what others say. Instead, they take at face value whatever they may find and do not question the source or the content. This detracts from Diego’s idea that the “WHO” is truly important when it comes to online information. To the average user, “WHO” posted the content is probably the last thing they look at when seeking information. If this holds, then Poell’s assertion that online forums do not have true worth in the public sphere is misguided at the very least.

Perhaps online forums have yet to pierce the public sphere of the intellectual elite however, they have certainly began to influence to lives and thoughts of the average thinker.