Advertisement

Looking Through the Wrong End of the Telescope: Internet Democracy vs. Public Access

Chapter
  • 56 Downloads

Abstract

Chapter  7 considers the question of whether social media on the internet constitute a public forum that is similar to or superior to that established for public access. Like other technologies, the rise of digital communications and the internet was accompanied by forms of technological optimism that promise that new digital technologies are inherently democratic. In the work of Stuart Brand and the pioneers of digital technologies, the personal computer enabled creative activity within a networked world of community that was inherent in a wired world. Originally conceived as something opposed to the corporate world, it became tied to the neoliberal orthodoxy. This linkage was not accidental. Although social theorists and media theorists have stressed the democratic potentials of the internet due to its decentralized pluralistic nature, which disperses central authority, the democratic potential of the internet has not been realized. It requires a democratic political culture for its realization. Largely this failure can be attributed to the private ownership of the major social media by large profit-seeking corporations which seek eyeballs and engage in large-scale data mining. The individual is not an autonomous entity but a has become colonized and marketized—though not totally. In the world of social media, winners take all and traditional media still predominate as sources of information. Although there are some important examples of internet activism, overall the internet does not promote activism more than traditional media, and the weak bonds of solidarity created through activism are not easily dissolved. Certainly, social media as private property does not provide the kind of public forum that PEG channels create. Social media publics are segmented, fragmented, and self-selecting, They have not developed into general public spheres.

Bibliography

  1. Agger, Ben. 2012. Oversharing: Presentations of the Self in the Internet Age. Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Atton, Chris. 2001. Alternative Media. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. ———, ed. 2015. The Routledge Companion to Alternative and Community Media. Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Barbrook, Richard, and Andy Cameron. 1996. The California Ideology. Science as Culture 6 (1): 44–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett, W. Lance. 2004. Social Movements beyond Borders: Organization, Communication, and Political Capacity in Two Eras of Transnational Activism. In Transnational Protest and Global Activism, 203–226. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 2012. The Personalization of Politics: Political Identity, Social Media, and Changing Patterns of Participation. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 644: 20–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ———. 2016. News: The Politics of Illusion. 10th ed. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Castells, Manuel. 1996. The Rise of the Network Society, the Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Vol. I. Cambridge, MA; Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. ———. 1997. The Power of Identity, the Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Vol. II. Cambridge, MA; Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. ———. 1998. End of Millennium, the Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Vol. III. Cambridge, MA; Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Comcast Sues San Jose in Franchise Dispute, Los Angeles Times, May 31, 2003. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-may-31-fi-rup31.7-story.html 
  12. Coyer, Kate. 2008. The Alternative Media Handbook. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Dalhgren, Peter. 2005. The Internet, Public Spheres, and Political Communication: Dispersion and Deliberation. Political Communication 22: 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ———. 2013. The Political Web: Media, Participation and Alternative Democracy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dean, Jodi. 2003. Why the Net Is not a Public Sphere. Constellations 10 (1): 95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ———. 2009. Democracy and Other Neo-liberal Fantasies: Communicative Capitalism and Left Politics. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Downing, John D.H., Tamera V. Ford, Geneve Gill, and Laura Stein. 2001. Radical Media: Rebellious Communication and Social Movements, vii–xi. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Fuchs, Christian. 2009. Some Reflections on Manuel Castells’ Book ‘Communication Power’. tripleC 7 (1): 94–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ———. 2011. A Contribution to the Critique of the Political Economy of Google. Fast capitalism 8 (1). http://www.fastcapitalism.com/.
  20. ———. 2014. Social Media and the Public Sphere. tripleC 12 (1): 57–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. ———. 2016. Critical Theory of Communication: New Readings of Lukács, Adorno, Marcuse, Honneth and Habermas in the Age of the Internet. London: University of Westminster Press.Google Scholar
  22. ———. 2017. Social Theory and the Media a Critical Introduction. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Fuller, Linda, ed. 2017. The Power of Global Community Media. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Gladwell, Malcolm. 2010. Small Change. Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted. The New Yorker, October. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/10/04/small-change-malcolm-gladwell.
  25. Habermas, Jurgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. ———. 2009. Europe the Faltering Project. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  27. Halleck, Dee Dee. 2001. Hand-Held Visions: The Uses of Community Media. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hindman, Matthew. 2009. The Myth of Digital Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Honneth, Axel. Dec. 1998. Democracy as Reflexive Cooperation: John Dewey and the Theory of Democracy Today. Political Theory 26 (6): 763–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Howley, Kevin. 2005. Community Media: People Places and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jenkins, Henry. 2008. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lievrouw, Leah. 2011. Alternative and Activist New Media. London; Malden, MA: Polity.Google Scholar
  33. Manjoo, Farhad. 2013. Screen Capture: Traditional TV Is Unstoppable Can You Tube Ever Beat It? Slate, June 20.Google Scholar
  34. McChesney, Robert. 2013. Digital Disconnect: How Capitalism Is Turning the Internet Against Democracy. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  35. Mineo, Liz. 2017. On Internet Privacy, Be Very Afraid. Harvard Gazette, August 24. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/08/when-it-comes-to-internet-privacy-be-very-afraid-analyst-suggests/.
  36. Nunziato, Dawn C. 2005. The Death of the Public Forum in Cyberspace. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 20 (2): 1115–1171.Google Scholar
  37. Pickard, Victor. When Commercialism Trumps Democracy: Media Pathologies and the Rise of the Misinformation Society. In Trump and the Media, ed. Pablo Boczkowski and Zizi Papacharissi, 195–201. Boston: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Poland, Bailey. 2016. Haters: Harassment Abuse and Violence. Lincoln University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  39. Pool, Ithiel De Sola. 1984. Technologies of Freedom. Cambridge: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  40. Rasmussen, Terje. 2014. Internet and the Political Public Sphere. Sociology Compass 8 (12): 1315–1329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. ———. 2016. The Internet Soapbox: Perspectives on a Changing Public Sphere. Universitetsforlaget. https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/52464/the-internet-soapbox-rasmussen.pdf?sequence=1.
  42. Rennie, Ellie. 2006. Community Media: A Global Introduction. Lantham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  43. Rodriquez, Clemencia. 2001. Fissures in the Mediascape: An International Study of Citizens’ Media. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  44. Schmidt, Eric, and Jared Cohen. 2013. The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Future of People, Nations and Business. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  45. Silberman, Jacob. 2015. Terms of Service Social Media and the Price of Constant Connection, 249. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  46. Solon, Olivia. 2017. Ex-Facebook President Sean Parker: Site Made to Exploit Human ‘Vulnerability’. The Guardian, November 9. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/09/facebook-sean-parker-vulnerability-brain-psychology.
  47. Streeter, Thomas. 2010. The Net Effect: Romanticism, Capitalism and the Internet. New York: New York University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sunstein, Cass. 2001. Republic.com. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  49. ———. 2017. #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Tufecki, Zaynep. 2017. Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Turkle, Sherry. 2017. Alone Together Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  52. Turner, Fred. 2006. From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zuboff, Shoshana. 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. New York: Hachette Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations