Digital Civil Society I: Online Politics

From Technologies and Politics of Control

Jump to: navigation, search

The political realm has been a touchstone for the hopes for the transformative power of the Internet in promoting democracy, enabling better-informed debate, and in promoting better governance through transparency. Do the anecdotes of progress and YouTube videos tracking bumbling politicians suggest that a revolution is underway, or just a new venue for attack ads and misinformation campaigns?


Contents

Readings


Additional Resources


Links from class

YouTube videos

Muppets for President http://youtube.com/watch?v=VmzKADYpGq0

Bush vs. Zombies http://youtube.com/watch?v=IoXgRtDysLY

Obama Girl http://youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU

Turkish Boys http://youtube.com/watch?v=mP-VsBZNl9U

George Bush don't like Black People http://youtube.com/watch?v=UGRcEXtLpTo

Yes We Can Obama Video by Will.I.Am http://youtube.com/watch?v=2fZHou18Cdk


Websites

Scoop08 http://www.scoop08.com/

Generation Engage http://www.generationengage.org/index.php

Vote Gopher http://www.votegopher.com/

MeetUp http://www.meetup.com/

MoveOn http://www.moveon.org/

Class Discussion

  • Quick read on the CNN, YouTube debate. It got a lot of press and it seemed to be big among younger voters. It also allows questions that are outside of the typical press questions to be asked. I think this is a benefit since it is a more democratic way to get to the average (and fringe) person’s issues. Everyone had a voice, minus the editing CNN. It is not a perfect system, but it is a step in the right direction.

--Zark 22:13, 27 February 2008 (EST)

  • For anyone who's interested, I've been posting links under the "In the news" section of this site. --Zsaulkalns 09:32, 29 February 2008 (EST)

An intro to the readings:

John Palfrey, in both The Internet’s Effect on Politics and The State of the Union, surveys leading-edge thought regarding the benefits and potential drawbacks the internet brings to politics and democracy.

Benefits include:

  • Attracting new participants – ease of access to political discourse encourages involvement
  • Fostering new connections – previously unconnected people are able to “meet up” and form new groups based on commonalities
  • Semiotic Democracy – the move from consumer of info to creator; citizens can now engage and/or recreate news creating the promise of what Palfrey terms “true interactivity,” which, by transforming social/political relationships, can “alter power dynamics”

Reasons for apprehension:

  • “Daily Me” – see Sunstein Daily We below
  • Disillusionment – participants attracted because it’s cool, but soon lose interest
  • Censorship & Surveillance – we’ve been talking about this
  • Disinformation - ditto
  • “An enemy of thought” – news cycles are reduced to the point that politicians may be forced to react without properly thinking about the applicable issues, leading to ill-informed snap decisions

Palfrey notes that politicians are naturally drawn to internet campaigning in their desire to reach as many voters as possible. Palfrey describes the net as a “model of placing power at the edges…[vs.] one centralized hub.” This is a bit of a double-edged sword for vote seekers, though, in that the mass of new potential supporters are also potential critics. Critics that is, with video phones and 24/7 blogs. Politicians must woo the “edge” while they must, at times, lament its omnipresence. Palfrey sort of captures this conflict in his statement since the politician who wins the most votes from the “edge” may ironically end up occupying the “centralized hub.”

Sunstein’s Daily We, from 2001, presciently points out the dangers of information overload. The argument goes something like this. (I’m paraphrasing here.) A well-functioning system of free expression requires exposure to diverse points of view and a range of common experiences. The diversity comes from intentionally seeking contrary thinking or from “unanticipated encounters.” Info overload may cause us to filter our exposures so they are limited to that which we specifically want to see and nothing more. (In his video, Palfrey quickly noted that these filter walls are essentially online versions of “old,” real-world walls of separation.) This reduces the power of “general interest intermediaries” and the importance of the public sphere. We can end up isolating ourselves from diverse points of view and polarizing into distinct groups that share little common experience. There is a danger then, through creating our own personalized web worlds, of losing our common culture and its underlying values. --Chris L 14:54, 3 March 2008 (EST)

The internet provides an easy way to avoid threatening social situations. One can communicate with people who may react negatively from a safe distance. Those who find political participation to be a painful social experience, now have a way to insulate themselves from some of its harshness. Their participation via the web provides a ready means of organization. The nature of the web makes it difficult for any source to have a monopoly of information, however and a new phenomenon takes over. The new participants become more prone to filtering the information they receive and seek to share information with those who have a similar perspective. Over the last few election cycles, bloggers have played an increasingly important role in organizing these groups. As probably most bloggers have an agenda, they have an interest in controlling the way information is presented. Politicians now have to worry about everything they do in public being interpreted unfavorably and being sent, instantly, to a national audience. George Allen's 2006 implosion provides an example of instant accountability. The internet also provides the means for an instant smear. It may actually be fortunate that participants who are attracted by the lack of commitment required are also likely to lose interest in the long term. At times it seems like there is a cybermob running amok. This creates an incentive for those in power to exert control through censorship and surveillance. It would seem to be in everyones interest, therefore, to find a way to reduce the mob like nature of internet political organization. --Whall 00:32, 4 March 2008 (EST)

I think the Internet does help to get to know politicians better. But, on the other hand, it is extremely easy to post and spread lies and wrong information about candidates. The information is spread so fast, that politicians can take down their adversaries if they use the Internet strategically. As stated by John Palfrey, “Just as the net is wonderful at spreading accurate information and empowering voices with something meaningful to say, the net is extraordinarily effective at spreading misinformation as well”. Maybe we will see a shift in importance, from the television debates, to the Internet blogs and youtube.

--Andre Monteiro 09:35, 4 March 2008 (EST)

The internet can increase democracy by both hampering traditional mass media’s arbitrary decision making and by empowering individuals to become involved in the democratic process. Without the internet and in the absence of face-to-face discussion, people could be for the most part passive consumers of information from traditional mass media, but with the internet, the likelihood of abuse from these media could be decreasing. For example, Yochai Benkler in Chapter 7 of The Wealth of Networks cites an instance in the 2004 election where publicly owned Sinclair Broadcasting Group wanted to air a documentary that criticized democrat John Kerry’s Vietnam War experience, because directors and managers of Sinclair were interested in keeping a democrat out of the White House. However, an online boycott significantly helped to press Sinclair to cancel the documentary broadcast [1].

Additionally, the internet allows people to be active in the public sphere when they might not have been without the internet. So, the culture of participation on the internet has great potential to strengthen democracy, and the keys to unlocking that potential need to be identified and acted upon vigorously by participants so that it becomes more of a reality. I think two ways to do that are to more efficiently combine the participatory internet culture with face-to-face discourse and activity in the real world and also to strengthen the internet tools through which grassroots organizations can effectively emerge. --Mfregosi 13:01, 4 March 2008 (EST)

I think the internet is definitely a blessing for democracy as news spread quicker and people can talk amongst themselves more easily. However at the same time there are also negative effects we need to be aware of. For example, in the article "The Daily We" Cass Sunstein mentioned the phenomenon of group polarization that when groups with distinctive identities increasingly engaged in within-group discussion, members might move one another toward more extreme points in line with their initial tendencies. Different groups consisting of like-minded people will be driven or isolated further apart. As a consequence the internet might become a breeding ground for extremism.

--Williamctam 16:05, 4 March 2008 (EST)

--Ternto333 17:57, 4 March 2008 (EST) I very much liked how The Daily We focused on how the internet can hurt democracy in that it leads to isolating groups. While acknowledging how powerful and helpful groups can be for support and growth, I agree with Sunstein that for democracy to flourish, there needs to be a proper exposure to opposing views. Even though there are now easily accessible sources of opposing views on almost any topic, I feel like there is still a risk of not getting a broad range of material. I've seen a number of conspiracy theories through the internet that to me are ridiculous. I think that the danger is that people choose to not expose themselves to opposing views, enslaving their minds to lies.

Corrina, I believe we have met some place before this class but I can't recall where for sure. We you in Austria in the fall of 2007? Class staff; can you forward this message to her? thanks. BobKeyes 06:30, 5 March 2008 (EST)

I didn't get a chance to go over this in class, but i believe it is worth noting. Internet petitions can actually harm the cause they are trying to protect, because they will cause petitioners to feel that their voice is being heard when it is not, and the petitioner will fail to follow up with any more significant communication with their elected representative or candidate. The reason why online petitions are ignored goes beyond what has been explained in class. It is not the problem that email is free is the root of the problem; it is the lack of identity. It is too easy for people with a specific agenda to inflate their numbers by abusing that fatal flaw of the Internet, its pseudonymous nature, and then to automate the process. Even if such abuse doesn't happen, the knowledge that it could happen debases the currency of expressed public opinion. This might be called spamming the ballot box. This corrolates well with anecdotes from congressional staffers, who claim that individual, handwritten letters are the most effective. This is not because they cost the most to delivery (controverting what has been claimed in class), but that they are difficult to forge in large numbers (though one may wonder when this particular function will be outsourced overseas. Though such a plot would still require a large organization to mail from many individual locations). While using a telegram or FedEx might convince congressional staffers as to the financial ability and commitment of anyone who would attempt a spam of the ballot box, it does not have the same protections against mass production that individual hand-written letters do.

It is through this class (LSTU E-120) that I am becoming more convinced that national digital ID is a good idea. We all need to retain the right to be pseudonymous or anonymous, but to use the power of our own unique identity to our advantage, such as signing email to our politicians. Our certain identities would overcome ballot box spammers. One also could consider the consequences of linking this to a record of democratic participation, i.e. that one voted in particular elections, though the sanctity of the secret ballot is kept (i.e. whom or what one voted for at a particular election). These changes to the democratic system could have profound effects upon the democratic society.

--BobKeyes 07:07, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Retrieved from "http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ptc2008/Digital_Civil_Society_I:_Online_Politics"
Personal tools