In the 18th century, Habermas coined the term “public sphere” to describe a discursive space, detached from the state and market relations, where individuals would come together to discuss societal matters. This environment, which could take the form of salons or cafes, allowed individuals to engage in enlightened debates that would foster democratic participation. Fast forward to the 20th century: technological changes dramatically transformed the normative understanding of the public sphere. The Internet gradually provided new online spaces for people to communicate, debate and deliberate across any distance regardless of their age, class, and gender. Undoubtedly, social media platforms like Facebook drastically transformed ways in which …show more content…
Some argue that Facebook helps democratic conversations as it gives users the opportunity to interact with one another, express their views and get comments in return. In fact, Facebook compromises millions of users and billions of pieces of content, including blogs, news, events, debates, internal voting polls, petitions, and pages that can be joined by anyone. From this perspective, Facebook can be compared to Habermas’s coffeehouses where people have the ability to join or build communities that increase knowledge. To some extent, this participatory space fulfills the criteria of universality as it allows local communities to contribute at the global scale. Facebook facilitates group communication and collaboration by rapidly diffusing information. Thus, it creates a space where people can question the legitimacy of the state by engaging in debates and planning protests across the globe. There has been some evidence that Facebook’s activity greatly impacted the Arab Spring. In addition, one of the goals of Facebook is to create a network through which people can share and post all sorts of information. This information flows freely through the “wall” of adherents in a visible manner unless users put some access restrictions. Under such assumptions, and given the scope and end goal of the organization, Facebook can be coined as a public …show more content…
According to Habermas, participatory democracy depends on the capacity of citizens to engage in rational critical thinking. To say the least, Facebook’s algorithms and newsfeed model impede the users’ ability to reexamine their own values, assumptions, interests and the validity of their comments which are essential for democratic conversations. The algorithms, driven by shared opinions, would have to foster diversity rather than homogeneity of opinions to positively contribute to the public sphere. The system, which selects the sources that will be shown to its users, cannot be considered counter-publics because minority voices tend to be silenced by algorithms. Additionally, political extremism often results from the rise of algorithmic opacity. Filter bubbles, which Pariser describes as a “centrifugal force pulling us apart,” contribute to the existing polarization and exclusion of certain groups. By selectively filtering and withholding the information, Facebook does not shape an objective circulation of information and prevents a single discourse. In a democracy, people must be willing to trust others and tolerate those with whom they disagree, yet Facebook disrupts such engagement. As Putnam points out, democracy fails because of a decline in social capital including a lack of cooperation and bonding experiences. Despite the growing participation, Facebook leads to a loss of people-to-people
In “How Social Media is Ruining Politics” Carr states that “social media is used to connect with the public” (Carr). Many different types of social media are used for this like Periscope, Snapchat, Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook. Periscope is an application where live videos are streamed and anyone can view the broadcasts posted. Snapchat is an application where pictures, videos, or chats are taken and hen deleted a few seconds after that person sees the Snapchat. Twitter an online news and social application where people post and read short memos called "tweets". YouTube is a site where people around the world share videos that can be seen by anyone. Finally, Facebook is a website that makes it easy to share what is going on in someone’s life and make a connection between people. These resources help give people the connection everyone desires. He also states “both aim to give followers a warm-and-fuzzy feeling” which explains a reason for how it affects people. In “online filter bubbles” Pariser talks about the connection everyone desires is his words saying “we need it to connect us all together” (Pariser). Pariser is stating that people do not only want a connection but that they also need it because it helps us understand what is going on around
Malcolm Gladwell in his article “Small Change”, published in The New Yorker in 2010, identifies our present time as a long sequence of revolutions, in which the new instruments of mass media have changed the nature of social activism. I think it is possible to agree and disagree with his position at the same time. Obviously, Facebook and Twitter and the like have modulated the existing links between the authorities and the public. They have altered kinds of activism, and the organizations with so-called “strong-ties” gave way to a weak-tie gatherings somewhere on-line. I support Gladwell's claim that “friends” on Facebook, in spite of their assistance in providing their interlocutors with new ideas and news, can't be regarded true friends, ready to back you up in a dangerous, politically unstable situation.
The most recent definition of public relations, according to the Public Relations Society of America (2012), states that “Public Relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics.” Through the rapid advancement of modern media and technology, there have never been more outlets and opportunities available for accomplishing the goals of public relations. Believing the development of social media has not created serious changes in the way public relations practitioners go about their duties would be foolish and a fast track to falling behind in this rapid world of communication. The main goals of public relations are “to create, maintain, and protect the organization’s reputation, enhance its prestige and present a favorable image,” as defined by Inc. Magazine’s online encyclopedia. Fundamentally, it is not the goals of public relations that have changed with social media, but it is the means of accomplishing these goals that is dramatically changing.
While many people throughout the world see social media as a trendy new application in the service of personal amusement, the political upheavals in the Arab world have shown how it can change the dynamics of modern day activism. The Arab Spring Uprising interlaced social unrest with a technological revolution. Blogs, news websites, twitter feeds, and political list servers became avenues for communication, information flow and solidarity. Being capable of sharing an immense amount of uncensored information through social media sites has contributed to the success of many Arab Spring activists. Social media played a role in facilitating the events of the Arab Spring, but the main issues are rooted in a broader set of economic, political, and social factors. This paper will examine how social media impacted the Arab Spring Uprising. Specifically, I will look at how social media introduced a novel resource that helped to created internet activist communities, changed the dynamics of social mobilization and revolutionized interactions between protesters and the rest of the world.
Facebook, Twitter and other social platforms have become one of the central activities in human affairs. Used by people around the world promoting communication, social media gives scope to everyone to exhibit their ideas and thoughts. The plethora of social platforms is a revolutionary invention that is changing the way of how people moderate and communicate with others in their daily lives. Although many people admire this revolutionary concept, it can be argued that it has a negative impact on society. Extensive usage of social media can cause addiction, affecting productivity, and also reduce the level of human interaction, which in turn leads to isolation. Social media is correlated to many of the issues that revolve feminism and mental illness through anthropology, sociology and psychology.
The public sphere has been falsely represented as a virtual place where one can share and debate opinions; ...
The public sphere is an imaginary community, made up of a multitude of public spaces, such as; voluntary associations, social organisations, churches, sports clubs and trade unions (Papachirissi 2002, p. 17). Through critical dialogue, it provides citizens with the opportunity to collectively generate opinions which affirm or challenge the political affairs of the state (Papachirissi 2002, p. 17). As the internet advanced, the public sphere evolved into a virtual public sphere and subsequently a global sphere, which is best evidenced by the rise of social media platforms, such as; Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat and Youtube (Couldry 2017, p. 13). These platforms magnify citizen’s ability to engage in reasoned discussion about socio-political
For example, in Saleem Kassim views, “As a result of the many technological advancements and innovations that have revolutionized how individuals communicate, an abundance of information has become available to everyone.” Saleem Kassim’s point is that anyone and everybody can put out information that can be seen by everyone when you are an internet user. For example, the news can tell you that there’s nothing happening in a certain country; whereas, someone from that country can post on twitter and upload videos showing anyone that decides to see the truth of what is really happening in their country. Kassim also states, “Ultimately, public information supplied by social networking websites has played an important role during modern-day activism, specifically as it pertains to the Arab Spring.” In other words, Kassim believes that digital communication has brought people together to fight for something that is a good cause. To have people aware of the truth and to have someone do something about it. Indeed it is highly likely that we bring people together for a good cause but digital communication can also cause a downside through having no censorship on what you post. When more people are brought up of current events trending they decide to hope on board to see if there is anything they can do to help. Not to mention, Graff and Birkenstein view it the same way. Like I mentioned earlier, Graff and
The Arab Spring has impacted multiple countries in northern Africa and the Arab world so far since the end of December 2010, leading to the fall of the government in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen. Among the unarmed insurrections, social media and social networking technology functioned as a new strategy that empowered the protesters to gain successful uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt and inspired grassroots movements in other Arab countries. The new media, namely Twitter, Facebook and Youtube, with online blogs and mobile telecommunications, played a significant role in the politics of connectivity, which connect, coordinate and communicate the protestors. Labeled as “Twitter Revolution” or “Facebook Revolution”, the new media to some extent engaged in the Arab Spring uprisings. By analyzing more than three million tweets on Twitter, content on YouTube and thousands of blog posts, a study led by analysts from the University of Washington finds that social media played a critical role in shaping political debates in the movements during the Arab Spring.
In mere minutes, any active user can access information and associations regarding various causes, such as the riots happening in Egypt and the Middle East. Teenagers, in the Middle East, used their Facebook accounts to campaign the “Day of Rage” in Saudi Arabia. Helping to set the Arab riots in motion, the event demanded elections, freedom for women, and the liberation of political prisoners. The activists’ goals to bring democracy to Egypt and removing Hosni Mubarak, Egypt’s fourth president from 1981 to 2011, still continue and perhaps with the assistance of Facebook they will accomplish these ambitions. The causes campaigned through Facebook have served as a fundraise...
The purpose of this essay is to develop a further understanding of the impacts of social media in regards to the political debate. By looking at the topic of social media and the use rhetoric in response to politics in the 21st century, a deeper understanding of the issue can be established. Social media has become a primary source for the discussion of politics by the average citizen; whether through the sharing of articles, “memes”, advertisements or personal expository statements. As a result, large sums of information and ideas are spread rapidly to a wide variety of subjects. However, much of this information may not be accurate and could be misinterpreted. Consequently potentially misinformed citizens may not be able to make a properly
On social media, each individual has the power to be influential and important. There is a freedom of expression on social media that we are allowed to express. A user on Facebook can post anything they want or anything they want for free.... ... middle of paper ... ...
Since the Internet burst free of academic cloisters into the public domain during 1990s, it has been thoroughly debated whether the individual’s remarks and comments on the Internet should be restricted. Also this has drawn increasing attention due to popularity of the emerging social net like Facebook and Twitter in recent years. While some advocate that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, others argue that an uncontrollable medium of anarchy may occur owing to the freedom of speech. This paper examines both the arguments for and against of the freedom speech in Internet and provides suggestions based on these arguments. The Internet freedom provides capable and appropriately universally accessible tools to create a new platform to gather voice from the citizens.
In this paper I propose that there are changing definitions of the public and private sphere because of the sharing of personal information on social media. The public sphere was changing since well before the development of the Internet, and more saliently social media (Habermas, 1989). Habermas published his book in 1962 that noted that more of what in life had traditionally been private was becoming public. When examining this issue as part of social media, however, the history of the Internet and its development is important as it relates to how current behavior developed. Sharing through social media continues the tradition of using technology as a way to create virtual communities, which have existed since the early days of the Internet (Jones, 1998). The history of how technology developed shades how social media sharing should be conceptualized and understood. I am intentionally avoiding the term oversharing in this paper with the exception of mentioning it here, because I believe that people’s willingness to share information about themselves is personal
Internet has been acknowledged as one of the most efficient way to collect and reflect public opinions, for that people with different classes and races can express their opinions with no obstacles in virtual network spaces. People can speak out whatever they want just by typing on the keyboard within a second. Dr. Heather Savigny mentions in her article “Public Opinion, Political Communication and the Internet” that “The expansion of the internet as a new method of communication provides a potential challenge to the primacy of the traditional media and political parties as formers of public opinion” (1). People realized that the power of internet public opinion in the focus on social issues can be used as a weapon to affect government decision-makings. However, does public opinion only brings positive effects?