xinonthisplanet

[xinonthisplanet]

Internet and public sphere

(image: Diggit magazine)

What is public sphere? According to Jurgen Habermas 's definition of the public sphere, it is a domain where public opinion can be formed without state intervention in citizens' social life. It can be a physical place such as a town hall meeting or clubs, as well as a virtual place such as the newspaper and the Internet.

The advent of the Internet has brought hope to the formation of a new and better public sphere. Because the Internet was against this background that early enthusiasts of the web saw an opportunity to recreate the public sphere online through message boards and discussion groups and new spaces for public responses to material carried by mainstream media

What is more, internet users can "find voting records of representatives, track congressional and Supreme Court rulings, join special interest groups, fight for consumer rights, and plug into free government services "(Bowen, 1996). So they can influence other actors，as well as campaigning for change- lobbying，Direct interventions。

(Image: litreactor.com)

However, although technology seems to provide available free space for users, it may lead to a decline in the quality of discourse. In addition to the post-truth, echo chamber, and political polarization mentioned earlier, there seems to be another reason: on social networking sites, one thing suddenly gets noticed. Then people quickly focus on the next thing, but the previous thing was not resolved. The Internet has no memory. The possible reason is that the cost of expression is too low, and people want to have a sense of expression and public identity. They do not really care about the event itself, nor do they have the corresponding expression literacy.

What is more, Fraser (1992) questioned Habermas's concept itself: the public sphere serves only privileged personnel and is used to practice ruling techniques, as it excludes female and non-female property classes. Therefore, even if there are multiple public spheres, collective identity and interests cannot be expressed strongly and clearly. This leads to structural inequality in the public sphere. Moving to the Internet era, there are still some people who cannot access digital technology, and they are often disadvantaged groups in real life with poverty, marginalization, or old age. Their voices cannot be fully expressed in this field, which has created new technological inequality.

As a result, maybe the Internet provides public space, but it is challenging to form high-quality discourses, and new inequality has arisen. It is still not an ideal public sphere.

（405 words）

Reference：

Bowen, C. (1996) Modem Nation: The Handbook of Grassroots American Activism Online. New York: Random House.

Jurgen Habermas (1991) The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. MIT Press

Nancy Fraser (1990) Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. Social Text, No. 25/26, pp. 56-80. Duke University Press. https：//www.jstor.org/stable/466240

[xinonthisplanet]

Does social media  lead to political polarization?

One word is becoming significant in the field of public opinion: political polarization. In the context of Western democracies, political polarization describes the process by which "people's attitudes are diverging to ideological extremes" (DiMaggio, Evans & Bryson 1996). 

Every ideology and value seem to tend to become polarized. Citizens with different perspectives no longer seem to communicate and understand each other rationally in order to seek objective results. Instead, they have become extremely opposite, communicating to attack and persuade each other. Some of the more neutral thoughts, such as feminism, vegetarianism, have begun to become extreme and divided on today's Internet. Such examples are full of our lives. Earlier, Trump won the U.S. election with an extreme version of populism; at the moment, Sheryl Sandberg angered Trump with an extreme version of environmentalism and became seething online. 

(Source: Pew Research Center (2014). Political Polarization in the American Public)

In the United States, a survey of 10,000 adults conducted by Pew Research Center (2014) found that over the past 20 years, the total number of Americans who have expressed a conservative or liberal view has doubled from 10% to 21%. Compared with the past, today's ideological thinking is closer to the party. As a result, the ideological overlap between the two parties has decreased: today, 92% of Republicans are in the middle of the Democrats, and 94% of Democrats are on the left of the Republicans.

(Source: Pew Research Center (2014). Political Polarization in the American Public)

As we can see, in 1994, 23% of Republicans were more liberal than the median Democrats. Furthermore, 17% of Democrats are more conservative than the median Republicans. In 2014, these figures were only 4% and 5%, respectively. As we can see, Republicans and Democrats in the United States have more ideological differences than at any time in the past two decades.

(Image: Brown University)

These situations seem to be related to platforms provided by social media, such as Twitter and Facebook. These sites are often accused of exacerbating political polarization by creating "echo rooms" to prevent people from reaching opinions that differ from their opinions (Bakshy, 2018), which mentioned in the previous blog. Although social media has caused some negative consequences, such as the echo chamber, it may not be the leading cause of political polarization directly.

Social networks are diverse, and different social platforms have different effects on political speeches and opinions. Research shows that some types of social websites, such as blogs or Twitter, indeed show different extent of information homogeneity among politically interested users. It is mainly because the user relationships of such social networking sites are formed based on common topical interests or specific content (Conover et al., 2011).

(Source: “How Facebook is Changing Your Internet” New York Times Documentaries,2017)

However, another type of social media based on real-world relationships shows the opposite results. According to Bakshy et al. 's study in 2015, Facebook's user relationships mainly reflect many different off-line social environments: schools, homes, social activities, and workplaces, which have been found to facilitate the contact and exchange of social information across fields. Social endorsements may be a significant reason. These social networking sites establish a deep connection between cyberspace and reality. What is more, a study shows that social media help users build external and ecological effectiveness of social endorsements in the off-line life, which fundamentally changes how news is consumed and shared on the Internet (Messing & Westwood,2014).

Therefore, as a platform for political discussions, social media is used to deepen political polarization or the rational exchange of different political opinions, depending on many conditions. However, as users, we have the power to expose oneself to perspectives from the other side.

(572 words)

Reference:

Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W., Bumpus, J. P., Chen, H., Hunzaker, M. F., ... & Volfovsky, A. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 201804840.

Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130-1132. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6239/1130

M. D. Conover, J. Ratkiewicz, M. Francisco, B. Gonçalves, A. Flammini, F. Menczer (2011). Political polarization on Twitter. Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM11/paper/viewPaper/2847

Messing, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2014). Selective Exposure in the Age of Social Media: Endorsements Trump Partisan Source Affiliation When Selecting News Online. Communication Research, 41(8), 1042–1063. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212466406

Pew Research Center (2014). Political Polarization in the American Public. https://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/

[xinonthisplanet]

Echo chamber on social media

What is the Echo Chamber? An echo chamber is a room designed to create an echo – usually as an effect in an audio recording or a film. Nevertheless, it has a common use which describes a situation where people only hear, see, or read opinions which they agree with（BBC Learning English）.

This is a common phenomenon on social media now. You never get a variety of opinions because all your friends think the same way. People tend to choose friends and follow things they already like，which makes their opinions do not be challenged. In your social groups, the same ideas are constantly repeated and exaggerated. You only hear things you agree with, even if the objection makes sense you won't hear about it. Most people in this closed environment tend to think that what they believe is the whole fact.

                            (illusion by Christophe Vorlet)

A research conducted by Del Vicario et al. .in 2016 should be mentioned. They examined the Brexit debate on Facebook and analyzed more than 1 million users interacting with Brexit related posts from the leading news providers between January and July 2016. found that patterns of commenting and liking among FB users, two separate communities were formed, with little overlap between them in terms of user activity. This example shows that the users entering the echo chamber are entirely lacking in interaction with others when they engage in the public discussion.

In modern society, digital technology seems to exacerbate the echo chamber. Big data is a trend, which is used by most commercial websites to record and analyze users' search results and usage habits. Based on the analysis results, the website will continuously push the user's favorite content, resulting in that the information received by a user on the same website is limited to a specific range, and no other information can be seen. It can be dangerous. You think you are actively choosing information, but big data and websites determine what you can choose.

                                                (by Jessica Bedussi)

The echo chamber effect of social media exacerbates human narcissism in the Internet age. We sleep in the sense of security brought by the same information torrent, ignore or resist different opinions, and only interact with people with the same opinions, which ultimately led us to be trapped in our opinion greenhouse. As a result, it is more difficult for us to establish relationships with others and to understand the world objectively. It is human nature to seek approval from others, which is also a human weakness. You should try moving away from your echo chamber and listening to people who don't agree with you!

Finally, this video from Adam Greenwood provides some practical ideas on how to deal with the situation that trapped in an echo chamber.

(489 words)

Reference:

BBC Learning English - The English We Speak / Echo chamber. http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningenglish/english/features/the-english-we-speak/ep-170801

[xinonthisplanet]

Are political humour and memes useful forms of citizen expression on social media?

（Image: Garyvarvel.com）

Social media seems to be increasingly related to political behaviour. Political humour and memes appear on various platforms frequently, which is crucial for social media communication. A significant concern is that political humour on social media may exacerbate inequality and apathy. 

In some online groups, only insiders can understand certain jokes. Humour seems to be a tool that makes communication more ambiguous. In other words，it proves that you are a member of the community if you understand the folklore and humour in the educational game about serious themes, otherwise, you are not (Hedrick et al. 2018). 

Moreover, political humour is usually targeted at disadvantaged groups, making them more passive. According to Hedrick et al. (2018), this process usually tends to be relevant to power, which mainly held by white males. “Cultural play is often about deploying corrosive speech, such as racist memes, that antagonises, silences, and marginalises—aimed at women or people of colour” (Hedrick et al. 2018, citing Phillips, W., & Milner, R. M. (2018). 

Users on social media may feel so confused when encountering such content that they cannot make an objective judgment. According to Innocenti & Miller (2016), cognitive-response-based research indicates that individuals’ motivation and ability can be reduced to examine messages because they tend to consider them as “just a joke”.

So, can we conclude that political humour is not a useful form of citizen expression on social media?

（Image: GEEKS ON COFFEE）

However, as a tool, political humour on social media may also be used to weaken power and inequality. Firstly, vulnerable groups can recognise their communities by understanding specific humour, which tends to strengthen the connection between individuals effectively.

Research by Davis et al. (2018) illustrates this point: Twitter users use humour to achieve political goals by identification. They redefine the uncomplimentary label to built themselves into political subjects, link their political preferences to other valuable identities, and become part of a political group. For instance, “queer,” “bitch,” and “crip” have been reclaimed by sex–gender minorities, feminists, and disabled people. These tags are linked to other positive valued identities and give them political significance (Davis et al. 2018).

Therefore, political humour can be applied with the opposite purpose. Through it, while some groups promote discrimination and marginalisation, others can push back by eliminating derogatory and constructing identity.

Furthermore, political humour can improve communication between different groups. On social media, it may be uncomfortable for some people to participate in political differences. However, conventionally, diverse and humorous perspectives can promote a more positive environment of political communication and enable people to engage in political discussion in their daily lives (Peifer & Holbert, 2016).

As a result, although political humour may aggravate centralisation and inequality, it also can empower the disadvantaged groups and give them confidence in themselves, as well as promote a positive communication environment on social media.

(467 words)

Reference:

Davis, J. L., Love, T. P., & Killen, G. (2018). Seriously funny: The political work of humor on social media. New media & Society, 20(10), 3898-3916. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1461444818762602

Hedrick, A., Karpf, D., & Kreiss, D. (2018). The earnest Internet vs. the ambivalent Internet. International Journal of Communication, 12(8)

Beth Innocenti, Elizabeth Miller (2016), The Persuasive Force of Political Humor, Journal of Communication, 66(3), 366–385, https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12231

Jason T. Miller & R. Lance Holbert (2016) Appreciation of Pro-Attitudinal Versus Counter-Attitudinal Political Humor: A Cognitive Consistency Approach to the Study of Political Entertainment, Communication Quarterly, 64:1, 16-35, DOI: 10.1080/01463373.2015.1078828

[xinonthisplanet]

I can find everything on the internet. But why I still know nothing about the truth?

Technology changes the way we acquire information. You always won’t miss hot news, even never watch any news channels. You can find everything you want by google, whether a receipt of making the best steak or the reason of Brexit. But a study by Toff & Nielsen (2018) shows that more and more people still feel that “I don’t know what to believe”. Why we fail to be closer to the truth? When accessing to information is becoming free and easier, maybe we should consider what we actually pay for this.

                                (Illustration by Michael Kupperman)

Technology has made information overloaded in daily life. Firstly, social media is providing a variety of news all the time, regardless of people’s real needs. Sometimes when we see links that friends share on Facebook, we always click and read them with a long time going, then we realize that there is nothing values. At the same time, we tend to find that we are deluged with information when searching for more details about something, which will cost us even more time to understand and select what we want. Jane, an interviewee in the study by Toff & Nielsen (2018), said that she often felt overwhelmed when seeing lots of information which she called a “black hole of information”. The issue for her is to make sense of information rather than approaching it. It seems that plenty of information just be simply presented by platforms, and users have to spend more time and energy to find out what they really want.

                             (illusion by ISTOCK/GETTY IMAGES)

What is more, technology worsens the situation of producing and spreading misinformation. Everyone can post viewpoint online and claim it is true, which means that fake news may come from the famous, corporations even individuals with different purposes. Furthermore, research suggests that excitation and emotion play a significant role in spreading online information (Lewandowsky et al.,2017), so the emotional fake messages may touch us earlier than boring facts. In modern life, we rely on opinions on Twitter instead of professional knowledge, to decide if the new avian flu actually infects human beings, or if global warming really caused by greenhouse gas emission (Lewandowsky et al.,2017). But concerning the truth, do we need to prove the authority and rationality of every information before believing it? I think It is too difficult for people without science training.

                                                (illusion by me_irl)

In all ages, I think, accessing to truth is costly, and technology can not change this fact. It just changes the form of information and how we get it. “I can find everything” is an illusion that technology creates for us. What we actually pay for the truth when enjoying the convenience of approaching information? More time and energy, disbelieve of media, higher demand for professional quality and so on. The worse situation may be created, which people could not believe anything then they give up and choose to be blind. When truth being centralization, people can be deceived and incited easily by the owner of the information. As Hannah Arendt said in 1978,  “A people that no longer can believe anything cannot make up its own mind. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act but also of its capacity to think and to judge. And with such a people you can then do what you please.” 

Everyone needs facts to make the best choice in our life. In the future, dealing with sources online may become an essential skill, and now, we should get rid of our arrogance firstly, being humble and cautious with information.

(586 words)

Reference:

Benjamin Toff, Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, 2018. “I Just Google It”: Folk Theories of Distributed Discovery. Journal of Communication, 68(3), 636–657, https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy009

Stephan Lewandowsky,  Ullrich K.H.Ecker, John Cook, Beyond Misinformation: Understanding and Coping with the “Post-Truth” Era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition.6(4), 353-369,  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211368117300700#sec0060

Hannah Arendt. 1978.  Hannah Arendt: From an Interview. The New York Review of Books . https://www.nybooks.com/contributors/hannah-arendt/