More or Less Democracy in the Internet Age?

More or Less Democracy in the Internet Age?

by Mark E. Kann

           I found it incredibly interesting how Mark Kann discusses the growth of the Internet in terms of the democratic imagination in the book “Networked Publics.”

            I agree with Kann in the sense that the Internet’s advancement has enabled a new context to online citizen interaction in terms of political deliberation, debate, decision-making, petitioning, protesting, etc (Kann, 2005.) Similar to how people share their opinions on the streets through local protests, asking you to sign a petition they may have, debates in the Town Hall etc- people have another means to share their ideas and opinions freely which is via online for anyone to see.  I myself have used the Internet to sign petitions and to vote in opinion-based polls. For example, just yesterday I signed a wildlife petition and a few weeks ago I voted in a poll on who I want to win the upcoming election in my town in terms of a new Board of Education member.

            In addition the Internet made aspects like elections and polling inexpensive and widely accessible which is a point Kann mentions that I had not ever even considered before. Kann also brings about the point that there are in fact clear features as to what works well on the Internet and what doesn’t. In what I found to be a very appropriate and realistic explanation, Kann highlights where each of the opposing ideas lie. For example, features like chat rooms, blogs, wikkies, etc provide users with the opportunity for discussion-- but that discussion is generally “undisciplined” rather than deliberative (Kann,2005.) In terms of my own personal experience, when I am reading blog pots and blog comments from other individual’s I always question what I am reading and do further research on my own because people can say just about anything they want on the internet- regardless of its validity.  In addition, in the chat rooms I have been exposed to people tend to have a language all of there own. Conversation isn’t something that is structured in terms of asking specific questions and having others answer each of those questions- it is a lot more free-spirited with no rules. With that being said, I agree with Kann (2005) when he says that such undisciplined talk can be a great way to tap into the public’s opinions via polls, etc. This aspect of undisciplined talk works well in terms of the Internet. It is facilitated talk supported by facts deems more suitable for in-person presentations, debates, discussions etc whether it be in the congress hall or the “halls of the Ivy League Universities” (Kann,2005.) When having a heated political debate, it helps to be in-person so that the facilitator can get right to the point in receiving the answers the public needs to hear- there is no room for the candidate’s to avoid a question by getting sidetracked in a discussion that is heading off-topic. If the debate was over the internet where candidates clearly have more freedom and less restriction, it would be a lot more easy for readers to not only misinterpret what he/she is saying but also for the candidate to talk over questions and/or not address specific ones appropriately.

            Overall in terms of politics, I truly agree that undisciplined talk is best suited for aspects like tapping into the opinions of the public in terms of questionnaires and polls via the Internet where as facilitated talk should occur in terms of in-person meetings, discussions, debates, etc.

           

http://networkedpublics.org/digital_democracy/more_or_less_democracy_in_the_internet_age