Could The Internet Be The Public Sphere

This shift to more superficial reading and thinking has had an impact on critical thinking on the Internet, at least when reading articles found on the Internet. In this age of “fake news” running rampant over the Internet, it is more important than ever to employ critical thinking skills on the Internet; however, it is clear that many people do not. This becomes a problem when such blatant misinformation is influencing peoples’ decisions, such as in the 2016 presidential election. Some are fearful that society will operate “on the basis of bad or biased information” and that we will not be able to trust voters to think critically about the claims candidates are making (Cerf).

In Esther Dyson’s “Cyberspace: If You Don’t Love It, Leave It”, the existence of the internet is seen as potentially dangerous to today’s society. Dyson insists that the internet was once a sanctuary for tech savvy individuals such as gamers and professionals like engineers. The author focuses on the negative websites and communities that are often found offensive to the majority. She thinks the World Wide Web harbors a lot of power. This power can be accessed and conquered easily by most of the population. According to Dyson, responsibility is the key to changing the future (295). Her argument is convincing but slightly unrealistic. The internet seems to be growing into a whole other alternate universe. Society’s rapidly growing technology industry will only be harder to regulate. Most people will do what they want, when they want especially when it comes to the internet.

In the debate “When it comes to politics, the internet is closing our minds,” the side that argued for the motion is the side which best argued their ideas by providing consistency throughout the debate and successfully utilizing a number of techniques in order to win their argument. The side that was for the motion used clear and consistent arguments that were backed by data. They used examples in their argument that the audience could understand and relate to easily. The language and tone used in their argument matched that which was appropriate to the intended audience with timely and relatable examples that argued their points successfully.

Several years after the end of the American Revolution the United States Constitution was being drafted by some of the nations most important historical figures. Politicians such as Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, and George Washington were just three of the thirty-nine who eventually signed the Constitution on September 17, 1787 (“United States Constitution,” 2015, “1787 Drafting,” para. 7). With the birth of the constitution, came the fear that our newly created nation might slip back under control of a monarchy once again. Therefore, on June 8, 1789, in order to combat such a situation, a group of anti-federalists headed by James Madison proposed a series of thirty-nine amendments to be added to the Constitution. These amendments were designed to guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government’s power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public (“United States Bill of Rights,” 2015, “Introduction,” para. 1). The first ten of the new amendments, arguably the most important of the thirty-nine, were thus labeled the Bill of Rights. Amendments in the Bill of Rights protect freedoms such as the right to bear arms, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, right to due process, right to trail by jury, protection from quartering troops, and finally the First Amendment, the right to freedom of speech, press, religion, peaceable assembly, and to petition the government (“United States

With the introduction of the Internet, there has been a global shift in our human culture. A profound, intense change in which every one of us has been impacted by, and one that has never been so pervasive or immediate as the one we have seen grow with each passing day. Now, the Internet was conceived with the purest of notions, where the intentions were good and the purpose was true: a glorified, all-encompassing systematic collection of the world’s expressions, where ideas, thoughts, reforms, and opinions can circle the globe, for conversations to be sparked and a global culture to be established. However, through the passage of time, certain facets of the Internet have become polluted, perverse even, where the malicious and ill willed could

(Felczak et al, 2009). These rights include unfettered access to information and knowledge and the free exchange of ideas in the public sphere where everyone may participate in a mutually accountable debate, exchange of reasons, and opinions. (Habermas, 2004). In the 21st Century, the Internet has facilitated the equal opportunity for all participants to share information in a highly flexible environment. While the design of the Internet was to exist as a cooperative, non-hierarchal, communicative system for information sharing, it seamlessly developed into an extension of the public sphere. However, the advent of this new version of the public sphere came with a dark side of anonymity as exampled in the phenomena of

Now adays, the explosion of the Internet has made it much easier for average people to post their opinions. Any person with access to the Internet and a type of computer can easily post what is on their mind. From tweeting about their breakfast to live blogging about their opinions on a national debate, every thing can be set free into the world.

In the article “The Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet is Failing Our Culture.” suggests that the news today is more focused on personal bias and less on actual facts (Keen, 2007). Thus creating news to be distorted and geared towards personal feelings. If a viewer is to only access information on news events

This liberty of forum is available to anyone with a modicum of knowledge or the desire to gain such knowledge. This is in direct contrast to the publishing world where it requires a specialized knowledge and education to produce some thing or to become published. Often the knowledge needs to be combined with a fair amount of luck as well. Technology has also become a way to put social power into the hands of the few as well. The existence of surveillance systems, the exorbitant prices of medical matters, and the existence of issues such as the digital divide are all examples of technologically based ways to shift a balance of power in an arena.

Public discourse has commonly been known as the communication of diverse claims between the public backed by reason and substantive argument. This exchanging of views often happens between both those who agree with one’s sentiment and those who disagree. Since the beginning of civilization, humans have been given the responsibility of finding a reasonable outcome at the end of an argument with somebody of opposing views. Through deliberation, both sides of the argument articulate their reasoning for their views and attempt to find such reasonable outcomes. At times, a middle ground is unattainable between the two and tension grows. At this point, distinct guidelines need to be set in regards to the extent in which individuals can exert

Nicholls, CULTURES OF SPEED, April 5, 2015) as the militarisation of culture employs intelligence to gather metadata on individuals so that patterns of consumption can be anticipated and calculated (B. Nicholls, CULTURES OF SPEED, April 5, 2015). Another aspect of Dean’s communicative capitalism, which Virilio’s views align with, is the idea that when users voice their opinions online, it inhibits the actuality for political change (B. Nicholls, speed culture, April 5, 2015). When users post on the Internet, it creates “talk without response, in which the very practices associated with governance by the people consolidate and support the most brutal inequities of corporate-controlled capitalism” (Dean, 2009, p.24). Virilio calls this “talk without response” (Dean, 2009, p.24) disinformation, as speed technologies provide an “excess of contradictory information” (B. Nicholls, speed culture, April 5, 2015); everyone’s opinions within communications environments are all validated. This validation allows people with political power to be relieved from having to listen to the public, as their own interests can be served due to their advantaged positions while the voices of those online simply remain in circulation (Dean,

Theorists contend that representative government is headed for direct democracy by way of the Internet. Essentially what will happen is that representatives will no longer be needed because citizens will be able to use the Internet to make decisions. Grossman contends that “the more power [citizens] have to control their government and to involve themselves in making its decisions, the better” (41). Over the years citizens have been obtaining information through the media, newspapers, and other forms of mass media. The issues that arise with obtaining information through these sources are that the government can easily censor them. With the Internet comes “vastly expanded capacities for data collection, for computation, and for automation” (Kamark & Nye 22).

Do you believe that the internet is a privilege or a necessity? How would you feel if the internet didn’t exist? Many believe that it should be either a human right or a civil right. Although these may sound the same or similar, there is a huge difference between them and also a different meaning between the two. According to HG.org Human rights is defined as ‘’ generally thought as fundamental rights. They include the right to life, education, free expression and free trial. Basically meaning you have that right because you’re you and you deserve it. Civil rights is defined as ‘’ the rights that one enjoys by virtue of citizenship in a particular nation or state. Which means you only have that right depending where you live and how the government decides what you get. Therefore, if you wonder if the internet is a civil right or a human right, you’ll be surprised at the outcomes of this debate.

With the development of the Web 2.0 which made Internet participative, the Internet users are now capable of expressing themselves, interacting, and giving their opinion onto everything (products, services, brands, companies, cultural property) and on everybody, via multiple platforms on Internet. To criticize a restaurant on Cityvox, to note a seller on eBay, to denounce the actions of a brand or a company via a viral video on YouTube, to support a candidate for an election, to

There are dangers of online communication such as social networks where users can lie about who they are [4]“Megan thought she was being abused by 16-year-old Josh Evans, she was actually talking to Lori Drew, the 49-year-old mother of one of her former friends who, it is alleged, had set up a fake profile to taunt Megan.” in social networking sites it is very easy for people to