Democracy And The Age Of Information Abundance Essay

By clicking a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” icon on Facebook or other media, sites can give politicians an instant read on people’s opinions. A tool commonly used is fact-checking in which citizens use the internet to find past speeches and other information that can prove a politician wrong. The internet has made the

The Internet has been changing the world since it is created. As a part of new media, social media is a fundamental shift in the way we communicate. It has been helped to create a digital global village that 26% of the world’s population is using social media and the number is keep increasing. (Qualman, 2013) This essay will attempt to discuss how has the social media changed the public sphere, mainly focus on the improvement of public participation, social relations and information dissemination. Also Mainland China is taken as an example to show that social media enabling democracy in a developing country. Social media is also being used in good ways to spread information. There are some disadvantages to be analyzed, too. The issues like lack of privacy, social media violence and social media out of control will be discussed in this essay.

In the twenty first century, everyone is gluing their eyes to bright screens, and keeping their minds and mouths shut. The public mindlessly releasing information through dangerous domains, like the Internet, poses a great issue. Citizens do not realize where their information can be used and why it is used. This unfortunate circumstance is seen in Peter Singer’s “Visible Man: Ethics in a World Without Secrets.” Although there is a sensation of isolation for the public in this century, there should still be a great amount of openness when it comes to social and political events that involve information, and the ways that data is collected for these purposes.

In the past ten years the way we as a people communicate has changed greatly. No longer is it uncommon for conversations to not be face to face and now more so than ever conversations take place through text. As with any change there will be and is push back to it. The conflict over the consequences of the social media dependent society have now intensified as a result of social media playing ever greater roles in how politics is seen and even conducted. This has been a major societal question since the presidential election of 2008 and the debate has been written about, discussed, and argued by thousands of different politicians,

With new technology rolling out onto the market seemingly everyday, the privacy of many is disappearing and has even become nonexistent. With many scandals over the past few years, government agencies have been accused of using these new communication resources as means to keep a watchful eye over their citizens. This is the very topic discussed by Peter Singer in his essay “Visible Man: Ethics in a World without Secrets”. Singer discusses the benefits and pitfalls that have come from these communication innovations, going in depth on the tactics and resources used by civilians as well as governments to keep track of each other. Singer presents strong premises that argue for the conservation of the individual privacy rights while also arguing for governments to become more transparent, creating an overall controversial element to his essay, as he is only half invested in transparency as a whole between civilians and the body that governs them, that comes off as somewhat unconvincing as the two arguments contradict each other.

Congress, 80% of our representatives use social media to engage with constituents. That has never been done before and is changing how politicians respond. We even see some votes in Congress made based on their Facebook feedback.”(The Economic) The Internet is like being there in the whole scene. Missing out information is impossible, a simply Google search, all the information is stored. When computers came out, it cost thousands, now it’s cheaper and faster. There’s tablets and phones with the opportunity to surf the web. More than half the candidates have some type of social media, either them or a fan.

Over the past few decades our generation has witnessed a communication revolution no generation has ever witnessed before. The Internet was fully commercialized in the U.S. by mid-1990s and instant communication including the World Wide Web, email, and instant messaging have all played part of an enormous impact on media, commerce, and politics during that time and up until now. U.S. scholar and activist Robert McChesney has spent the past twenty years studying and documenting the effects of this Internet revolution and its relationship with capitalism and democracy. In his 2013 work “Digital Disconnect: How Capitalism is Turning the Internet Against Democracy,” McChesney addresses the relationship between the economic power and the digital

As stated above, increasing access to a single form of electronic communication in 2016 is simply too limited an approach to do anything but hamper government. Additionally, the pursuit of such measures can often come at the expense of more effective and realistic methods of monitoring government action. Yglesias describes the FOIA process as a “very slow, highly adversarial process that is primarily useful to people with an ax to grind.” For a national government as unimaginably vast as the United States’, this is not a satisfactory primary tool for forcing disclosure. Yglesias proposes an alternative, however, in the form of “routine publication of what it knows.” This is certainly the more attractive option. The dynamic created by the FOIA process – where disclosure is a forced and drawn-out process – is not one to foster any sense of trust in

Information technology has changed the context in which governments must operate. Individual citizens and groups now have the ability to quickly organize and contest or influence the direction and mode of governance. From 24/7 news to flash mobs to blogs to political tell-alls, the rapid flow of information demands rapid results from systems of governance. How has information technology compressed the ability of governments and organizations across the board to implement long-term strategic planning? How has information technology redefined sovereign and cultural borders? How can the government leverage information technology to “fight back”? What kinds of skills and resources are needed by both the people sending the message

The 2008 presidential election was the beginning of a new era in politics4. While media such as television and newspapers focused on Obama’s race and birthplace, the now elect president was focusing his resources on the internet. Particularly social media, such as Facebook. His efforts were worthwhile, seeing how he overcame all obstacles and won the election. It proved social media’s, and the internet’s, true reach and power, as well as how intelligent Obama was in arguably being one of the first few politicians to tap into its true potential. His application of rhetoric in this new platform was ingenious, and it convinced the American people that he was a capable, modern man; an appeal that many established but older candidates lacked at the time.

Over the years the media has made citizens major role players in politics. Ross Perot opened eyes by putting the 1992 Election in the media and thereby allowing voters to become directly involved in politics. The Internet, the new form of mass media “has turned into a major political and media industry” (Grossman 16). Because of the rise the Internet has taken, the idea of direct democracy has risen. The foundation of direct democracy is in self-government. The claim is that the presence of the Internet will increase citizens’ involvement in political issues by allowing them access to more information. This is significant because it takes a look at the impact of technology on society and politics, as well by

Technological Surveillance In an age where instant communication and technology provide easy and ready access to information, the society and the individual is caught between two very controversial principles- open information and privacy. The perceptions and expectations of privacy are rapidly changing as a result of current developments in surveillance technologies. The question is are these new surveillance technologies endangering the values and morals of our democratic society, the society we have worked for many centuries to achieve?

As a logical consequence, Postmes and Brunsting (2002) reasoned that the Internet is changing society because people's cognitive processes, triggered by access to information and communication, replace the strong social ties that traditionally underpin committed activism. In simpler words, in the past, humanity used the herd instinct as the main driving force behind committed forms of activism. Thanks to the Internet, we climb another step or three on the evolutionary ladder, and simply do away with the herd instinct and replace it with reason. The argument, if put this way, does not sound particularly strong. What can be taken away is that social media is still evolving, that social media changes the way we – or most of us communicate, that social media is used in social and political activism, and that the Internet increases quantitative if not qualitative access to information.

This paper will cover the pros and cons of government surveillance. It will cover different views on the issue such as ethical, social, and global impact. This paper will try to answer the question of how government surveillance on social media can impact local citizens in the United States

Churchill’s claim that “democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried” is deliberately provocative and intended to challenge the reader’s simplistic ideal that democracy is without faults. There are an estimated 114 democracies in the world today (Wong, Oct 3rd lecture). A figure that has increased rapidly in the last century not necessarily because democracy is the best form of government, but primarily for reason that in practice, under stable social, economic and political conditions, it has the least limitations in comparison to other forms of government. Be it the transparency of a democratic government or the prevalence of majority rule, all subdivisions of democracy benefit and hinder its