Engaging Public Online

The Internet is playing a very important role in the evolution of digital technology, but although it has seen remarkable growth over the last few years, its dispersion remains highly asymmetric. It is widely believed that the so called information age will bring radical change and improvement, and countries all over the world are busy with constructing the necessary infrastructure, the "information superhighways," in order to meet the challenges of the information society of the twenty-first century. Kwame Anthony Appiah’s essay “Making Conversation” tell us about human’s conversation

Since the introduction of the internet and Wi-Fi, services like Netflix and YouTube have sparked new opportunities for Americans and the World alike. It has also given rise to new voices and freedom to express one's opinions and beliefs. Before social media and the internet, activist groups like Green Peace or protests against a believed injustice required people to physically participate. Now with the assistance of Facebook and Tweeter, more individuals are able to speak out without even leaving their homes. One recent event was the Dakota Pipeline Protest in April of 2016. Besides, the members of more than 300 Native American tribes and more than 3000 to 4000 additional supporters stood against the proposed pipeline. The number of people

The impact of web based communication on public attitudes and political policy making has grown from small to large. With web based communication, people are able to get information out to a larger quantity of people throughout the world. The impact is so great because we no longer need to rely on word of mouth or the media and their personal views. Now everyone can get involved and go online to get information. As stated in the article (the impact of web based communication on election and political policy making). Technology allows for the mass distribution of a one way message from one to many.

Organizational Internet tools like Diigo, Dropbox, Evernote, TheBrain, Coolender, Maptini, Huddle, etc. that all allow you to take notes, collaborate on projects and events, map out your visions, and manage tasks efficiently and effectively. Internet tools make it possible for civic news, visions, and events to be broadcast and become a reality. Organizational tools of the Internet promote positive civic action such as signing online petitions and writing to an official, but the majority of this organizing online makes civic engagement activities offline actually happen (Goldie and Walker 162). These tools facilitate citizens by allowing them to organize their visions and step offline into the world to volunteer, raise awareness, educate others, and start their own organizations (Goldie and Walker 162).

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

The rise of technology in today’s society has provided many advantages in raising awareness of actions taking place in democracies. The use of social media and other technological advances has provided the opportunity for people to be aware of issues taking place in their community, nation, or world. By using new media, there is visible change in how civil society-which is the network of associations independent of the state-functions due to a person be able to use the internet in order to access infinite information about any topic. A recent example of people taking to social media in order to demand change in their civil society occurred in 2012 with the Trayvon Martin case, where as a result of a tragic accident,

It seems as more information has become available, people have felt less need to develop the close bonds of community. Yet, as traditional communities decline in modern life, new types of communities will emerge in their place (Delanty, 2003). This is because community is important in the basis of modern social relationships (Delanty, 2003). The Internet has taken over as the new public sphere, and its role as the public sphere connects with social media’s ability to facilitate discussions and create engagement among users (Dahlberg, 2001; Papacharissi, 2000). Since the 1990s, there has been an increase in the number of virtual communities and other structures that have formed online; some researchers have questioned if the Internet will reinvigorate the democratic process (Bimber, 1998; Johnson & Kaye, 1998). There remains concern about if information online has the same ability to promote activity among the population that print does (Hoffman, 2006). However, it is unknown if these digital tools are the structures needed to help people reconnect with one another. The media have traditionally sought to inform and engage the public, so it is now time to discuss the media’s role in creating

This is achieved through the influence of the media among all people. In accordance to Shelley Boulianne in an article written by John Wihbey it was observed that citizens who “consume more news media have a greater probability of being civically and politically engaged.” Meaning that social media, as used by e-activism can help incorporate more people into the political atmosphere of the United States. Furthermore, Boulianne concludes “social media plays a positive role in citizens’ participation.” This in theory could solve the problem of uneven participation rates, seeing as the use of social media affects more of the population and an extended variety of

Technology has unraveled rapidly, it has managed to break down barriers that secluded and oppressed us. Technology has allowed us to communicate our ideas and notions behind a screen. In the past, when we have held protest several people have united to fight towards a common cause. However, there are those who could not attend the protest or were located in a different area from the protest. It is in these cases where technology plays a key role. For those, who are behind a screen, modern technology has allowed them to participate in events without actually being present. Social media has been a voice for those who are afraid or have been deprived of one. In our society,

Then, how would Baumgartner and Jones (2010) explain this new kind of phenomenon where such scattered individuals themselves take an active part in the policy process? Although the book does not explicitly mention such new form of citizen participation, the authors would argue that such social media use and citizens’ policy inputs as a result could be understood as a part of the nonincremental stimulus that induces new policy ideas and thus policy punctuations by impelling policy makers in the ‘venue’. However, this interpretation leaves room for refutation. Even if individual citizens could finally induce policy changes by utilizing social media and by interacting each other and with key players in the policy process, they are still atomized without a group and do not have a tangible power unlike other actors such as policy entrepreneurs. Moreover, the social media spheres could not play the identical role with that of the venue. Thus, it is not easy to simply argue that citizens using social media could explicitly or directly exert their power over the policy process. Yet, it still seems that such new actors in the online space and their influence on policy change

In the United States, roughly 81% of the population uses the Internet every day in some way.(15) This high penetration rate confirms how omnipresent new media is within the population. With the advent of this new media age, have come revolutions in the way that we live our lives. One of the most important changes brought by the new media age concerns the very basis of human engagement and sociality. Whereas past communities existed primarily in physical locations, individuals were dependent on transportation, mail delivered by the postal system, and technology such as the telephone to connect with one another.(16) The arrival of new media, specifically the Internet and email, has allowed for the possibility of widespread interpersonal interactions that take place in non-physical locations.(16, 17) However, while the age of new media has transformed how individuals engage online, it has also shown what seems to be a lack of participation in these civic aspects in the offline realm. For the past several decades, social science scholars have been concerned with the affects that new media is having on civic engagement. One of the best-known authors on the topic, Robert Putnam, has described an overall decline in civic engagement over the last half of the twenty-first century. His main contention was focused on a decrease in activity in both social groups, such as bowling leagues, as well as political participation, such as attending town hall meetings and voting.(12) Putnam is

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.

Since the NSFNet was decommissioned in the early 1990’s and restrictions on commercial traffic was removed, (Costello,2016) we have seen the individual empowered to a point where they can compete with the tradition, media, retail and content outlets.(Abel, 2011) ‘Right now, with social networks and other tools on the Internet, all of these 500 million people have a way to say what they 're thinking and have their voice be heard.’ (Heussner, 2016)

The Internet not only provided a platform of new media through website access, but it confirmed ta much faster response between individuals communicating through website interaction. The increased speed of email communications and chat room access provided a more democratic response to current issues in the modern mass media. In this manner, individuals using chat rooms or email could send information much quicker, which outmoded the need for “snail mail” correspondences and the need for reading newspapers. This form of Internet interaction could vastly increase the availability of

Over the last century, voting turnouts in western democratic countries have been constantly declining. The UK, which is regarded as the birthplace of modern democracy, is not an exception. As Peter Dahlgren mentions, democracy is for and about its citizens, and therefore a certain degree of civic involvement is a necessary and sufficient condition for its prosperity (2009, 14p) If the lower level of participation in democracy continues, the word democracy, originated from demos (the people) in Greek, should be changed to elite-carcy or pauci-cracy. In order to retain a higher level of participation in democracy, some Habermasian scholars focus on interactive new media, such as social media and user generated content channels, which enable people to simultaneously communicate one to many and many to many. Without physically meeting altogether at the same time, people can freely express their own ideas on certain issues, instead of receiving information provided by traditional media. According to the their idea in favor of social media as a booster of democratic engagement, it would interweave fragmented individuals on cyberspace, then this organized public might be a driving force for democratic involvement. However, opponents say that there might be some obscure correlation between the use of social media and participation in democratic activities. In this essay, I will investigate two ideas. Firstly, Will new media really lead to more participation in most