Is the Internet an Effective Forum for Public Debate?

[seemslikeadream]

http://fora.tv/2007/10/27/Battle_of_Ideas_Digital_Commons

Institute of Ideas
London, UK
Oct 27th, 2007

Digital commons: Does new technology add up to a new public sphere? at the 2007 Battle of Ideas conference hosted by the Institute of Ideas.

New technology has become so closely associated with public engagement, both culturally and politically, that it has been heralded as a new democracy in and of itself. Undoubtedly we are in an era in which people have the freedom to access and create public information like never before, challenging traditional expertise and deference to authority: citizen journalists break stories, bands shoot to No 1 without A&R men from major labels, and presidential candidates connect with their electorate via YouTube.

But how revolutionary is new technology really? Often it is respected off-line institutions that seem to dominate the digital commons, even setting-up shop in Second Life. Add to that 10 Downing Street e-petitions, MPs' blogs and the mainstream media flocking online, and is the internet not just coming to reflect the existing power structures of real life? Are multinational corporations and political parties simply using new technology for their own traditional ends?

Or are we truly witnessing the birth of the coffee shop of the 21st century - a new space for trading ideas and participating in public life? New technology has certainly opened the door for the majority, rather than the minority, to create and have their say and engage in political activism. Witness the instant mobilisation generated by Live8's use of text-messaging, or Chinese activists' ability to communicate beneath the radar of the authorities. But do the masses-on-the-mouse match up to the hyperbole about a UGC-led transformation of politics and culture? Are cultural theorists and political e-warriors correct in arguing that the web is indeed bringing about a new renaissance - even revolution? Or is the parallel universe of the web just that: a space which - despite all the 'passionate users' creating and communicating - has little impact on democracy, creativity or participation? - IoI

[LWolf]

1. Not when the conversation is narrowed down

to exclude opposing points of view, imo.

If the online cafe could truly provide an open COURTEOUS, RESPECTFUL exchange of ideas and participation, it could truly be a powerful force. Instead, people gather, gang-like, with those of like-mind, to increase their power when they go into battle with those with different povs. That doesn't really help the public conversation, imo. It simply reinforces the "4 legs good, 2 legs bad" mentality that keeps the doors shut on the healthy, and courteous, exchange of ideas.

[Joe Fields]

2. After five years on this discussion board, I would say absolutely not.

[datasuspect]

5. after about 15 years in various forums, usenet, etc

the answer is a resounding "ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY NO"

there are rare, rare exceptions, but the misinformed, the bullies, the nastybots eventually filter in and it usually all goes to shit.

[Buzz Clik]

3. It totally depends on the conversation and its participants.

Political Forums: In an echo chamber like DU, FreeRepublic, and other mono-cultural sites, the conversation can get to the point of simple affirmation. However, we all have seen disagreements erupt, and reasonable participants will become engaged in researching the topic. This leads to a more educated conversation and a more productive debate.

In pure flame fests, little is accomplished other than slinging mud -- lots of yelling, threats, insults, etc.

Social Forums: Definitely the new coffee shop, minus the coffee and minus the physical interaction.


DU is a good place for me to learn things or to take points of view and study them, but I much prefer human interactions in real life.

[ThomWV]

No, it has not proven effective for public debate but its great for airing an uncontested idea

You rarely see any discussion in which there is an outcome that is the result of differing opnions. I might say white on this site and you may say black on another site but nowhere will grey be the outcome. Also, other than namecalling you rarely see any real discusson of subjects, what you see is pot shots at individual's opnions.

[Annces]

4. Well

Lets just all keep our ideas to ourselves and let others decide what we should think. (sarcasm). How could it not be a good thing! To be effective would take more corralling, such as kicking off the one-liner OPs on DU.

[laconicsax]

6. LOL teh internet r0xors!!!1!!!11

of corse teh net iz a affective forum. any 1 who dissagres is a total n00b!! lolz! brb! ok soz. teh internetz are totally awesome for publik dibate cuz any1 can use it from the most 1337 h@x0rz 2 teh dummest n00bs it lvls teh playing feild. thsi wy teh rantigns of a dumb freep who dosnt know $#!7 form his own head r given teh same lvl of respetc as ny1 else! totally awesome! teh pr0n r0xors 2!!!!1!!

Click here for hot girls waiting for YOU

[Uncle Joe]

7. I believe the Internet is democracy's best chance.

A most powerful tool growing ever more dominant and influential, the citizenry as a whole can't help but be educated, even if by accident. I also believe information is the new fire that will enlighten not only the masses, but their erstwhile corporate masters with their one way information megaphones as well.

In conclusion, I believe this is what truly motivated the so called "respected off line institutions" to slander, trash and libel the Internet's greatest political champion.

[Angela Shelley]

8. Yes, internet motivates participation

because the "surface anonymity" gives people a chance to join in on discussions which they wouldn´t join in a public discussion.

Remember learning that sticks and stones break bones, but words don´t hurt?

That was great wisdom for future internet forum members.