User:ThereseOwusu/Sandbox

How does 21st-century democratized information contribute to democracy?
The Internet allows people to connect with people from around the world and quickly share vast amounts of information. As advanced by scholars supportive of deliberative democracy and the role of the public sphere, informed citizens and public debate of the issues are the cornerstones of a "strong democracy." Today, we get up to date unfiltered information, on a daily second by second basis. More people are turning to the internet and web 2.0 tools as their primary source of information. However, the line between opinion and fact is becoming more unclear, could the large amounts of unfiltered and inaccurate information become a threat to democracy? Does 21 st century democratized information contribute to democracy?

The Internet and Web 2.0
The article will focus on the internet and web 2.0 tools. According to 2007 Wall Street Journal article, web 2.0 tools “allow people to build social and business connections, share information and collaborate on projects online”. The article identifies tools such as “blogs, wikis, social-networking sites, other online communities, virtual worlds,” and government websites.

Democracy: Information, debate, and the informed citizen
Although their is still debate among scholars on a definition for democracy, in the 2006 book “Electoral Systems and Democracy,” democratic Richard Snyder and David Samuels state that “free elections are the cornerstone of any democratic system of government”. Although the greatest factor in a democracy is “free elections,” the election process can vary especially between a direct and representational democracy.

Representative vs. Direct Democracy
Direct democracy, also known as pure democracy, is defined by Merriam Webster dictionary as "a democracy in which the power is exercised directly by the people rather than through representatives". In contrast, in a representative democracy, citizens do not directly exercise power but indirectly exercise power by democratically electing an official to represent them. One form of a representative democracy is a parliamentary systemfound in countries such as the United Kingdom. Other countries such as the United States do not have a direct or representative democracy but a hybrid of both forms. A form of hybrid democracy, deliberative democracy, is supported by scholars such as Jurgen Habermas and outlined by Joshua Cohen as public and authentic deliberation, free from political and economic pressures(“Deliberative Democracy”).

Informed Citizenry
Although states may differ on which type of democracy they identify as, in their 2006 book “Digital Democracies Concepts and Issues,” scholars Brian Hoader and Barry Hague identify a “strong democracy” as one based upon the principle of autonomy: the ability of people to participate in the process of debate and deliberation in all matters of public opinion. For Hoader and Hague, citizens with better information, more informed citizens, are better able participate in the deliberation process because they can make better “comprehensive judgements”. Greater access to information by citizens in a democracy can potentially lead to greater transparency and accountability in the government which could allow for a more inclusive debate on issues that affect the public and policy making.

For Jurgen Habermas, a strong democracy is centered around the public sphere: where informed citizens can debate and have discussions about the issues affecting them free from government authority and economic pressures. For some, the Internet is seen as the space for virtual public sphere because it is considered independent from government pressures and the market; and, accessible to all citizens.

Building Communities and Relationship
Through the use of social networking sites, online forums, and blogs, web 2.0 tools on the Internet can promote and maintain a virtual public space. Sites such as Political Jack, a popular online political discussion forum, enables an individual’s voice and concerns to develop into a community’s voice.

However this ability to develop relationships and communities based upon similar interest can lead to increased hyper partisanship due to the eco chamber effect. The echo chamber effect can occur when people of similar interests and beliefs only interact online with others of similar viewpoints. As a result, their sources of new and access to unfiltered, unbiased, information maybe limited. For example, an online user with a particular viewpoint will go to a website which has the same or similar viewpoint, interact with users with the same or similar view point, and then be linked to a news source with the same viewpoint thus being encompassed in a "chamber" of a particular viewpoint. Because an informed citizen is essential to debate and deliberation within a “strong democracy,” the eco chamber effect is a potential threat to democracy because online user could intentionally or unintentionally create their own filter for information thus making them less fully informed on the issues.

More access to information
Through the Internet, ordinary citizens have greater and easier access to information. With search website such as Google, within an easier to use interface, you are able search for, find, and access more information than ever before. Taking advantage of this information culture, websites such as Wiki leaks, a not-for-profit organization which “leaks” news stories with official government documentation, and often confidential information, to support their stories as information to the public. The purpose of allowing the public access to confidential documents and news stories is to encourage greater public scrutiny of government’s actions and accountability to citizens through transparency.

In response to non-state organizations publication of government documents and news stories on deceit in government actions, some states such are taking the initiative to release more government documents. In 2009, the United States government began their “Open Government” initiative. The initiative requires federal agencies to take immediate, specific steps to achieve key milestones in transparency, participation, and collaboration“. As part of this initiative, the Obama administration created websites to track monthly government spending: recovery.gov, USASpending.gov, and IT.usaspending.gov. In addition to government spending tracking websites, the administration has also created an Open Government Initiative Blog and Dashboard in order to promote “Transparency, Participation, and Collaboration” with its citizens. In September 2011, countries such as the United Kingdom, signed the Open Government Partnership, committing to “increase the availability of information about governmental activities,” such as through websites (Open Government Partnership).

However, government websites are still selective in what they choose to release to the public, and documents of highly sensitive or controversial nature are rarely released or made known. Therefore, although more information relevant to policy making and issues which affect citizens is being released by the government, this information, in contrast to information from non-state organizations such as Wiki Leaks, is filtered.

While experts and authority figures are publishing official documents to support their news stories or claims, less expert and less authoritative figures have been accused of not providing enough documentation to support their claims or news stories. Although there is curated media by “experts,” such as professional journalists, on the Internet on blogs such as the Huffington Post, the majority of content on the Internet, especially in web 2.0 tools, is un-curated media, from non-experts. Due to the anarchy, lack of central authority, within the Internet structure, decisions making is based upon the viewpoints of the majority and minority. For example, search results for an item on google are based upon what google believes most people are searching for. However, because there is no editor to fact check or discourage extremist views, incorrect information is easy to distribute. More often, story ideas for traditional media such as TV, radio, or newspapers, come from Internet sources giving untrue stories or extreme views more credibility. With a prevalent culture of anonymity online, it is even more difficult to fact check comments or news stories.

In May 2009, a rumor spread on Twitter that California’s Proposition 8, a ballot which eliminates the rights of same-sex couples to marry, had been overturned. Although the rumor was false, it was re tweeted and picked up by the Los Angeles Times and ABC News. While lack of experts or authority figure maybe of concern for some online users, others view it as one of the best features of web 2.0 tools. There is less fear of control of information, a concern for Habermas and other proponents of the public sphere, from political or economic pressures by corporations or politicians because of the large array of websites and users online.

Mobilizing Political Change
Mass participation by users on websites and blogs can lead to direct changes in the political structure by providing a platform to coordinate and mobilize people through tools such as Facebook, Twitter, and blogs and by spreading information such as news stories, especially first hand accounts, on controversial topics such as human rights violations. While the effectiveness of online petitions have been heatedly debated, online petitions, an Internet petition on a website, on Change.org, a website which provides free tools for its members to create online petitions and start campaigns for change. In late 2010, a group of lesbians in South Africa began a campaign on the site calling for the government to take action on “corrective rape,” when heterosexual men rape homosexual women to make them heterosexual. The petitions went on to gather 170,000 signatures from 163 countries. The campaign raised national and international awareness on the issue and led to massive media coverage from news organizations such as BBC and CNN; in response, the South African government established a national task team to end “corrective rape”.

Twitter and Facebook can also be used to mobilize citizens into action. In a June 2011 article on the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions, journalist Carol Huang revealed that “9 out of 10 Tunisians and Egyptians said “they [used] Facebook and Twitter to organize protests and spread awareness of them”. During the revolutions, Facebook usage greatly increased with some activists and protesters stating the site “played a critical role in mobilization, empowerment, shaping opinions and influencing change”.

Although the Internet can be used to mobilize the public into political action, the Internet as a tool of mobilization is only effective in countries where the central authority, government, can not block or influence Internet access.

Access to online tools of information are not limited to protesters and anti-authoritarian figures, increasingly, authoritarian regimes are not only censoring tool of information to there citizens, but are also using online tools to monitor, harass, and imprison dissidents. According to 2010 article by Reporter Without Borders on government’s tightening on the web, the number of countries experiencing forms of web censorship increased from 30 in 2008 to 60 in 2009 .In addition, according to the Reporter Without Border’s article, in 2010 there were 120 Internet users.

While protesters were using social media mobilize action against the government, the government was also using social media to mobilize against protesters. During the “2011 Egyptian Revolution,” the Egyptian government restricted use of the web, although officially, authorities deny taking such actions. The restriction on web use impeded anti-government protesters ability to mobilize and distribute information on upcoming political activities such as protests, specifically the “Day of Revolt” against President Hosni Mubarak or government infringements on citizen’s human rights (“Confusion over Egyptian blocks on web protest tools”).

In Tunisia, government officials hacked into the Facebook accounts of dissident citizens such as Al-Tariq al-Jadid reporter Sofiene Chourabi by stealing their passwords and user names. Officials then deleted Facebook groups and pages and compromised pictures of protesters

Equal Access?
According to the United Nations, access to the internet is a human right. It is a which is “critical” in “democracy and empowerment” objectives; and, it also contributes to equalizing information rights. However, although the internet is viewed as a human right, access to the internet greatly varies within country to country, especially within industrialized and less industrialized countries due to the “digital divide,” disparity in IT resources between communities: low versus rich, minority versus dominant, and urban vs. rural. Although citizens of less developed countries in Africa and Asia are increasingly gaining access and using the internet, web 2.0 tools reflect the dominant culture of industrialized western countries, where the internet and the majority of web 2.0 tools are and were developed. For example, the majority of content on the internet is in English, although the majority of people in the world do not speak English.

In addition, the majority of citizens in third world countries access the internet via mobile devices as opposed to computers or desktops creating a different user experience. Although many sites have created mobile formats, many still can not be properly viewed on mobile devices. Furthermore, in areas with no or unreliable connection, internet users must commute to internet cafes to pay to use the internet within a specific time period if they don’t have free access to the internet.

In response to the issue of internet access, the Finish legislature has passed a policy which states that access to the Internet is a fundamental right for all citizens. In July 2010 Finnish house holds were required to have at least 1 MB/s connection and by 2015 it would be at least 100 MB/s.

The Threat to Personal Information and Privacy
While the increased use of web 2.0 tools allow user from around the world to share information and interact more frequently, these interactions are recorded and easily traceable by the companies which own these tools. According to his article “Privacy and Democracy in Cyberspace,” Paul M. Schwartz, a professor law at University of California Berkeley, “in the absence of strong privacy rules, cyberspace’s civic potential will never be attained”.

Although Google allows online users to easily search for information, critics of the site have raised concerns of privacy issues. As part of their Google maps application, users are able to view maps in “street view” allowing them to view live images of the location they are searching for. These images often include videos unaware bystanders and could be used to potentially track people .In January of 2011, Google had to settle with the state of Connecticut for tracking private Wi Fi networks. Through their e-mail service, cookies (tags the websites which users visit), desktop search, and web accelerator, Google is easily able to collect information about their users with or without their knowledge. Google can share the personal information with their other services without consent.

Like Google, Facebook also has access to the personal information of its users. However, the company with over 750 million users has been further accused of “unfair and deceptive practices “. For example, in 2007, Facebook admitted to “constantly tracking its 750 million users, even when they are using other sites”. Governments can hack into the information users give out on social media sites and other online website to track and monitor citizens or, as in the case of the Tunisian government, arrest citizens.

Democratized Information: Promoting the Virtual Public Sphere
The internet allows people to quickly share information and allow people to connect to the world. However is the ability to quickly share information online a potential threat for democracy? While the prevalence of unchecked information online is of serious concern, the sum benefits of online web 2.0 tools support democracy and contribute to democracy. Although online tool can be blocked by authoritarian government regimes to control the flow of information to its citizens, online tools allow people in closed communities to access information, and in the case of the Arab Spring, mobilize political action. States which do block or heavily monitor internet are faced with media and international outcry. On the other hand, some states such are using the web as an opportunity to encourage more transparency within their departments.

In addition, the internet and web 2.0 tools allow people to build relationships and share information. While these interactions may bring up concerns over the eco chamber effect, this hyper partisan interaction is not limited to the internet and web 2.0 tools. Increased partisanship can be found in newspapers, television, and the radio as media organizations seek niche audiences to gain a profit. Concerns over access and privacy call into question how “free” the internet is, more domestic and international states are creating and enforcing legislation to combat these concerns. Informed citizens are necessary for a “strong democracy” to flourish because it allows them to further participate in the democratic process. The virtual public sphere, facilitated by web 2.0 tools, allow citizens to access vast amounts information, good or bad, to build communities and debate. As a result, the virtual public sphere promotes democracy by encouraging citizens to actively participate in political decision while also encouraging greater government transparency and accountability.