Democracy in the Digital Public Sphere
Class: PHIL-282
Author: Joshua Cohen and Archon Fung
Book: Digital Technology and Democratic Theory
Reading Questions
1. What are the two “topias” that the authors wish to move beyond?
The authors aim to move beyond two extreme views ("topias") regarding digital technology and democracy:
- Techno-Dystopianism: The currently fashionable view. Digital tech (e.g., social media) is "rotting democracy from within". It generates hyper-personalized, addictive filter bubbles, amplifies extremism, crushes truth, and places discussion under suffocating private control by predatory monopolies.
- Techno-Utopianism: The once-fashionable antecedent. Held that the Internet was inherently a "force for the promotion of democracy". Believed democratic benefits flowed inexorably from the technology itself, enabling virtually costless communication at a scale eluding central control.
2a. Explain the three “central ideas” that shape the authors’ conception of democracy.
The authors draw on three central ideas to guide their conception of democracy:
- Democratic Society: A society whose members are viewed as free and equal persons. These individuals possess normative powers (a sense of justice/reasonableness) to reflect on and discuss social/political issues.
- Democratic Political Regime: Characterized by regular elections, rights of participation, and essential liberties (associative/expressive) necessary to make participation informed and effective.
- Deliberative Democracy: Political discussion must appeal to reasons of justice, fairness, and the common good. The authorization to exercise collective power must trace back to such argument, marrying broad participation with public reasoning.
2b. What are the three “dispositions and norms” necessary for public discourse to support these central ideas?
A well-functioning democratic public sphere depends on participants exhibiting three key norms and dispositions:
- Truth: Participants must acknowledge the importance of truth, meaning they should not deliberately misrepresent their beliefs or show reckless disregard/negligence for the truth of their assertions. It requires a willingness to correct errors.
- Common Good: Participants must be concerned about the common good, based on a reasonable understanding that respects the equal standing and importance of others. Views should be guided by this, not by a conception that discounts the interests of others.
- Civility: The obligation to justify views by referencing core democratic values (e.g., liberty, equality, general welfare). This expresses a sense of accountability to others as equal participants, moving beyond mere manners.
3. How does the digital public square compare to its predigital predecessor?
The comparison is a stylized contrast between the mass-media public sphere (MMP) and the digitally mediated public sphere (DMP).
| Condition of Communicative Freedom | Mass-Media Public Sphere (MMP) | Digital Public Sphere (DMP) | Comparison Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Industrial Model | Dominated by few large corporations (e.g., three network broadcasters); one-to-many communication. Narrow aperture. | Networked (many-to-many) communication; effectively zero marginal costs. Defined by platform curation (Facebook, Google, Twitter). Widened aperture. | DMP offers greatly expanded reach/providers. |
| Expression/Diversity/Access | Limited diversity; professional journalists shared elite/ideological boundaries; heavy reliance on official sources. | Initially shows clear advantages in diversity, enabling many more people to express views and access vast amounts of instructive information from diverse sources. | DMP increases opportunities for participation. |
| Drawbacks | Media coherence and shared epistemic standards. | Gains are qualified by the massive expansion of noise, misinformation, and hostility (e.g., doxxing/swarming). Low "signal-to-noise" ratio demands considerable effort from citizens to find reliable info. | Hostility/harassment reduces opportunities for victims (silencing effect). |
| Communicative Power | Cramped affordances; media companies acted as gatekeepers; dissidents struggled to gain public access. | Enhances capacity for collective action/mobilization (e.g., #MeToo). Enables activists to reach broad audiences more easily. | Easy mobilization often doesn't build sustained organizational infrastructure. |
| Overall Assessment | The DMP falls far short of its democratic potential for fostering diverse and interconnected engagements. The democratic exploitation of technological affordances is highly contingent. |
4. The authors offer some “illustrative ideas” that can lead to a more “ideal” public sphere. What are three of them?
The authors provide guidance focusing on regulation, information quality, privacy, and citizen roles. Three ideas include:
- Regulate Noxious Speech: Platforms and government should act against speech that causes harm, such as defamation and threats of imminent harm (e.g., doxxing/swatting). Platforms should invest in methods to detect and demote clearly false news content to advance access and diversity, while avoiding viewpoint discrimination.
- Produce High-Quality Information: The best cure for fake news is increasing access to better, reliable information ("raise the floor"). Novel combinations of funding (corporate, government, citizen) should be explored to finance professional journalism (e.g., taxing digital advertising revenue, analogous to the C-SPAN model).
- Enhance Privacy, Security, and Individual Vigilance: Improving privacy and security (e.g., through data minimization and encryption) fosters expression and reduces the power of algorithms to exacerbate polarization and reinforce filter bubbles. This protection should be mandated, not left solely to competition. Simultaneously, the DMP requires users to shoulder a larger burden to distinguish information from manipulation, exercise restraint, and enforce norms, aided by platform design (e.g., tools to assess veracity, exposure to diverse perspectives).
Summary
Core Aim
- Move past extremes (topias) to find realistic hopes for democracy.
- *Goal: Strengthen democracy by combining broad participation with public reasoning.
I. Two "Topias" to Move Beyond
- Techno-Utopianism: Internet is an inherent "force for democracy" because communication is virtually costless and decentralized.
- Techno-Dystopianism: Digital tech is "rotting democracy from within," creating filter bubbles, amplifying extremism, crushing truth, and giving suffocating power to monopolies.
II. Central Ideas for Democracy
- Democratic Society: Members are free and equal persons with the capacity (reason/justice) for political reflection and discussion.
- Democratic Political Regime: Requires regular elections, rights of participation, and essential liberties (expression/association).
- Deliberative Democracy: Political discussion must appeal to reasons of justice, fairness, and the common good; collective power must trace back to such arguments.
III. Dispositions & Norms for Public Discourse
To support these ideas, participants need three dispositions:
- Truth: Avoid deliberate misrepresentation; avoid reckless/negligent disregard for facts; show a willingness to correct errors.
- Common Good: Views must be guided by a reasonable understanding that respects the equal standing and importance of others.
- Civility: Express accountability to others as equals by justifying views with reference to core democratic values (e.g., liberty, equality).
IV. Comparing the Public Spheres (MMP vs. DMP)
The democratic potential of technology is highly contingent.
| Feature | Mass-Media Public Sphere (MMP) | Digital Public Sphere (DMP) | Comparison Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control/Aperture | Dominated by few corporations (e.g., network broadcasters); one-to-many model. Narrow aperture. | Networked (many-to-many); virtually zero marginal cost. Widened aperture, curated by platforms (Facebook, Google). | DMP greatly expands access/diversity. |
| Epistemic Quality | Coherent; mutual correction among professional journalists; shared standards of evidence. | Massive expansion of noise, misinformation, and hostility (doxxing, swatting). Low "signal-to-noise" ratio. | DMP often falls short of democratic potential. |
| Communicative Power | Cramped affordances; officials/media acted as gatekeepers. | Enhances mobilization capacity (e.g., #MeToo), making collective action easier. | Easy mobilization often lacks sustained organizational infrastructure. |
| Harms | Limited diversity; professional norms sometimes excluded subaltern voices. | Hostility/harassment imposes costs, silencing targets and limiting the diversity of views accessed by others. |
V. Illustrative Ideas for a More Ideal Public Sphere
A democratic public sphere requires concerted action by governments, companies, and citizens.
- Regulate Noxious Speech: Government and platforms should act against speech that harms (e.g., defamation, imminent threats like doxxing). Platforms should detect and demote clearly false content to improve access and diversity.
- Produce Quality Information: Find novel ways (e.g., taxing digital advertising) to finance professional journalism to provide high-quality, reliable information ("raise the floor").
- Enhance Privacy/Security: Mandate security (data minimization, encryption) to foster expression and reduce the power of algorithms to exacerbate polarization/filter bubbles.
- Increase Citizen Vigilance (Individual Burden): Users must shoulder a larger burden to distinguish manipulation from information. Platforms can help by designing tools to assess veracity and expose users to diverse perspectives.
The five rights and opportunities are:
- Rights: Each person holds rights to basic liberties, including liberties of expression and association. This means maintaining a strong presumption against viewpoint discrimination to protect the independence of public discussion and enable citizens to form and express their views.
- Expression: Each person must have good and equal chances to express views on matters of public concern to a public audience. This requires a fair opportunity to reach an audience based on motivation and ability, not command of resources.
- Access: Each person must have good and equal access to instructive information on matters of public concern, provided that this information comes from reliable sources. This access, dependent on reasonable effort, ensures citizens have equal standing as participants in free public discussion.
- Diversity: Each person must have good and equal chances to hear a wide range of views on issues of public concern, including competing perspectives on public values such as justice, fairness, and the common good.
- Communicative Power: Each person must have good and equal chances to associate and explore interests and ideas together with others in order to arrive at common understandings and advance shared concerns. This is defined as the capacity for sustained joint (or collective) action.
The authors also identify three dispositions and norms that are essential both for constituting a democratic public sphere and for sustaining the underlying structure of rights and opportunities. These norms shape how people use their rights and opportunities.
The three dispositions and norms are:
- Truth: Participants must be disposed to acknowledge the importance of truth and the norm associated with assertion. This requires making an effort to get things right, avoiding deliberate misrepresentation, and not showing reckless disregard or negligence for the truth or falsity of assertions.
- Common Good: Participants should have a sense of and be concerned about the common good, based on some reasonable understanding that respects the equal standing and importance of others.
- Civility: Participants must recognize the obligation to be prepared to justify views by referencing a reasonable conception of the common good. This is not merely politeness but rather an expression of accountability to others as equal participants, including a willingness to listen and accommodate reasonable views.