The Internet and “Democratization” of Politics (Matthew Hindman)
We need to reexamine and be more critical of how the internet is “democratizing” politics, as this term is used too commonly and broadly to explain the phenomenon. Although there are differences between online and offline political participation, the bottom-line is that the Internet is giving ordinary citizens greater voice in the public discourse. However, the Internet’s infrastructure is also dominated by powerful corporations (Microsoft, Google, Yahoo!). So while “the Internet has served to level some existing political inequalities, it has also created new ones” (19)
While there is praise for its democratizing effects, (“the internet is the most democratizing innovation we’ve ever seen…” -Joe Trippi “Internet Technology has “broken the monopoly” of how information gets disseminated), acknowledgment needs to be given to the mediums’ failures and we need to refocus on actually defining “democratization” “political voice” as well as what citizenship requires.
Questions posed by Hindman:
“Is the Internet making politics less exclusive?” Is it Democratizing U.S politics?”
The term “Democratization” and “Democracy” are too broadly used:
- in the past, new technologies (in effort to define their social value) including the telegraph, rotary press, radio, and television, have also been proclaimed “democratic”
- the descriptive definition of “Democratization” revolves around an emphasis of political participation and that the voices of citizens in politics are “clear, loud, and equal”
- “Political Voice” needs to be reexamined in this regard: is sending a letter to your congressman equivalent to sending an email?
- Should we reconsider the fundamental assumptions of “political voice” and expand them to the new innovations and communications made possible by the internet?
- the internet has blurred “traditionally ironclad distinctions” of what political voice entails: citizens can actively create and post their own political commentary before large audience
- “Exactly how open is the architecture of the internet?” “Are online audiences more decentralized than traditional media audiences”
- Digital Divide: disadvantaged groups have less access to the net and skills needed to use the web effectively widen this gap
- Are online politics ‘politics as usual’?
- Seattle WTO protest, MoveOn.org : examples of internet-organized political activism.
- Yet critics say that new technology does not lead to higher levels of political participation
- others claim it will mobilize previously inactive citizens
“internet politics seems to nurture some democratic values at the expense at others”
- most important political impact of the internet has been elimination of old media “gatekeepers” (allowing information to flow more freely and less filtered) however, the web still filters information→ are there new media gatekeepers?
- the internet is not eliminating political exclusivity, but is shifting the exclusivity of the production to the filtering of political information
- internet infrastructure constrains citizens choices/filters content
- ecology of online information revolves around “link structure” which can limit the visibility of certain political voices or content
- we need to understand social implications of its technical infrastructure: how fundamental design choices effect Internet Regulation and content visibility
- changing the infrastructure that supports participation can alter patterns of participation
- SPEAKING vs BEING HEARD
- small amount of user content is actually read by others or achieves political relevance
- powerful hierarchies (i.e Google,Yahoo!, Microsoft) shape the Internet medium, though it continues to be praised for “openness”
Mediated Subjectivity 
Dorry Funaki 4:43 pm on September 27, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think that it is important to think of the internet as a media ecology that facilitates communication because as a result of liberty online there can be too much openness and a proliferation of destructive groups or conversations. I’m not sure if the internet stimulates more political participation, because with all the information that is being circulated, are people really being educated? I think we need to draw a clear distinction between information and knowledge.
Are citizens really “knowledgeable” because of the democratization of the internet? I think they have access to much more information but as to knowledge I would beg to differ.
lynleamichaels 1:34 am on September 28, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I believe that the internet helps to spread awareness about certain issues that may otherwise be excluded from traditional media however I do agree with the question you’ve asked Dorry of ‘are people really being educated?’ I think that most people follow along with the ideas of fragmentation and filtering that we discussed in class, therefore most people are likely receiving most of their information from only one view point. When viewing a traditional news source one would hope to be receiving a neutral reporting of the facts. However we must remember that most traditional news sources ARE somewhat biased on a political spectrum and may be reporting the facts in a manner than favors one side over the other. In these circumstances how do we know what information is “correct”, regardless of from where it was received? I think the internet provides a great basis for campaigning and petitioning but without the reception of unbiased facts, how can one even know what they are truly supporting?
emilyellens 8:47 am on September 28, 2011 Permalink
I don’t think the main point about fragmentation and filtering is that a bias is created, like you said there would be a bias from any news source. Sunstein was mostly concerned with the fact that people wouldn’t have the same point of reference at all and if discussion is to occur on the internet two opposing viewpoints would never actually meet each other. The bias isn’t really about the media outlets so much as the consumers of media. Sunstein even concedes that there are some good things about this multitude of websites with different perspectives and I think he would tell you that the “correct” information comes out of a conversation between multiple perspectives rather than just any particular news source.
mdeseriis 7:26 pm on September 27, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Hi Daria, you pose a lot of questions here but it is not entirely clear to me whether these are your own questions or the questions posed by Hindman. Can you please formulate two or three of them? Also, make sure that the questions are answerable. A question such as “how open is the architecture of the Internet” is too vague to stimulate a debate especially if you do not qualify the term “open.” The same goes for “are online politics politics as usual?” (There is no usual politics, imho, only the manifold politics that people invent and reinvent on a daily basis).
dariakriz 8:51 pm on September 27, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The ‘politics as usual’ phrase was pulled from pg 9 and was more of just a reference to Hillman’s conversation about cyberpolitics possibly mirroring traditional political patterns,”…as Michael Margolis and David Resnick put it, online politics is simply ‘politics as usual.'”
In response to Dorry’s comment, I do think the internet expands the opportunities of political participation, but the extent to which it is “stimulating” can definitely be argued. Some people believe that internet use increases political knowledge among those who are already interested in politics, but has no effect for those who are politically apathetic to begin with (p.10) And I agree with Mario- defining the difference between speaking your opinion and it actually being heard emphasizes the idea that the Internet does not treat all content equal. However, in a democracy, everyone has the right to free speech, but that doesn’t necessarily mean people will listen or that their opinion will reach mass audience. In that regard, do online media gatekeepers truly prevent the internet from becoming more democratic? The US is still considered a democratic country even though not all political views are heard or make a difference, so is it fair that this quality must be applied to the Internet in order for it to be deemed democratic?
MarioCedeno363 7:54 pm on September 27, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
One point that Hindman raised that I especially thought was true was when he denounced the wide spread idea that the internet is a democratizing force because it allows any citizen to speak their mind and have their opinions and viewpoints “read by millions around the world.” While it is true that the internet potentially allows this, as Hindman points out, those who speak and those who are heard on the internet are two separate categories. Most people who blog about politics do not get their opinions read by many other people. This is in part because of the new forms of “media gatekeepers” such as Google that filter out some blogs and websites and put others at the forefront. Hindman points out that online audience concentration equals or exceeds that found in most traditional media. Just because the internet allows everybody to have a say in politics, doesn’t necessarily mean that those views will actually be read and make a difference.
Veronika Höglund 11:53 pm on September 27, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I had a very similar reaction to Hindman’s discussion as that mentioned in Mario’s comments. The condition of the Internet in regards to it’s democratizing potential and that of the actual realities of it is one which I find to be personally frustrating. The truth of the matter is that any voice, political or otherwise, is not guaranteed a standard equal opportunity to be heard. As mentioned above, “media gatekeepers” do have leverage in the degree of accessibility to informative pages. My understanding is that sites such as Google do not present their process of filtering as one which restricts its user. Instead, a misrepresentative facade is produced which exhibits itself as one that is for the good of the user – when money and politics are quite evidently involved.
mollieableman 11:38 pm on September 27, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Out of all the authors we have read thus far, I have found myself aligning most closely with Hindman. I agree with him when he states that there is a difference between those that are speaking and those that are heard. I think that it is due to the experience of information overload that the internet so often produces. This overwhelming feeling seems to be best remedied by relying on a few frequently visited sites
zacharydel 10:46 am on September 28, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Overall I think that Hindman’s study on the political underpinnings of the internet is an important step away from the almost trendy inclination to discuss the internet in terms of its “open-to-all” virtual democratic utopia.
(Benkler quote on p. 11: “We need to consider the attractiveness of the networked public sphere not from the perspective of the mid-1990s utopianism, but from the perspective of how it compares to the actual media that have dominated the public sphere in all modern democracies.”)
He highlights some really important issues that get left out of the discourse about the internet when it is talked about in this framework. Approaching the internet through this sort of lens—emphasizing how everybody’s voice gets amplified to a mass audience when publishing content online— does not take into account the various (infra)structural elements which invisibly dictate our online experiences and interactions. For example: the filtering that occurs through the use of a search engine, the massive entanglement of hyperlinks continuously leading users to and from more highly trafficked sites to moderately trafficked sites and eventually back again to highly trafficked sites, and the “winner-take-all” pattern of visibility on the web. With these things in mind, Hindman points to the fact that “users’ interactions with the Web are far more circumscribed than many realize.” (p.15)
In addition to the (infra)structural elements of the Web which determine in different ways our experiences with the web, Hindman discusses the difference between who speaks and who gets heard. “Despite–or rather because of– the enormity of the content available online, citizens seem to cluster strongly around the top few information sources in a given category.” (p.18) However, Hindman like many other scholars dealing with the internet, sees potential and opportunity within the blogosphere: “Blogs and other online forums may help strengthen the watchdog function necessary for democractic accountability.” (p.18)
As a side note, this quote reminded me of the recent Hollywood blockbuster, “Contagion” which, other than dealing with the viral pandemic in the fictional world of the film, highlights major contemporary issues within the global mediascape; especially with regards to the polarization of journalism into amateur and professional due to the internet’s publishing capabiliities available to everybody.
maxschneiderschumacher 11:18 am on September 28, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
One of the more interesting concluding points in Hindman’s piece is “The Difference between Speaking and Being Heard” in the Internet. He writes, “This study is careful to consider who speaks and who gets heard as two separate questions. On the internet, the link between the two is weaker than it is in almost any other area of political life” (16-17). The hierarchical structure of the web is unarguable when looking at the dominance of companies like Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Apple, and so forth. This hierarchy, and the companies that establish this, are from democratic. What competition does the other %99 of users have to compete with getting their voice heard? Blogspot, facebook, and other means of social media serve as more of a platform to speak rather than to be heard. When one is heard through these forms, it is general by a pre-established community – made up of friends, family, or those with already defined and like-minded interests or thoughts. You may be speaking, but it is Google or Microsoft that is being heard.