Portfolio #3: Digital Media and the Public Sphere
In ‘Social Media and the Public Sphere,” Christian Fuchs’ main argument is that through political reform, public service social media can combat the antagonisms of three realms threatening contemporary social media’s potential to be a public sphere: the state, the economy, and civil society. He emphasizes the importance of public service media as opposed to privately controlled media because they provide equal access to content and focus on serving the public’s interests rather than profits. As a result, more people are included in public debate about politics and have a better understanding of politics. For the antagonism in the state realm, Fuchs discusses how people who are trying to stand up to powerful people and institutions clash against the efforts of people in power to hide their secrets and criminalize actions against them. The economic antagonism is about corporations invading the privacy of users by sharing and profiting off of their data, while they are secretive and want privacy regarding their profits and taxes. Lastly, the antagonism of civil society refers to the social media corporations and state institutions that try to control the public spaces created by activists that are used for protesting and expressing their political views. Fuchs argues that through media reforms, participatory budgeting and a reform of corporation tax we can overcome these forms of power and control over our social spaces. Only then will these spaces become a public sphere that is inclusive and has the public’s best interests in mind.
L.M. Sacasas’ piece, ‘The Inescapable Town Square,’ details social media’s negative impact on public discourse, bringing back aspects of oral and written culture that influence how people transmit information, think, and feel. Sacasas argues that although digital media allow us to store and document information, it is reminiscent of oral culture because our reliance on information to be stored causes it to be fleeting in our minds since we do not feel as much pressure to remember. Social media have changed how people communicate by diminishing the significance of having the physical presence of others in order to communicate, allowing people to respond to each other publicly and without having to be as careful about the words they choose. Additionally, the fact that there is always an audience present to witness what we say or do online may cause us to be self-conscious and insecure about how we present ourselves.
I believe that digital media has the potential to support a public sphere, but I am doubtful about whether the public sphere would be able to be sustained as time goes on. There are many complications in maintaining a space that is not only inclusive of everyone, but also free from power-holders who want data or are looking to make profits. Digital divides are still an ongoing issue on a global scale that exclude certain populations of people from being able to participate in public discourse. Although spaces in digital media may start off as places that serve the public without compromising their privacy or interests, powerful people and corporations always tend to infiltrate these spaces. Where there are places for social activity, there are opportunities for powerful people to get data and find ways to make money.
The digital public sphere relates to mirroring in that it allows activists to stand up to people or institutions in positions of power. Fuchs briefly talked about how the powerful have a tendency to keep what they are doing a secret from the public. Mirroring has been used as a form of activism where whistle-blowers make private information visible to the public, empowering people to confront powerful entities and hold them accountable. Similar to the digital public sphere, they can both be utilized to give some power back to the public.
