Portfolio Assignment #3

This week’s readings about digital media and the public sphere explain a lot about the issues that we are currently facing within the online world. The various terms explored within Simon Lindgren’s text on cyber debates, ranging from technological determinism to peer production are directly linked to the discussion about digital media and if it truly supports a public sphere. Lindgren discusses the way in which digital media can aid or hurt society via a cyber optimistic perspective and a cyber pessimistic perspective. From a cyber pessimistic perspective, he notes the “Youtbification” (Lindgren, 70) of politics and how one bad clip from a politician can alter the entire political process. The power to shift the outcome of entire elections should not be based on a single captured moment, yet digital media has allowed for that exact thing to occur. Whilst not mentioned by Lindgren a primary example of how digital media can impact politics is the case of Howard Dean who back in 2004 was running for president but lost due to a video clip of him screaming made him a laughingstock overnight and tanked his reputation. Lindgren describes how cyber optimists have dubbed digital media as a saving grace of sorts as it allows for peer production to flourish resulting in products that benefit society like free software, or information sharing sites like Wikipedia. The ideas of what digital media can and can not do to benefit society closely tie with the concept of a public sphere that Christian Fuchs discusses in his text “Social Media and the Public Sphere”. Fuchs discusses the basic core ideas of a public sphere which are that it must be a platform devoid of private ownership, censorship, and open to all. Fuchs points out that most traditional digital platforms like social media are flawed and are not fit to be a public sphere in which critical debates can be held. Lindgren’s cyber pessimistic perspective ties in with this idea since platforms like YouTube can have time and time again censored content in order to avoid controversies. On the other hand, Lindgren and Fuchs share an appreciation for Wikipedia as they see the positive impact it could have on society as a public sphere with Fuchs noting that sites like Wikipedia that are open and provide a public service as the answer to combatting traditional platforms.

In my opinion, digital media supports a public sphere to a degree. The concepts of the public sphere discussed within the text by Fuchs make it clear that a true public sphere requires a platform that is free from private ownership and can not be censored since it is supposed to serve as a way for people to have open debates. Digital media platforms like Facebook and YouTube have created platforms in which people are free to discuss a wide variety of subject matter but are still privately owned and enforce some form of censorship when it comes to certain subjects. Fuchs points out Wikipedia as an alternative to traditional social media platforms and is correct in noting that their site is one created with the concepts of a public sphere in mind, but I believe that it is not a perfect example of what a public sphere could be. Whilst a site like Wikipedia does check off some of the criteria of a what a public sphere should be ultimately is not a place where discussions are held and thus it would never succeed in being a public sphere. Platforms like Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube create environments that allow people to express their opinions in engaging ways are always going to reign supreme. A true successful digital public sphere may never exist as privately-owned sites that are ran as businesses will dominate the internet, whilst sites that provide a public service will not see the same level of engagement and thus prove unsuccessful as places where debates can be held.

My term meme relates to the ideas of digital public spheres and digital democracy to a staggering degree. Over the year’s memes have found their place within every nook and cranny of the internet and it is not surprising that they have found an impact when it comes to digital public spheres. Certain memes have played a role in exposing the censorship strategies of certain platforms, thus proving that they are not true public spheres. The infamous Pepe the frog meme was adopted by the alt-right back in 2016 and was used by hate groups across various social media platforms like Facebook. The use of the meme prompted the company to create internal policies that see them delete the meme if it is used in a certain context. Recently, the meme was seen censored in Chinese digital media since it was being used as a sign of liberty and rebellion during the Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests. The polar opposite uses of the meme within different platforms are indicative of how the flawed traditional media platforms have failed to create a true public sphere. Memes are everywhere and have been used and reused in a variety of ways leading to the creation of entirely different meanings for a single meme throughout a wide array of platforms. I believe that the discrepancy between the wide array of platforms we use should be a warning sign that the more power and influence these traditional sites society will slowly grow further and further apart as people will flock to platforms that only embrace their beliefs. If people continue to only interact with like-minded individuals there will be no debates at all and thus no societal progress.