Publicly Sharing, Socially Consuming
The public sphere has always existed and always will. The circulatory flow for multi directional exchange of ideas is under constant change due to human development and change in the atmospheric medium in which such ideas travel. With the emergence of social media, the public sphere has now grown larger than ever, connecting those whom before would have never had the opportunity of such engagement; and this naturally complicates things in the social economic political realm in terms of containment. However as far as the public is concerned, social media has provided them a platform where participating in public debates has never been easier. In fact, the ability to have an online profile in itself, is a way in which people can now put themselves and their beliefs into a space where it is open for all to see. A free space, where all freely communicate.
Before the introduction of social media and other digital means of communication, the public sphere as mentioned before was one directional as opposed to what it is today; which was probably the case due to the distribution methods of media. Meaning that there was few to none public interaction between the information they got and who delivered it, in the sense that media is universally accessible by both the public and news outlets more so today than before. Another difference is freedom of speech, “activities pursued in the public realm are today practiced in the private realm with greater autonomy, flexibility, and potential for expression” (Papacharissi, 2010). This was something very few had to access to, and it raises concerns to how valid is what we see in social media. The user generated content versus trusted organisational data dilemma. Also the obvious difference is the physicality of pre-digital public spheres, where ties that are created are usually stronger and it is the main reason why such a sphere still exists. “Physical spaces allow an agglomeration of individuals that gives them a visibility that those in power likely perceive as a threat. They also provide opportunities for building and maintaining interpersonal relations that involve eye contact, communication of an emotional aura, and bonding activities (like drinking a beer or coffee together) that are important for the cohesion of a political movement” (Fuch, 2013).
This mass public distribution of free access provided by social media platforms often get out of hand. It almost seems like when you follow someone it is also rather literal, and sometimes blind, “idealises corporate social media: the notions of being public and being networked create a purely positive image of human activity without conceptualising potential problems” (Fuch, 2013). Voices spoken are not always heard and overshadowed or often censored, by those in power. Whether it is in the form of direct censorship or straight up sabotage, users have difficulty getting their point across even with the tools provided by social media. Such tools effectiveness challenge how democratic social media ought to be, in correlation to freedom and choice. Content generated are usually pushed forward into other users’ feeds by the platforms developers themselves and their algorithmic content filter. Mastering a platforms algorithm is key to succeed as an “influencer”(to agitate change) but it backfires when governments and corporations use it to develop fake news and data collecting traps. The algorithm decides quite literally what it presumes to be useful to you, neglecting the fact that there is a human element to posts and are also viewed by humans.
The democratic environment social media shadows behind is in fact what idealistically social media was first intended to be, however it is much more than just that today. It is a tool for anyone at any age, from all professions, to all platforms as a medium of information that leads to mobilisation of the public in itself. “Web 2.0 has been the mechanism to inform new types of political resistance and has been the means through which revolts have occurred in western democracies, illiberal societies and against autocratic regimes. These changes have resulted from the deployment of digital communications within workplace and their growth throughout the publics’ social lives” (Iosifidis, P. & Wheeler, M, 2015), technology as a whole has changed humankind’s lifestyle, social media isn’t the only factor affecting the democratic participation within public spheres. Economic and social background is what social media in essence feeds off as platforms, but these concepts have and always will manipulate the public sphere. Reddit in my opinion is the ideal social medium where users belong to communities moderated by both humans and bots, and it is the closest thing to a democratic public sphere. Social media should be a place where ideas start as dreams, blossom in peace, and evolve into reality.
References
Iosifidis, P. & Wheeler, M. (2015). The public sphere and network democracy: Social movements and political change?. Global Media Journal, 13(25), pp. 1–17.
Fuchs, C. (2013). Social media a critical introduction. https://elearn.lau.edu.lb/bbcswebdav/pid-274225-dt-content-rid-823201_1/courses/JSC_224_11_201910/FUCHS_Twitter%20and%20the%20Public%20SPhere%20%281%29.pdf
Sebastiao, Sonia. (2013). Zizi Papacharissi (2010, Malden, MA: Polity Press), A Private Sphere: Democracy in a Digital Age. Comunicação e Sociedade. 23. 306. 10.17231/comsoc.23(2013).1631.
