Does internet create democracy?
Alinta Thornton

(...) Conclusion
As I have discussed, the Internet certainly has the capacity to expand participative democracy in a revitalised public sphere.

While I have discussed some of the factors that will affect this capacity in Chapter 6, I will now draw together some of the points I have made throughout this thesis.

Structure
The Internet's structure means that it will be difficult for conglomerate telecommunications or media organisations to gain the type of control currently exercised over traditional media, even if they take control of Internet service providers.

Compared to the traditional media, many more people have access to debate and opportunities for the formation of political will. They also have access to information that is hard to obtain from traditional news media.

This will expand the public sphere and create opportunities for direct feedback with political representatives.

Communities
Audiences of traditional media act and debate individually or in small groups, while the Internet allows groups with particular interests to form, which expands the individual's area of influence.

People with similar interests can find each other more easily, creating 'special interest' communities that are independent of physical location.

Some areas of the Internet create a 'virtual community', such as Rheingold's community The Well, and Bad Subjects. Some newsgroups, MOOs and other Internet areas have strong, committed followings that can be considered virtual communities.

It is possible that a reasoned political consensus can be formed in these communities on an international (but not global) level. In the long term, these groups could affect political debate in actually existing nationally-based democracies to some extent.

The Internet can allow diverse social groups to get various kinds of support more easily than they can through other media.

Advertising
For the most part, the Internet is currently free of advertising pressures, so there is room for people to have in depth debate about matters of public concern. These can take place in a multiplicity of public spheres that overlap and intersect. This is not commercially possible in traditional media.

Status
The inherent characteristics of the Internet medium reduces status signification (but does not eliminate it), and encourages an equality of participation and decision making.

This is one of the most significant factors that will affect communication on the itnernet, and creates important potential for a real change in human communication.

All of these factors support Rheingold's predictions of the Internet's enormous democratic potential.

Frontier
It is important to note that much of Rheingold's work is based on strong themes running through American communications thinking. The conjunction of highway metaphors and communications leading to economic and political dominance leads many enthusiasts to ascribe an exaggerated power to the Internet.

The various metaphors for the Internet include "electronic frontier", "electronic agora", and "electronic marketplace". This shows that people pin widely disparate hopes on the Internet that can be described as misplaced technological utopianism.

True meaning of "agora"
I will now highlight some factors that reduce the Internet's potential to revitalise the public sphere.

The Internet is dominated by white, well off, English speaking, educated males, most of whom are USA citizens. This is the same group that dominates most of the First World society.

If their ability to form political will, debate issues and influence society is expanded by the Internet, this is no way resembles a truly participative discourse of democracy. This would demand that all parties that might be affect are included in the debate.

While there is opportunity for subordinated groups to create communities and conduct debate, the topics raised for discussion in most areas of the Internet reflect the concerns of the dominant group, so that subordinate groups' concerns are not even debated.

If the struggle for publicity is equivalent to the struggle for justice, then the interent puts most subordinated groups at a disadvantage.

The dominance of one group has meant that a mode of discourse is already established (called "Netiquette"), which actively discourages other modes. This extends to the language spoken, the way a person expresses thoughts and the amount their ideas are responded to.

Distance
Communities based on mutual interests can form political will, but the changes they agree to are harder to implement in physical reality when members are physically distant, or the member's physically local community has disparate values.

Commodification
It is inevitable that the Internet will become commodified; the process has already begun. The original internet community had a custom of sharing information freely, a custom that is persisting today. However, as big business moves on to the Internet, this culture is diminishing somewhat.

Many users will reframe their identities from citizens (or Internet users) to consumers. Publicity will become more prevalent as a mode of discourse. "Public' tends more and more to slide into 'publicity' and 'character' is replaced by 'image'" (Poster, (1)).

Entry costs
Entry costs for an attractive web site have already risen dramatically. Technology is improving, and large publishing businesses are creating sites full of imagery and a pleasing aesthetic. This means that individual's and small groups' web sites must compete with the professional know-how of commercially produced sites, raising the costs.

Concentration
As large media companies concentrate the number of publishers on the Internet, the number of voices will not necessarily diminish. This will tend not to exclude individual sites, but will mean that they are less visited, reducing their impact.

The need to attract revenue to offset publication costs may encourage Internet publishers to cater to majority tastes, also reducing the possibility of access to useful information.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the explosion of direct participatory democracy Rheingold predicts is highly unlikely to eventuate.

The Internet provides opportunities for limited revitalisation of the public sphere. These new opportunities are limited to privileged groups, but it is at least an increase in the activities of the public sphere, however modest.

When new technology is first introduced, it is often limited to restricted "innovator" and "early adopter" groups (Windahl and Signitzer, 1992: 62). As the technology becomes cheaper, more accessible and easier to use, it spreads into other areas of society.

If Internet use expands into middle-income groups, lower-income groups and women, it may yet present a real opportunity for greater participation, democratic communication and a true revitalisation of the public sphere.

(Conclusion of the thesis "Does internet create democracy?" written by Alinta Thornton. To read the full text of the thesis, click here)