Online Deliberations, Part 2

In the second and main part of my blog, I'd like to adress some key points raised in the article.

Witschge writes that "to understand the democratic possibilites of the Internet, we need to understand its users". That's a wise advice. Understanding technology itself is not enough - after all, it is not the technology (software) that votes or makes decisions. Two main issues she adresses are heterogeneity and anonymity.

As was already raised in our discussions, there is substantial fear that Internet will do little to encourage people to engage in constructive debates about democracy or take part in decision making process. Some people (Cass Sunstein, author of Republic.com) had even argues that it may have an opposite, negative effect and actually increase the polarization. As Witschge points out, the current research is at best inconclusive. People are likely to search for like minded individuals, but much less likely to search for those different, that are likely to disagree with them (well, with the exception of those that actually like heated discussions, preaching and convincing others - I wonder what's the percentage of such people in general population, and how can we define them in psychological trait?). This is as true online as offline, and those who thought that technology will radically transform human nature have been (not for the first time...) brutally disappointed.

But I don't think it forms a reasonalble ground for pessimism. Majority of population is uniterested in political discource and decision making in offline world and is unlikely to change their behaviour online. Sad, but its the reality we have to deal with. My advice is to forget about them and concentrate on that segment of population that is active off and online. How does Internet affects the activists? I very much doubt it has the negative effect predicted by the author of Republic.com. Or, to be more correct - I doubt it it matter. We are likely to meet those 'different' when we engage in various activities. And this is where Internet shines: since it allows people to engage in so many various activities much easier then offline, the frequency of political discourse will increase because Internet has made easier to engage purposely in it and because people will find themselves meeting others more often. And from this increased frequency will come increasing understanding of others, and simply more chance meetings of people we want to talk with.

Yes, we are building 'our daily selves' (and why not?), when we visit the pages we like, read the stuff we are interested in - but at the same time we are also meeting other people and discussing various topics with them, commenting on articles, blogs, usenet, wikis, forums... Since all activities are easier and less time consuming then in real world, we can afford to do both more. Granted, most people won't bother - but they wouldn't bother in real life. And those who do can do so (I hope) much more effectively.

Witschge other point, on the dangers of anonymity, is one I wholeheartly agree with her. Anonymity is mostly negative. If you have something valuable to say, you should not be afraid of using your real name and I am more likely to pay attention to a post signed with a name (although it is always a matter of trust - who goes to the trouble of verify if it is real?). At least, that holds true in a society respecting free speach - I can completly understand why people in lets say China or Iran may want to remain anonymous on the net. It is interesting that Wiki (yes, you knew I'd mention it eventually :D) functions well with most of its users being anonymous - but I would wager a guess there are different levels of anonymosity. I.e. a person may not sign with their real name, but in time it comes to value its online anonymous avatar as much as its real world self, thus they are likely to act respectably and don't want to risk stigmatism for offensive behaviour to befall their online avatar. And since Wiki promotes civility, people who want to be respected there want to behave, no matter if they are anonymous or not.

Comments, as always, awaited and appreciated.