- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
"When the internet first got kicking, some scholars of democracy and civil society thought that online discussions could create what they called a "conversational democracy”: an ongoing town hall without bricks and mortar. But the internet may not be as democratic as they'd imagined, according to a study in the journal Communication Research. ["Civil Society and Online Political Discourse: The Network Structure of Unrestricted Discussions"]
Researcher Itai Himelboim gathered eight million messages posted to 35 political and philosophical newsgroups—like alt.politics.usa—over a six-year period. And he analyzed the connections among the messages. Turns out that 50 percent of all replies were directed at just 2 percent of people who started threads, and who thus came to control the discussion. And the larger the newsgroup, the more polarized this effect became.
But these newsgroup dominators weren't posting much original content. Sixty percent of their posts were just content lifted from traditional news sources like the New York Times. Which is good news for the news business, the author says. Because it means people still want someone else to search out information and deliver it...."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/small-group-of-people-dominate-some-11-06-13/
On consideration, I think democracy itself "may not be as democratic as they'd imagined" or IOW, that's how democracy works.
Originally posted by JS357I don't see the link, correlation or conjugation, between "democracy" and equal distribution of commentary on Internet forum boards.
"When the internet first got kicking, some scholars of democracy and civil society thought that online discussions could create what they called a "conversational democracy”: an ongoing town hall without bricks and mortar. But the internet may not be as democratic as they'd imagined, according to a study in the journal Communication Research. ["Civil Society a ...[text shortened]... mocracy itself "may not be as democratic as they'd imagined" or IOW, that's how democracy works.
Originally posted by divegeesterOne of many dictionary definitions of democracy: control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.
I don't see the link, correlation or conjugation, between "democracy" and equal distribution of commentary on Internet forum boards.
If you read some of the current active threads, you won't find many people participating in the "discussion". Does that mean that the active posters who have gained control are in the majority on this particular forum?
Originally posted by divegeesterEveryone doesn't have a voice on the "internet forum boards" because not everybody participates. The loudest voices are often the megalomaniacs, the ones who seek to drive opinion. The small voices simply don't get heard. It is certainly not "of the people, by the people" and certainly not "for the people".
I don't see the link, correlation or conjugation, between "democracy" and equal distribution of commentary on Internet forum boards.
But it is what it is. There's really no way to "make" it a true democracy. Some voices will always be louder and more constant. Not everyone enjoys equal access to the internet, either. This is why the caveat should be respected that this [the internet] is most definitely NOT a "voice of the people". It's just a mish-mash of only the loudest voices, at best, and, in some countries, only the "official" voices, at worst. People need to be reminded of this more often.
30 Jul 16
Originally posted by JS357Democracy itself is fine. The majority of the time, it works.
On consideration, I think democracy itself "may not be as democratic as they'd imagined" or IOW, that's how democracy works.
Democracy, as filtered through the internet, is not a true democracy.
The differentiation has to be made.
30 Jul 16
Originally posted by SuzianneYes, a bit like being in the pub.
Everyone doesn't have a voice on the "internet forum boards" because not everybody participates. The loudest voices are often the megalomaniacs, the ones who seek to drive opinion. The small voices simply don't get heard. It is certainly not "of the people, by the people" and certainly not "for the people".
But it is what it is. There's really no way ...[text shortened]... countries, only the "official" voices, at worst. People need to be reminded of this more often.
Which is all this is.
30 Jul 16
Originally posted by JS357The internet empowers people, but it does so indiscriminately. 😛
"When the internet first got kicking, some scholars of democracy and civil society thought that online discussions could create what they called a "conversational democracy”: an ongoing town hall without bricks and mortar. But the internet may not be as democratic as they'd imagined, according to a study in the journal Communication Research. ["Civil Society a ...[text shortened]... mocracy itself "may not be as democratic as they'd imagined" or IOW, that's how democracy works.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by divegeesterI think the distribution of commentary on a public internet forum is based on personality characteristics of participants, access, and (enforced) moderation rules, and the same is true of other media in which public communication occurs, so similar distributions should occur.
I don't see the link, correlation or conjugation, between "democracy" and equal distribution of commentary on Internet forum boards.
One thing I notice is that I have access to more extreme and more openly and strongly stated views on public internet forums, than I do on other modes of public communication like face-to-face, local call-in radio, editorial letters, etc. This might lead to more competing to be influential.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
31 Jul 16
Originally posted by SeitseNo, it won't last, it requires too much thought for those folks. Better to ignore it.
This thread will be fun.
Now, watch the megalomaniac and his lap dog barking at it, either
by regurgitating others' ideas or derailing it, mostly because they're
portrayed by the OP perfectly.
In 5... 4... 3...
Originally posted by JS357Ouch! The post you were responding to was referencing me. You and I have had many a discussion that required plenty of thought! Perhaps you have forgotten and I have indeed become one of "those folks". :'(
No, it won't last, it requires too much thought for those folks. Better to ignore it.
31 Jul 16
Originally posted by JS357Do you feel that people who abstain from political discourse (and perhaps also don't participate in decision making) are somehow less part of a democracy than those who do?
I think the distribution of commentary on a public internet forum is based on personality characteristics of participants, access, and (enforced) moderation rules, and the same is true of other media in which public communication occurs, so similar distributions should occur.
One thing I notice is that I have access to more extreme and more openly and stron ...[text shortened]... ocal call-in radio, editorial letters, etc. This might lead to more competing to be influential.
31 Jul 16
Originally posted by FMFPart of a democracy is having a voice and using it.
Do you feel that people who abstain from political discourse (and perhaps also don't participate in decision making) are somehow less part of a democracy than those who do?
Democracy is not a spectator sport. It requires participation in order to work for all.