The Negative Argument

The Question

"Resolved: The Internet enables citizens to have a greater voice in politics and is, on balance, already a tremendous force for strengthening participatory democracies around the world."

Quick Link to The Affirmative Argument

The Argument Against the Resolution:

Introduction

While accepting the factors for participatory democracies set forth in the Positive Argument section, this section will show that the internet has not had the tremendous effect on democracy that it is claimed to have had. Further, while the internet has enabled some citizens to find their voices and influence politics in a way they would not otherwise have been able to, the internet's ability to do that is decreasing, not increasing.

A Strong, Unbiased, Informed Media

• The internet allows anyone who has something to say to get a website, get online, and say it. But this is not the same thing as a stronger, less biased, more informed media. In fact, it is the opposite.
  • Individuals who want to get online and participate in politics are likely to have a strong point of view. Thus, they are likely to be more biased, not less biased, than mainstream media and larger entities.
  • Individuals who create blogs are not people with special inside information about certain topics - they are just individuals with opinions. They likely get the news about which they post from the mainstream media itself. Thus, the internet has not created a more informed media.
• The most important aspect of a strong, unbiased, informed media is the ability to convey true information to a citizenry. Cititzens need to be able to trust the information they recieve.
  • The internet has made that less likely, not more. Sites like blogs, personal discussion pages, and even Wikipedia can be riddled with inaccuracies. For instance, Allen Iverson's favorite color is not blue - I just put it up there in the trivia section. Let's see if it will get fixed.
• The internet definitely gives individuals the power to broadcast their messages across the world, but if nobody reads it, nothing will happen. There are so many voices that none of them are being heard. White noise is not democracy. It only clouds issues and masks what candidates are really trying to say. There are still just a few voices that control discourse, just like the situation before the internet. (Shirkey's curve)
• Sites like Global Voices only attract save-the-world types who do a lot of talking but don't have any real power to effect change. Nobody else will see it.
• If the stories on Global Voices were salient to enough of any given population that their outrage would make a difference, the mainstream media would pick up the story itself. These bloggers are just white noise in the background. As gripping as their stories might be, there won't be more people that care enough to put down their latte and do something about it just because it's online.
• Sunsteins arguments:
  • "Daily Me" - everything is so filtered that it doesn't serve the important function of educating or persuading. In fact, it increases partisanship and extremism.
• The government presence on the internet (and lack of understanding about exactly what government can do to find you) chills speech and political activity online. The mere thought that the government's "sword of Damocles" is hanging over you is enough to stifle free political speech.
  • Whereas before you could send an anonymous tip to a reporter who could publish it safely, now people will fear the government can trace the tip back to the source. So they stay quiet. You can of course still use the old methods, but people may not think of that because the internet is so dominant.
  • As the web becomes more tethered and less generative, regulability of individuals online increases. (e.g. Great Firewall of China) That's not such a huge problem in countries with relatively robust notions of free speech and assembly, but in developing democracies, that may mean that the government will have the ability to cut off the only means of political discourse that most individuals have.
  • The internet allows for more pervasive psychological control by governments than ever before. As Palfrey suggested, it seems China has a strategy to constantly change what is blocked and what is not. That sends the message to internet users that government knows what you're trying to get at, is baiting you to click on it, and is just waiting to pounce. Terrifies citizens and controls their thoughts and actions in a way that the SS or China's Red Guards never could have done.
• Misinformation kills. Along with the power to educate comes the power to delude. A smear campaign started by one person with a grudge can really change the outcome of a close election, or discredit an entire issue. And it's often impossible to un-ring the bell. Nobody wants to read retractions. So, individuals have enormous power to screw up the political process.
  • Some websites which have freely open communal editing feature might contain false and bias political information since such feature is likely to attract people to provide inputs that may mislead the fact or truth for, inter alia, their political interests. One of the interesting samples of the false information on the internet that derived from this feature is the John Seigenthaler case where he was accused in the Wikipedia to involve in the Kennedy assassinations (John Seigenthaler case at usatoday.com)
• As we saw with the Obama, Clinton and Romney websites, they're mostly using the internet as a platform to talk "at" people, just like they did with the TV. The only difference is it's free. That indicates that at least those candidates don't think it's much of an improvement over traditional media. If this is all they can come up with, it doesn't look like it's going to revolutionize American presidential politics.
  • For the most part, it just seems like American presidential candidates are just using the internet to make them seem hip. (e.g. the DoddPod). They're not using it as a revolutionary tool, but rather as a fashion accessory.
• Individuals may have a place at the table now, but they are not accountable. A free-for-all system is not good for democracy.