The argument against

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." The students on both sides of this debate should use one or more explicit examples of the use of Internet in a campaign (issue or candidacy) to buttress their argument.

the argument in favor

Tentative Arguments:

• 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.