The idea that the internet serves as a public space in Habermasian speak is too simplistic. The very fact that not everyone has access or know how to access/ fully utilize the internet in itself is already a limiting factor for full democracy.
As with all technologies, I opine that those who have and those who have-not are always divided. The vocal ones may just turn out to be the vocal minority.The majority is silenced. =)
jaime yeo wrote: > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/weekinreview/13giridharadas.html?_r=1 > > > This article explores how democratic the Internet really is. > > Ethical question: > Much emphasis is placed on how the Internet can be used as a democratic tool. However, is this "democracy" genuine, or only in our perceptions? With millions of views being expressed on the Internet, whose voices are audible? Who decides what are the salient issues? How much does the Internet really empower the individual with democratic rights?
As with all technologies, I opine that those who have and those who have-not are always divided. The vocal ones may just turn out to be the vocal minority.The majority is silenced. =)
jaime yeo wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/weekinreview/13giridharadas.html?_r=1
>
>
> This article explores how democratic the Internet really is.
>
> Ethical question:
> Much emphasis is placed on how the Internet can be used as a democratic tool. However, is this "democracy" genuine, or only in our perceptions? With millions of views being expressed on the Internet, whose voices are audible? Who decides what are the salient issues? How much does the Internet really empower the individual with democratic rights?