Democracy Project to Fill Gap in Online Politics - 3 views

human rights digital freedom democracy

started by joanne ye on 24 Sep 09

#1 joanne ye on 24 Sep 09

Reference:

Democracy Project to Fill Gap in Online Politics (2000, June 8). PR Newswire. Retrieved 23 September, 2009, from Factiva.
(Article can be found at bottom of the post)

Summary:

The Democracy Project is a New York-based nonprofit organization comprising of Internet entrepreneurs and philanthropists to encourage the formation of citizen-driven public spaces online. The organization president, Reents, said that online political efforts had not worked well because they failed to meet users' expectations by containing offline campaign assumptions such as information control and story-spinning. Believing that "the Internet puts users in control of their experience", The Democracy Project is launching a new website that allows citizens to inform themselves, engage each other and political leaders in dialogue, and help set political agendas.

Response:

Since this nonprofit organization is based in US, I'm not surprised that they are very supportive of human rights, freedom and democracy. I interpret that The Democracy Project views the online platform (as compared to offline) as a better mechanism for cultivating a healthy political environment, where citizens have a say in matters of their concerns and dialogue is enabled between themselves and the politicians.

Such a view constitutes some problems, in my opinion.

Firstly, The Democracy Project seems to think that the online platform is best managed by virtues such as freedom and democracy. This is in line with the reading by Hamelink, where the author opines that the Cyberspace is best governed by universal moral standards - human rights. However, Internet governance by human rights has its problems. A particularly important issue I would like to highlight is the enforcement problem, especially when human rights can be very vague and abstract concepts. The reading states that annual reports from Amnesty International show that human rights are violated in every country, illustrating the "moral gap", which is a gap between "the moral knowledge human beings possess and their intention to act morally". Only a system of good enforcement of human rights will close the gap, but this system is still currently at a premature stage. Therefore, an ethical question I have for The Democracy Project is: If users are given absolute freedom in the way they interact online, without any control by the website, the website will definitely achieve its objective of creating a healthy political environment?

Secondly, The Democracy Project seems too optimistic of the technologically endowed freedom provided by the Internet as a way to politics. This is in line with the reading by Benkler, where the author sees the Internet as a tool "to much greater significance of nonmarket, individual, and cooperative peer-production efforts… these efforts provide a watchdog, a source of salient observations regarding matters of public concern, and a platform for discussing the alternatives open to polity". However, net democracy as a way to politics has its limitations. It could merely be an overly utopian view of its success. To hold a more radical view, could it develop to become a movement that mocks communistic politics? Or a movement to establish a power structure of the West over the East? Moreover, to juxtapose to China, its communistic politics is actually working quite well, as we can see its growth in the recent years. Therefore, an ethical question I can think of: Is net democracy the only way to an ideal political scene?

Democracy Project to Fill Gap in Online Politics

NEW YORK, June 8 /PRNewswire/ -- The Democracy Project issued a report highlighting the failure of
mainstream political efforts to seize the Internet opportunity, and announced that it is funding the
development of a citizen-owned Web site for political discourse. The New York-based nonprofit was
founded in 1999 by a group of Internet entrepreneurs and philanthropists to encourage the formation of
citizen-driven public spaces on the Internet.

With 35 million people going online for election information this year, the Democracy Project believes
that there is a unique opportunity to set a high standard for online political efforts. Their report argues,
however, that most political candidates, advocacy groups, and new commercial political portals -- sites
like Grassroots.com, Speakout.com and Voter.com -- are failing to meet the expectations of online
users.

"Right now it's politics-as-usual on the Internet," says Scott Reents, President of the Democracy
Project and co-author of the report. "It's not that political organizations have misexecuted, but rather
that the very assumptions they bring from the world of offline campaigns -- control the flow of
information, spin events and issues to your advantage, don't give your opponents too much attention --
are bound to lead to poor sites. These assumptions are antithetical to online users' expectations."

The report, "A Citizen-Centric Internet," can be downloaded at
http://www.democracyproject.org/about_us/index.html#whitepaper.

The Democracy Project is responding to this failure by developing and launching a new Web site. This
site, called Quorum.org, will let citizens inform themselves, engage each other and political leaders in
dialogue, and help set political agendas.

"The Internet puts users in control of their experience," says Michael Weiksner, Chairman of the
Democracy Project. "And because it does, political organizations need to start acting like service
providers to their online constituents. Quorum.org will be a case example for how this can be done."
The Democracy Project will launch the Quorum.org Web site this summer, in time for the increasing
election activity during the late summer and fall.

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Reference: Democracy Project to Fill Gap in Online Politics (2000, June 8). PR Newswire. Retrieved 23 September, 2009, from Factiva. (Article can be found at bottom of the post) Summary: The Democracy Project is a New York-based nonprofit organization comprising of Internet entrepreneurs and philanthropists to encourage the formation of citizen-driven public spaces online. The organization president, Reents, said that online political efforts had not worked well because they failed to meet users' expectations by containing offline campaign assumptions such as information control and story-spinning. Believing that "the Internet puts users in control of their experience", The Democracy Project is launching a new website that allows citizens to inform themselves, engage each other and political leaders in dialogue, and help set political agendas. Response: Since this nonprofit organization is based in US, I'm not surprised that they are very supportive of human rights, freedom and democracy. I interpret that The Democracy Project views the online platform (as compared to offline) as a better mechanism for cultivating a healthy political environment, where citizens have a say in matters of their concerns and dialogue is enabled between themselves and the politicians. Such a view constitutes some problems, in my opinion. Firstly, The Democracy Project seems to think that the online platform is best managed by virtues such as freedom and democracy. This is in line with the reading by Hamelink, where the author opines that the Cyberspace is best governed by universal moral standards - human rights. However, Internet governance by human rights has its problems. A particularly important issue I would like to highlight is the enforcement problem, especially when human rights can be very vague and abstract concepts. The reading states that annual reports from Amnesty International show that human rights are violated in every country, illustrating the "moral gap", which is a gap between "the moral knowledge human beings possess and their intention to act morally". Only a system of good enforcement of human rights will close the gap, but this system is still currently at a premature stage. Therefore, an ethical question I have for The Democracy Project is: If users are given absolute freedom in the way they interact online, without any control by the website, the website will definitely achieve its objective of creating a healthy political environment? Secondly, The Democracy Project seems too optimistic of the technologically endowed freedom provided by the Internet as a way to politics. This is in line with the reading by Benkler, where the author sees the Internet as a tool "to much greater significance of nonmarket, individual, and cooperative peer-production efforts… these efforts provide a watchdog, a source of salient observations regarding matters of public concern, and a platform for discussing the alternatives open to polity". However, net democracy as a way to politics has its limitations. It could merely be an overly utopian view of its success. To hold a more radical view, could it develop to become a movement that mocks communistic politics? Or a movement to establish a power structure of the West over the East? Moreover, to juxtapose to China, its communistic politics is actually working quite well, as we can see its growth in the recent years. Therefore, an ethical question I can think of: Is net democracy the only way to an ideal political scene? Democracy Project to Fill Gap in Online Politics NEW YORK, June 8 /PRNewswire/ -- The Democracy Project issued a report highlighting the failure of mainstream political efforts to seize the Internet opportunity, and announced that it is funding the development of a citizen-owned Web site for political discourse. The New York-based nonprofit was founded in 1999 by a group of Internet entrepreneurs and philanthropists to encourage the formation of citizen-driven public spaces on the Internet. With 35 million people going online for election information this year, the Democracy Project believes that there is a unique opportunity to set a high standard for online political efforts. Their report argues, however, that most political candidates, advocacy groups, and new commercial political portals -- sites like Grassroots.com, Speakout.com and Voter.com -- are failing to meet the expectations of online users. "Right now it's politics-as-usual on the Internet," says Scott Reents, President of the Democracy Project and co-author of the report. "It's not that political organizations have misexecuted, but rather that the very assumptions they bring from the world of offline campaigns -- control the flow of information, spin events and issues to your advantage, don't give your opponents too much attention -- are bound to lead to poor sites. These assumptions are antithetical to online users' expectations." The report, "A Citizen-Centric Internet," can be downloaded at <a href="http://www.democracyproject.org/about_us/index.html#whitepaper" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.democracyproject.org/about_us/index.html#whitepaper</a>. The Democracy Project is responding to this failure by developing and launching a new Web site. This site, called Quorum.org, will let citizens inform themselves, engage each other and political leaders in dialogue, and help set political agendas. "The Internet puts users in control of their experience," says Michael Weiksner, Chairman of the Democracy Project. "And because it does, political organizations need to start acting like service providers to their online constituents. Quorum.org will be a case example for how this can be done." The Democracy Project will launch the Quorum.org Web site this summer, in time for the increasing election activity during the late summer and fall.</div>

...

Cancel

To Top

Start a New Topic » « Back to the New Media Ethics 2009 course group

Start a New Topic