In the first debate, two different ideas about online speech empowerment are at odds with each other. First of all, the Republican view is that the line between experts and amateurs is becoming less clear. It is more harder for elites and representatives to regulate what counts as legitimate knowledge, culture, and the political agenda. People think that amateur ones are good to medium quality. With Decentralized Social Media, the unity and centrality that separated civics from people’s needs may disappear.
Some people disagree with this concept of empowering citizens by saying that a democratic society gives itself the tools to strengthen and improve the important skills and information that citizens need to take action by becoming independent on the Internet. People don’t need the traditional features of representative democracies, the press, and the cultural industries to be free on the Internet.
There are a number of conclusions
The next issue is how the Internet leverages people’s feelings and opinions to change public space. Supporters of a biopolitical view, who have been influenced by Michel Foucault, say that putting tastes, conversations, or friendships under the microscope of commodification and calculation creates a new form of control. The neo-liberal answer to the rise of a subject that is flexible, self-motivated, and useful is to make speech, voluntary work, and teamwork more democratic, as these are the most independent and self-regulated subjects.
Based on Michael Hardt and Toni Negri’s work on the concept of the multitude, it believes that collaboration between individual singularities has always been and is still going on in human relationships. It’s not capitalism that wants to encourage and take use of people’s creative and collaborative powers; it’s a widespread force that always tries to break free from institutions. The Internet has positive effects on the community that everyone can see, such shared knowledge, public goods that neither the market nor the government can take, and new ways for people to share culture.
It is the first to bring a logic of calculating into people’s social lives
This is like how bees work for the good of their own hive and pollinate the whole ecosystem at the same time. Each of these explanations gives a short example of the new economy of social ties that online social networks help create. They also give people a way to stop relying too much on the traditional institutions of public life and becoming too passive. But losing this freedom also means that social contacts and cultural consumption are becoming more regular and commonplace. Sociological theory says that this ambivalence is at the heart of modern individualism’s process of strengthening the link with the self.
Of course, the primary reason is that the cultural capital of our society has grown. After that, a philosophy of expressive singularization and individualization gradually shapes each person’s identity in the ways that those around them recognize them. Last but not least, it shows that more and more individuals want to sort, filter, and rank information on their own, without the help of journalists, politicians, or cultural institutions. Ironically, then, when people try to better their reputations on social media by being more competitive, they also make the ways they show themselves, set themselves apart, and connect with others more similar.
This is like how bees work for the good of their own hive and pollinate the whole ecosystem at the same time
It is the first to bring a logic of calculating into people’s social lives: a race to have as many friends as possible, building a positive self-image, and only employing digital pals when they can be used for personal gain. The verified reputation logics make the social and cultural gap between people who can build a large and diverse network of people to interact with and people who are stuck in a narrow and similar social and relational context even bigger. It also makes self-identification more logical and consistent.
But one of the main implications of these new ways of doing things is that they make the line between the world of everyday discussion and the conventional world of public space less clear, at least in a symbolic way. The media and cultural sectors are no longer the only ones that spread information. They need to be a part of a more free-flowing and unorganized process of spreading debates, ideas, opinions, and proposals across the board.
Conclusion
In the first debate, two different ideas about online speech empowerment are at odds with each other. First of all, the Republican view is that the line between experts and amateurs is becoming less clear. It is more harder for elites and representatives to regulate what counts as legitimate knowledge, culture, and the political agenda. People think that amateur ones are good to medium quality. The unity and centrality that made civics separate from people’s wants and needs are likely to go away.
Some people disagree with this concept of empowering citizens by saying that a democratic society gives itself the tools to strengthen and improve the important skills and information that citizens need to take action by becoming independent on the Internet. People don’t need the traditional features of representative democracies, the press, and the cultural industries to be free on the Internet. Still, it is marked by the rise of interdependencies that force the latter to connect with and talk to amateur productions.