My take on Internet & democracy, circa 2000

A person on Twitter drew my attention to something I had forgotten, that is sharp to read in today's context. So I decided to start posting here some of my olden forecasts from time to time. Yay or nay, patrons?

How Will The Internet Influence Democracy? 

The way we learn to use the Internet in the next few years (or fail to  learn) will influence the way our grandchildren govern themselves. Yet  only a tiny fraction of the news stories about the impact of the Net  focus attention on the ways many to-many communication technology might  be changing democracy — and those few stories that are published center  on how traditional political parties are using the Web, not on how  grassroots movements might be finding a voice.

Democracy is not just about voting for our leaders. Democracy is about  citizens who have the information and freedom of communication the need  to govern themselves. Although it would be illogical to say that the  printing press created modern democratic nation-states, it would have  been impossible to conceive, foment, or implement self-government  without the widespread literacy made possible by printing technology.  The more we know about the kind of literacy citizens are granted by the  Internet, the better our chances of using that literacy to strengthen  democracy. And what could be more important? What good is health and  wealth and great personal home entertainment media without liberty?

Every communication technology alters governance and political  processes. Candidates and issues are packaged and sold on television by  the very same professionals who package and sell other commodities. In  the age of mass media, the amount of money a candidate can spend on  television advertising is the single most important influence on the  electoral success. Now that the Internet has transformed every desktop  into a printing press, broadcasting station, and place of assembly, will  enough people learn to make use of this potential? Or will our lack of  news, information, and understanding of the Net as a political tool  prove insufficient against the centralization of capital, power, and  knowledge that modern media also make possible?

The same tool that affords tremendous power to the grassroots, the broad  citizenry, the cacaphony of competing "factions" necessary for healthy  democracy, also affords tremendous power to the elites who already have  wealth and power. Guess who can best afford to apply the tool to further  their ends? What's in it for big media interests to inform us about how  we can compete with big media interests?

The political power afforded to citizens by the Web is not a technology  issue. Technology makes a great democratization of publishing,  journalism, public discourse possible, but does not determine whether or  not that potential will be realized. Every computer connected to the  Net can publish a manifesto, broadcast audio and video eyewitness  reports of events in real time, host a virtual community where people  argue about those manifestos and broadcasts. Will only the cranks, the  enthusiasts, the fringe groups take advantage of this communication  platform? Or will many-to-many communication skills become a broader  literacy, the way knowing and arguing about the issues of the day in  print was the literacy necessary for the American revolution?

The "public sphere" is what the German political philosopher Habermas  called that part of public life where ordinary people exchange  information and opinions regarding potholes on main street and national  elections, school bonds and foreign policy. Habermas claimed that the  democratic revolutions of the 18th century were incubated in the coffee  houses and committees of correspondence, informed by the pamphlets and  newspaper debates where citizens argued about how to govern themselves  without a King. Public governance could only emerge from public opinion.  Habermas wrote: "By "public sphere," we mean first of all a domain in  our social life in which such a thing as public opinion can be formed."  The public sphere is the reason why the modern coup d'etat requires  paratroopers to capture television broadcast stations — because those  are the places where the power to influence public opinion is  concentrated.

The problem with the public sphere during the past sixty years of  broadcast communications has been that a small number of people have  wielded communication technology to mold the public opinion of entire  populations. The means of creating and distributing the kind of media  content that could influence public opinion — magazines, newspapers,  radio and television stations — were too expensive for any but a few.  Just as books were once too expensive for any but a few. The PC and the  Internet changed that. Desktop video, desktop radio, desktop debates,  digicam journalism, drastically reduced the barriers to publishing and  broadcasting. These technological capabilities have emerged only  recently, and are evolving rapidly. While much attention is focused on  how many-to-many audio technology is threatening the existing music  industry, little attention is focused on political portals. While all  eyes are on e-commerce, relatively few know about public opinion BBSs,  cause-related marketing, web-accessible voting and finance data.

Look at VoxCap, and the Minnesota E-Democracy Project, project, the California Voter's foundation,  and scores of other unreported experiments. Imagine what might happen  if more people were told that the Web could help them remain free, as  well as enhance their shopping experience?