=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3289/paper1
|storemode=property
|title=Public Space & Social Media: New Possibilities of Politicization, "Echo Chambers" or Fora of Neo-populism?
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3289/short1.pdf
|volume=Vol-3289
|authors=Petros Panagiotopoulos
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/ifdad/Panagiotopoulos22
}}
==Public Space & Social Media: New Possibilities of Politicization, "Echo Chambers" or Fora of Neo-populism?==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3289/short1.pdf
Public Space & Social Media:
New politicization possibilities, "echo chambers" or fora of neo-populism?
Petros Panagiotopoulos1
1Assist. Professor, Department of Theology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
Abstract
Sixty years ago, Jurgen Habermas proposed public space as the area where
contemporary citizens express themselves. Internet today has become the main tool
for peoples’ politicization, including introvert mentality, possibilities for new kinds
of mass movements, and exploitation from governing teams. Thus, public space
takes another form for modern people to intervene in politics.
Keywords
Public space, public sphere, politicization, social media, populism
1. Introduction
The concept of the Public Sphere has been dynamically introduced into modern thought since
the early 1960s, when Habermas defined a space where individuals converse with each other
and criticize issues related to public life, without limitations and constraints. It is a sphere of
discourse, with practices distinct from those of the state apparatus and in which the issues of
everyday life are discussed in a free and unrestricted way. What matters is not so much the
specificity of this space as the overall accessibility to it and the interaction within it. Word is
expressed by anyone and addressed to anyone [1].
Printed word’s form is also of particular importance in the formation and expression of
opinions. With the assistance of the written word, but also of the mass media, a structural
transformation of the public sphere takes place, in which the urban audience of homogenized
and abstract individuals turns into the "differentiated" audience of civil society.
IFDaD 2022 INTERNATIONAL FORUM on DIGITAL and DEMOCRACY, November 17-18, 2022, live and digital event in Rome, Italy.
panapetros@theo.auth.gr
http://users.auth.gr/panapetros/
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7006-1499
© 2021 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0
International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
All this meant a new conception of the modern "city", in which – ideally – its members could
seek and find the valuable consents for their common future. The contradictions, however, of
this dynamic also demonstrated its limits along the way. Walking on the same path, there have
been many critical approaches to the same concept, as an intermediate space between the
domain of the private and the state [2].
2. The emergence of Social Media
Electronic Social Networking Media (hereinafter: SM, Social Media) in their various forms (e-
mail communities, blogs, etc.) begin to appear at the end of last century [3]. Their initial stage
is characterized by the creation of the online infrastructure, the search for their operating
contours and the gradual formation of what will be called the "platform society", i.e., the
interdependence of these heterogeneous mechanisms. Gradually, the sizes increase, spread
across different fields, attract research interest, and connect to more social aspects. As the
landscape moves toward completion, interest is rapidly shifting from simple communication
to commercial interest and political exploitation. Within layout of new settings, each social
component (social organizations, state institutions, media, etc.) seeks its own place.
It is now clear that this digital mediation between private and public space, by the "platform
societies", is restructuring social dynamics. The "new" public space is co-shaped through
heterogeneous components of diverse perceptions standing next to each other, new cultural
imaginaries, practices followed by ordinary users and professionals, technological
architectures, and business models. These connections in turn bring some additional data.
First, socio-cultural activity is deeply intertwined (and therefore interacts) with techno-
economic digital infrastructures – with all that this entails. Beyond that, the new political
economy of the public landscape constitutes a mosaic of complexity (and sometimes
contradictions), in which the self-evident have no place in particular. This in turn means that
the correct assessment of the new conditions does not favor one-dimensional approaches,
but the widest possible view of this innovative and multifaceted dynamic [4].
3. Politicization through Social Media
3.1 The new "audience"
In this new picture that shapes the landscape of SM, some clear deviations from the
Habermasian proposal can be found. First, the audience of the public space is active in other
contexts, with different forms of information and social practices than those the German
philosopher had in mind. Now, it is a set of citizens that operates relatively anonymously,
partially "invisible", since it has access to the media and with the morphological limitations
that they place on the monitoring of communication.
A different issue is the commercialization of the media: SM operate in terms of privacy, in the
sense that their owners monitor the movements of users (not in complete ignorance of the
latter) and after analyzing them, promote and develop specific consumption practices and
products. The ancient Greek agora [5] (that is, forum) operates in both dimensions of its
concepts, both economic and political [6].
3.2 Social Media and mass movements
Separately, however, the SM function in the direction of strengthening the collectives stands
out. It is an obvious kind of creating new identities, or a new way of expressing common
identities. The development of community feelings, solidarity and mutual support found a
vital space in the groupings formed digitally. The online "we" is a way of forming collective
identities and further multiplies the voices of individuals. Petitions, protests, and activism [7]
derive much of their momentum from the capabilities of SM. Through posts, hashtags,
retweets, etc., ideas are exchanged and spread, calls to action find ground to grow, and simple
communication is transformed into political action, sometimes on a large scale. Discomfort
and indignation may initially manifest themselves in a virtual way, as "cloud protesting", but
sometimes relatively soon they will be expressed in the real world.
It should not be considered a coincidence, therefore, that the greatest mobilizations of our
time were supported by SM. The advantages of rapid communication (especially Twitter), self-
expression, and sharpening of political polarization offered by SM have not gone unnoticed
by activists and have been used almost exclusively to spread ideas and organize their
movements. At the same time, however, they also influenced the form of these movements,
as shown by studies of the uptake of the data offered by the SM to their users [8].
3.3 The introversion of the Social Media
Nevertheless, this development has another peculiarity: SM users are basically organized in
groups of like-minded people (e.g. on the same Facebook pages), so the circulation of ideas is
not distinguished so much for its critical character, as for the escalation of admiration of the
fans. It is estimated, therefore, that the design of the media supports their function rather as
"echo chambers". Reverberation chamber was actually used as a sound effects room,
producing echoes so that during a recording it is creating a feeling as if the conversation took
place in a large room. Now, the term broadly refers to digital communication, where users
choose to enter media where they will only hear the echo of their own voice. In some cases,
in fact, the SM algorithms, which determine the approach of the user, cooperate in this regard,
so the technological morphology of each medium interacts with the form of social
involvement. A more or less vast area of information/opinions is thus created, which the user
himself does not see and does not want to see. Thus, everyone "consumes" opinions similar
to his/her own ones, relays others that agree with them, and constructs a version of reality
that is favorable to them. Inevitably, this morphology and the mentality it cultivates
contribute at the same time to the aforementioned increase in political polarization, the easier
adoption of radical attitudes and extreme forms of action, but also to the more favorable
prevalence of a populist [9] climate.
By the lack of serious dialogue and critical interventions, but also with the predominance of
cheers instead of disagreements, popularity of electronic pages is conquered by their "agreed"
supporters. This image essentially affects the quality of political discourse (and therefore
democratic functioning), as differentiation and (necessary) reflection is discouraged and the
recycling of similar ideas and perceptions prevails. Many times, this phenomenon of "fenced"
politicization is found to mark a limit to the temporal scope of socio-political action. At the
same time, protagonists of the political groups transfer their profile’s center of gravity inside
their space [10]. This aspect of the political aspect of SM can explain why not only older
people, but also citizens with more education are more likely to engage in "off-line" political
behaviors (that is, regardless of the use of electronic media) [11].
3.4 Exploitation of the Social Media by the governing groups
Another fact that is recorded nowadays concerns the increasing involvement of governments
and political figures in the SM. It is now evident that elected officials are turning to these new
ways of communicating with their constituents, with novel terms of interaction, evolving
codes of ethics, and generally opaque control guidelines. This particular aspect becomes
particularly important in cases of restrictions and prohibitions, which are obviously in direct
opposition to the specifications of the original ideas of J. Habermas and in what is understood
as the public sphere since then (beyond the sensitive issue of violations of freedom of speech).
It would be hopelessly utopian and romantic, however, to expect the ruling elites to remain
mere spectators of events and not bother to intervene in an advantageous way for
themselves.
In recent times, it is becoming less and less rare for the courts to be concerned with the right
to prohibit the participation ("blocking") of persons and activities in some SM; it is examined,
e.g., whether it is legal for a company to block certain messages or a politician to block a user
who posts critical comments about him. Corresponding questions also arise with the "reports"
to persons or even for their blocking in SM, since these means are considered Public Space.
On the other hand, issues arise when citizens consider that the policy of a SM is directed
against them or against the rights of minorities. For their part, SM present corresponding
prohibitions that they imposed on government organizations or officials, claiming that they
do not discriminate when they consider that the principles they have set are being violated.
As a special case (and extremely worrisome for the future) the fact of governmental pressures
towards SM for specific actions of a political nature, against persons or groups (e.g. suspension
of activist accounts or pages of groups used for planning rallies) must be considered. Incidents
of harassment, tracking and even targeting of persons who are politically active, monitoring
of social/political websites, closing them in times of social unrest or systematic restrictions on
their use (as well as Internet services in general) have already been recorded on the part of
specific regimes [12].
4. In Epilogue
We have already entered a historical period where the status of a citizen is more and more
intertwined with that of the internet user of SM. The new term 'Netizenship' [13] obviously
captures this reality. It is clear that modern political scene differs in many points from the
open framework of the Public Space, as at least it was formulated during its initial conception.
It may in many aspects offer important possibilities for communication, but it includes aspects
that degrade it and undermine its offer to man. Once again, our species' achievements are
ambivalent, and it takes vigilance and sensitivity (rather than the usual reckless enthusiasm or
equally uncritical denial) to assess them in their proper dimensions and perspectives.
References
[1] There is an issue concerning the terms “public space” and “public sphere”. In general, the
first term means a physical field that is accessible to and usable by everyone (e.g., parks,
squares, streets, etc.). On contrast, the latter is an abstract term, referring to public
information or discussion. Of course, we use both terms in this second form, keeping in
mind that in modern literature the Public Space takes different interpretations according
to the various research objectives. For example, for humanities it means the
interpretation of public opinion, while for communication theories it is mostly the area
either of publicity, or the intertwining of persons and events, in terms of commenting
and criticizing. For architectural and urban planning, especially, public space still keeps
takes the meaning of the open public spaces of cities. By mediation of digital
technologies, many aspects see them deviating each other, and so some speak for
“second public sphere”. In our paper, we are interesting on the way social media interact
with politicization, so we interpret both terms in a common view.
[2] J. Habermas, "The Public Sphere" (1964), in: A. Mattelart – S. Siegelaub (eds.),
Communication and Class Struggle, Vol. 1: Capitalism, Imperialism, International General,
New York 1979, pp. 198-201. J. Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public
Sphere: an inquiry into a category of bourgeois thought, MIT Press, Cambridge 1989, pp.
89-116. D. Wolton, 'Les Contradictions de l'Espace Public Médiatisé', Hermès 10 (1991)
95. T. Tierney, 'Disentangling Public Space: Social Media and Internet Activism',
thresholds 41 (Spring 2013) 82-3. S. Çöteli, Cyber Public Sphere and Social Movements.
Calling to Cyber Spaces, Nomos, Baden-Baden, Germany 2018, pp. 10-6, 27-30.
[3] The genealogy of the phenomenon places Web 1.0 (which was "read and/or listen-only")
in the "prehistory" of Social Media, which evolved into the interactivity and interpersonal
communication of Web 2.0 (where you can "read and write"). See M.S. Ankerson, "Social
Media and the "Read-Only" Web: Reconfiguring Social Logics and Historical Boundaries",
Social Media + Society 1(2), 2015, 1-12. doi:org/10.1177/2056305115621.
[4] See C. Tsironis, "Church, Community Ties and Social Networks", Synthesis 5 (2014), 151-7
(in Greek). J.v. Dijck – T. Poell, "Social Media and the Transformation of Public Space",
Social Media + Society 1(2), 2015, 1-5. doi:org/10.1177/2056305115622482.
[5] It is interesting, relatedly, that philosopher Hannah Arendt approached precisely the
concept of the Public Space in terms of the ancient Greek concept of the forum (in Greek:
agora). H. Arendt, The Human Condition, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 21998,
pp. 28-37. S. Çöteli, Cyber Public Sphere and Social Movements, ibid., pp. 24-7.
[6] T. Tierney, op. cit.
[7] We may see as typical here the cases of the "Arab Spring" (2010 onwards), the movement
in Toronto (Toronto Occupy Movement, 2011), the student mobilizations in Mexico "I am
number 132" (2012), the uprising for Gezi Park in Istanbul (2013) et al.
[8] R. Sandoval-Almazan – J.R. Gil-Garcia, “Towards cyberactivism 2.0? Understanding the use
of social media and other information technologies for political activism and social
movements', Government Information Quarterly 31 (2014) 365–78. J.v. Dijck – T. Poell,
ibid., 2-3. A. Al-Rawi, "News Organizations 2.0: A comparative study of Twitter news",
Journalism Practice 11(6), 2016, 705-20. doi:org/10.1080/17512786.2016.1195239. B.
Burak, "Social Media as a Public Space for Political Activism: The Use of Twitter During
Gezi Park Protests", e-Journal of Media & Society 7 (2021), 3.
[9] The involvement of SM in mass movements also seems to correspond to the analyzes of
the theory of "mediated populism", about how populist practices are applied in
contemporary political communication, as they are mobilized by mass movements in
order to gain visibility and legitimize politically themselves. In this context, strategies of
constructing reality, defining the agenda of political discourse and filtering information
are developed. In general, 4 phases are recognized regarding the development of their
action. In the first phase, there is a systematic engagement with citizens' discomfort and
the causes that cause it. It is mainly about the low standard of living as opposed to the
corruption of governing layers. The second phase constitutes the rebellion, so the
question is the expansion of social support. During the third phase, the movement is
recognized as a distinct political entity in the political life of the country. Finally, the phase
of decline follows, during which the movement loses its dynamics and social foundations.
In this whole process, SM (but also the media) have a key, almost leading, role especially
in the first two stages, while in the last stage they are not used so much. With the help of
the various media, therefore, communication and information acquire an emotional and
sometimes dramatized tone, the use of violence is indirectly or directly legitimized, the
news obeys the rules of post-truth mechanisms, rival leaders are ridiculed and
deconstructed while the leaders and the "doctrine" of the movement is purged,
sanctified and their popularity promoted. J. Stewart, G. Mazzoleni & B. Horsfield,
"Conclusion: Power to the media managers", in: G. Mazzoleni, J. Stewart & B. Horsfield
(eds.), The Media and Neo-populism: A contemporary comparative analysis, Praeger,
Westport 2003, pp. 217-37. P. Chakravartty – S. Roy, “Mr. Modi goes to Delhi: Mediated
populism and the 2014 Indian elections', Television & New Media 16(4), 2015, 311–22.
doi:org/10.1177/1527476415573957. G. Mazzoleni – R. Bracciale, "Socially mediated
populism: the communicative strategies of political leaders on Facebook", Palgrave
Communications 4(50), 2018, 1-10. doi:org/10.1057/s41599-018-0104-x. B. Burak, op.
cit., 5.
[10] Of course, the extent and variety of social media use also shows - apart from cases of
"echo chambers" as well the barren, sharp and sometimes vulgar confrontations - either
points of fruitful and open dialogue or positive functions of introversion. We consider,
however, that the extent of the negative aspects constitutes a wound for the quality of
the democratic dialogue and therefore we place more emphasis on highlighting this
aspect.
[11] E. Colleoni, A. Rozza & A. Arvidsson, “Echo Chamber or Public Sphere? Predicting Political
Orientation and Measuring Political Homophily in Twitter Using Big Data: Political
Homophily on Twitter', Journal of Communication 64 (2), 2014, 317–32.
doi:org/10.1111/jcom.12084. A. Gruzd – J. Roy, "Investigating political polarization on
Twitter: A Canadian perspective", Policy & Internet 6(1), 2014, 30. doi:org/10.1002/1944-
2866.POI354. M. Saldaña, S.C. McGregor & H.G. De Zúñiga, "Social Media as a Public
Space for Politics: Cross-National Comparison of News Consumption and Participatory
Behaviors in the United States and the United Kingdom", International Journal of
Communication 9(2015), 3314. J.v. Dijck – T. Poell, ibid., 3. S.A. Schwartz, "Campaigning
and contestation: Comments on politicians' Facebook pages during the 2011 Danish
general election campaign", Social Media + Society 1(2), 2015, 2.
doi:org/10.1177/2056305115622480. Lydia Kallipoliti, "The digital echo chamber"
(06/05/ 2019), https://www.archetype.gr/blog/arthro/o-thalamos-tis-psifiakis-ichous.
(in Greek). B. Burak, op. cit., 3.
[12] T. Tierney, op. cit., 83-5. K. Leetaru, “Is Social Media Really A Public Space?”, Forbes
(2017), https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2017/08/01/is-social-media-really-
a-public-space/?sh=2b7b5 cd52b80.
[13] As can be seen from the combination of the terms "net" and "citizenship". A. Paliwala,
"Netizenship, security and freedom", International Review of Law, Computers &
Technology 27(1-2), 106-8, 117-9. doi:org/10.1080/13600869.2013.764139. A. Seto,
Netizenship, Activism and Online Community Transformation in Indonesia, Springer,
Singapore, 2017.