Opinion Sur Joven

Barack Obama’s case is very peculiar. He faced the primary elections with few chances to defeat former first lady Hillary Clinton, whom at that moment was holding all the cards. But little by little he started gaining popularity, which led him to finally become the president of the United States. How much influence did the Internet have on those elections? To begin with, it had an influence on something as simple as funding: Obama decided to sell merchandising through his website. Those sales probably didn’t replace the contributions of large economic groups, but they were still very helpful. His campaign website included icons for MSN, multimedia for cell phones and videos, people were able to make donations and there was even a virtual shop to buy hats, T-shirts and cups with Obama’s face on them. Even today, when entering Obama’s website a donation form can be seen on the side.

Another interesting example of this campaign is the video “Yes We Can”, which was made by a group of artists based on one of Obama’s speeches. The video was uploaded to Youtube and was seen by more than 30 million people until now. Can this change the course of an election? How can 30 million views of a video influence a 300-million-people population? But perhaps a proper use of those tools allowed Obama to obtain a few more delegates than Hillary Clinton and finally get the presidential candidacy of his party. Then, in the national elections, other factors prevail.

Going back to Argentine politics, Jorge Telerman’s case was also interesting -although less successful. He was the mayor of the city of Buenos Aires and a former candidate for the same office. He created a blog where he directly addressed the citizens to talk about his governmental actions, his campaign or any other subject. The interesting thing was that comments were allowed to anyone (almost?) unrestrictedly: it was possible to find comments ranging from criticism to praise for the politician’s bald head. Was it helpful to win the election? No, and he actually ended up third. But he generated a direct space for communication with citizens, which is still running and is highly visited. Unfortunately, Telerman’s forgotten to update it over the last moths.

Damián Profeta, a coordinator of Taking IT Global in Argentina (an international NGO promoting the use of the Internet for youth participation), gives his opinion on this in an interview in Opinión Sur Joven: “Internet users using the Net’s resources are limited to a minimum portion of it, although this doesn’t invalidate it as a tool. Think about videos with messages from politicians. Said channel has no intervention and, unlike the information in the media, the message reaches the person without being edited or previously rated”.

According to Yochai Benkler, one of the best-known experts in Internet and new technologies matters, what’s most interesting about online campaigns is “the capacity to engage users to the point that they become effective participants in a conversation and an effort”. And he also praises the fact that anyone, no matter their education level, may reproduce the message and relaunch it. “The networked public sphere is not only more resistant to control by money, but it is also less susceptible to the lowest-common-denominator orientation that the pursuit of money often leads mass media to adopt”. Mass media must deal with the issues most people are interested in; new media, instead, may have other segments because users focus on the issues they want.

A wonderful world?

The Net promotes new ways of participation, but this new public space has raised much criticism. Some of this criticism is described by Benkler, who then refutes it in detail.

The first objection is on information overload, or “Babel objection”. Benkler believes so much information makes it gradually harder for an average user to access it all: using the Tower of Babel metaphor, if each person speaks their own language, if each person sends their own message, then it’s really hard for everyone to listen to each other. Who reads all those websites?

Within the same objection, some people believe the amount of money invested on promoting the website will be decisive. If so, how’s this model different from the other? How’s it different from the traditional communication model, where large media groups control all attention?

Another issue related to information overload is discourse fragmentation and polarization, an issue Cass Sunstein approached in The Polarization of Extremes. According to this article, we can only find out whether there are virtual participation websites or spaces through searches related to our particular interests or through references or links to sites we already visit. The problem, according to Sunstein, is that we tend to search for material suitable to our ideologies, and most websites have links to others with a similar ideology. “If people are sorted into enclaves and niches, what will happen to their views? What are the eventual effects on democracy?”, he asks. And he thinks the effect is greater polarization.

But this is not all. There’s more criticism, of every kind. Publishing in the Internet is very easy. But spreading a publication isn’t that easy. So some sectors say this will end up generating large concentrations in just a few hands; in fact, today -for instance- the most visited information sites are those of the traditional media.

Another objection refers to the democratizing effects of new technologies: on the one hand, authoritarian regime governments may censor Internet material. Others criticize the fact that the digital gap doesn’t allow democratization to reach everyone...

Benkler refutes almost all these objections with one phrase: “The relevant comparison is always between the public sphere that we in fact had throughout the twentieth century, the one dominated by mass media, that is the baseline for comparison, not the utopian image of the ‘everyone a pamphleteer’ that animated the hopes of the 1990s for Internet democracy”. That is, Benkler’s opinion -which I agree with- is that all objections may be true. But the important thing is that, no matter whether someone hears what I say or not, today I have more possibilities to express myself than twenty years ago. And he even denies that economic resources are necessary to attract visitors. “While money may be useful in achieving visibility, the structure of the Web means that money is neither necessary nor sufficient to grab attention”.

Regarding the digital gap and censorship issues, there’s an interesting thought Manuel Castells wrote in a text called “Internet, Libertad y Sociedad” (Internet, Freedom and Society), which says that both the Internet and freedom can live only in the minds and hearts of a free society, a society that’s free for everyone, one that models its political institutions according to its freedom practices”. In short, authoritarian societies will remain authoritarian; the Net can be a democratizing tool, but it can’t solve all problems.

Notwithstanding Benkler’s statements, there’s another objection to this virtual participation model. More and more people -especially young people- are “participating” though the Internet. Criticism focuses on the possibility to lose territorial participation, which is as much important as the virtual one, or even more: using the Net to communicate and analyze the world we want to live in is great, but taking actual steps is even better: painting a school, raising money to feed children, going from door to door to promote a political party’s ideas, organizing training courses and workshops…

Young people interviewed in this article agree with it, and insist on the idea that virtual participation must be a complement. María Sol Tischick, who coordinates foundation Generación Libre, believes the Internet must be considered an additional tool and not an end in itself. “In no way does virtual participation replace conventional participation, and I don’t think that’s its purpose either. Quite the opposite: the use of digital media and new information and communication technologies (ICTs) allows us to strengthen civil participation in general. ICTs represent a revolutionary tool, which has largely changed the way we communicate and express; however, ICTs can’t replace face-to-face bonds, but they strengthen them, consolidate them and even encourage the creation of new social bonds”, she says.

Italian coordinator of young volunteers Selene Biffi, who creates and promotes courses through the Internet, says:

“Internet and ICTs may be useful to convince people of something, to lobby, to spread information or to recruit volunteers. But, on the other hand, we can’t forget the digital gap is still too big. That’s why we need to organize territorial projects, especially where ICTs aren’t available yet”. And she adds: “Besides, face-to-face contact is still the most efficient method”.

Not good, not bad

We wondered in the first part of this article whether the Net and new technologies are the keys to stop citizens’ apathy and lack of participation in democratic regimes. And we got to the conclusion that they’re not. The Internet is simply a tool, and its final use depends purely and exclusively on social issues exceeding technology.

The good thing is that, whereas billions of people browse porn sites or search for the latest celebrity gossip, a few people -a minority- have decided to express themselves and participate; perhaps, they couldn’t do it otherwise. So let’s welcome the Internet into political life; let’s welcome this new public sphere.