Deliberative democracy and the digital public sphere: Asymmetrical fragmentation as a political not a technological problem

Authorship and individualization in the digital public sphere

Democratic responsibility in the digital public sphere

Being a master of metaphors

Egyptian Women Controversial Issues and the Digital Public Sphere:Can Social Media Debates Be Used as Indicators of Social Struggle in Society? Enas Abou Youssef (bio) 1. Introduction Can social media networks be used as indicators of social class conflict in society? This is the core research question of this study. Social media networks have opened a new digital public sphere era. In Egypt, ever since the uprising on January 25, 2011, social media networks are considered one of the focal communicative tools that encouraged civic participation from many socio-ideological classes to the extent that the uprising was called the "Facebook revolution."1 Since 2011, the country has witnessed many waves of polarization. At the beginning, polarization was political where Islamists were facing secular trends. That polarization shed its light in other [End Page 58] aspects of social and economic life in Egypt later on. Many cultural and socioeconomic issues were displayed on social media and reflected diverse attitudes, approaches, and even values specifically regarding women's issues. In Egypt, among other Arab countries, the assumption that digital public sphere has higher freedom ceiling with socio-cultural issues is true to a substantial extent. Based on this assumption, one can examine socio-cultural struggles in Egyptian society from social issues debated and displayed on social media. Facebook, twitter, Tik-Tok, and reels can be considered reflections of different social classes that have access and are digitally empowered to dominate in the digital public sphere.2 According to Pierre Bourdieu, social status can be analyzed by considering three exchangeable capitals: economic, social, and cultural. In general, economic capital consists of money, assets, and property the individual holds. Social capital includes actual or virtual groups to which the individual belongs, their durable networks, and more or less institutionalized relationships.3 Cultural capital refers to the type of education and socialization that allows individuals to demonstrate their knowledge and cultural consumption and that differentiates them from other social groups.4 This article aims to present an analysis of Egyptian women's controversial issues that are displayed on the social media "Facebook" from one side and their indications to types of socio-cultural conflict existing in society from the other side during June 2021-July 2022. The key question is: What are the recent social conflict characteristics concluded from debates addressing Egyptian women's controversial issues displayed and trended on social networks? [End Page 59] 2. Reviewing the Literature and Theoretical Conceptual Framework 2.1 Digital Public Sphere One of the major points Jürgen Habermas highlighted when presenting the concept of "Public Sphere" is that sphere is "open to all." A public sphere refers to a society that can become engaged in "critical public debate."5 Accordingly, the public sphere would be linked to media for information, communication, and access by all citizens. Media plays the role of promoting the open market of ideas in liberal societies. Habermas thereby stresses that the public sphere is not just a sphere of public political communication, but also one that enables social relations using media.6 However, some scholars have argued that the idea of a public sphere, which is free from state censorship and private ownership, does not exist. Niklas Luhmann, for example, assured that all social systems, including communication systems, are related to the power of money and the paid/unpaid in the economy or the power of who is in office/out of office in politics.7 It should be noted that media systems never function in a vacuum. They are part of the political, socioeconomic system in society. Yet, recent technological factors have loosened the public sphere and opened access to more societal participants. Social media networks created new public sphere horizons of political communication. In 2011, there were revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and beyond. The common aspects of these protests were the use of social media networks as tactics of political, economic, and social protests, creating a new public space that reflected a common crisis of society.8 The digital public sphere is a communicative sphere that is provided or supported by online or social media – from websites to social network sites, weblogs, and micro-blogs. These platforms provide...

Gripsrud, J. and H. Moe, eds. 2010. The digital public sphere: challenges for media policy. Goteborg: Nordicom, 167 pp (ISBN 978-91-86523-02-2) The concepts of 'the public', 'public sphere', 'civil society' and media regulation have dominated media studies for some time. Scholars have attempted to explore the nexus between regulation and the audience/public's access to the media/public sphere (Curran 2000; Eribo & Jong-Ebot 1997; McChesney 1999; Venturelli 1998). In most of these writings, regulation is seen as hindering access to the public domain and as stifling freedom of expression. However, these scholars are concerned with traditional media, (1) while the authors in The digital public sphere: challenges for media policy extend the critique to the digital public sphere. They examine the problems of regulation in a digitised environment and conclude that political and commercial interests take precedence in the crafting of media policy, mainly because end users of such digitised media are not perceived as a public (2) but as audiences or consumers. The issues discussed in this collection are relevant across the world, even though the digital public sphere in most Third-World countries is not as developed as it is in Europe, largely because of political, economic and technological challenges. In Chapter 1, Slavko Splichal grapples with the concepts 'public', 'public sphere' and 'civil society'. The author looks at the movement from the angle of one homogenous public sphere to many public spheres. He argues that the public may be 'dispersed physically but mentally/spiritually tied together' (p. 32). The public is distinguished from the crowd in that its members act rationally. The public is distinguished from public opinion, which safeguards against the 'misrule of those in power [and] is also a means of coercion in the hands of the majority against any minority of those who would not share the majority opinion' (p. 26). He adds that the public is only a social category, while the public sphere is the infrastructure which enables public opinion to flourish. Therefore the public's infrastructure is the public sphere. On the other hand, civil society is said to generate the public sphere and to enable citizens to wield power over those in power through 'public discussion and persuasion' (p. 30). He also rightly notes that through this persuasion and discussion 'civil society influences regulative forces of the state and corporate institutions' (p. 31). He aptly sums up the problem by stating: 'There is no public sphere without civil society, but there is also none without the public' (ibid.), then points out that the Internet popularised the concept of the public sphere and helped launch the notion of an international/global public sphere. However, this is debatable as stories broadcast via satellite, radio and digital technology before the advent of the Internet, were able to cut across geographical boundaries and spark debate worldwide. As Thussu (2006: xvii) argues: 'Although the Internet has received greater attention in recent public debates on international communication, television, being much more widely accessible, is perhaps more influential in setting the global communication agenda.' For example, The Beatles were a worldwide phenomenon. Besides the above, Splichal (2010) corrects the misconception that all mass media are public spheres, by pointing out that some are not and that there are other actors (such as the state, political parties, interest groups, media gatekeepers and businesses) who are already in the public sphere to influence it. Finally, Splichal points out that the 'citizens qua citizen--either as publics or as audiences--are not among key actors in the public sphere anymore but rather, as in the old Lippman's theorization, spectators observing the public stage from the balcony'. In Chapter 2 Hannu Nieminem looks at global copyright law by taking a case study of the Finnish TVkaista. …

This paper examines how social media is providing a new digital public sphere and shaping the democratic process in Ghana. It draws on Habermas's public sphere theory to explore how social media has occupied a digital public sphere that creates spaces for democratic participation and public discourse. The paper reviews relevant literature on social media use as a tool of political communication, the new digital public sphere, and the democratic process in Ghana and globally. Since Ghana's return to democratic rule in 1992, the media landscape was initially dominated by traditional state and private media outlets. However, the rise of digital and social media over the past two decades has transformed the public sphere, creating online spaces for citizens to engage in political deliberations and share diverse viewpoints. The paper examines how social media played a crucial role in Ghana's 2020 elections, facilitating citizen political participation, public opinion formation, and activism despite COVID-19 restrictions on physical gatherings. Social media enabled political parties to campaign online, citizens to voice concerns, and interest groups to mobilize protests and demand accountability. While acknowledging the digital divide and attempts by political elites to control narratives, the paper argues that social media's interactive and connective structure has enhanced the public sphere by dismantling dominant discourses and amplifying alternative perspectives. The paper concludes by recommending robust fact-checking mechanisms and collaborative efforts from government, civil society, media, and interest groups to strengthen the digital public sphere's role in consolidating Ghana's democracy. Overall, it highlights social media's transformative impact on Ghana's public sphere and democratic processes.

“Ideology and simultaneously more than mere ideology”: On Habermas’ reflections and hypotheses on a further structural transformation of the political public sphere

With the rapid development of the Internet and social media, the digital public sphere is becoming an important space that influences public opinion and consumer behavior. This article takes the "Sams Club product selection controversy event" that sparked widespread discussion in China in 2025 as a case study to explore how social media shapes consumers' perception and trust in brands as a public sphere. Based on the theories of public sphere and brand trust, this study uses questionnaire surveys and text analysis methods to analyze how social media promotes extensive discussions among consumers about this event. The research finds that social media uses hot lists and tag functions to strengthen agenda-setting attributes, expand the spread of the event, and influence the image of the brand constructed in the public's mind. This article points out that the digital public sphere is not limited to political issues, and its influence is increasingly extending to the consumption field. The significance of this study lies in revealing the mechanism of social media's role in consumption disputes and providing references for brands on how to respond to crises, rebuild trust, and shape identity in the digital public sphere.

From Café Culture to Tweets

This essay is the text of a keynote address given at the Association for Computing Machinery conference on Computer Science and Law on October 28, 2019. To understand how to regulate social media you must first understand why you want to regulate it. We should regulate social media companies because they are key institutions in the twenty-first century digital public sphere. A public sphere does not work properly without trusted and trustworthy intermediate institutions that are guided by professional and public-regarding norms. The current economic incentives of social media companies hinder them from playing this crucial role and lead them to adopt policies and practices that actually undermine the health and vibrancy of the digital public sphere. The point of regulating social media is to create incentives for social media companies to become responsible and trustworthy institutions that will help foster a healthy and vibrant digital public sphere. It is equally important to ensure that there are a large number of different kinds of social media companies, with diverse affordances, value systems, and innovations. Treating social media companies as state actors or as public utilities does not solve the problems of the digital public sphere. One might create a public option for social media services, but this, too, cannot serve as a general solution to the problems that social media create. Instead, this essay describes three policy levers that might create better incentives for privately-owned companies: (1) antitrust and competition law; (2) privacy and consumer protection law; and (3) a careful balance of intermediary liability and intermediary immunity rules.

"To understand how to regulate social media, you have to understand why you want to regulate it. I will say something about specific regulatory proposals in the last part of this essay. But I want to spend most of my time discussing the why as much as the how.\n\nHere is the central idea: Social media companies are key institutions in the 21st century digital public sphere. A public sphere doesn’t work properly without trusted and trustworthy institutions guided by professional and public-regarding norms. The goal of regulating social media is to create incentives for social media companies to be responsible and trustworthy institutions that will help foster a healthy and vibrant digital public sphere.\n\nWhat is the public sphere? For purposes of this essay, we can say that the public sphere is the space in which people express opinions and exchange views that judge what is going on in society. Put another way, the public sphere is a set of social practices and institutions in which ideas and opinions circulate. The public sphere is obviously crucial to democracy. But most people’s opinions aren’t about government policy. They are about sports, culture, fashion, gossip, commerce, and so on.\n\nA public sphere is more than just people sitting around talking. It is shaped and governed, and made functional or dysfunctional, rich or poor, by institutions. Most of the institutions that constitute the public sphere are private. They sit between the public and the government. There are lots of examples in the pre-digital world: print and broadcast media, book clubs, spaces for assembly and conversation, sports stadiums, theaters, schools, universities, churches, libraries, archives, museums, and so on.\n\nA digital public sphere is a public sphere that is dominated by digital media and digital technologies. Digital media become the key institutions that either maintain or undermine the health of the public sphere."

Satire as the Comic Public Sphere: Postmodern “Truthiness” and Civic Engagement

Drawing from Jürgen Habermas’ critique of the public sphere, this chapter reflects on the means by which neoliberal capitalism, enabled by the state, works to censor citizens by facilitating their exclusion from the digital public sphere on social media. I argue that the prohibitive cost of and lack of access to Internet and broadband services in Ghana represent a crucial structural impediment to participation in the digital public sphere. I also examine the neoliberal capitalist justifications that create and perpetuate an unjust regime, which inevitably recreates a bourgeois public sphere regarding social media use. I conclude my chapter with a reflection that the COVID-19 pandemic has deepened the concern about the digital divide and has heightened the need to reexamine how significant portions of the population are systemically shut out of the digital public sphere.

The subject of the research of this article is the theoretical and methodological aspect of the transformation of dialogical interactions between government and society in the digital public sphere. The essence of this transformation, taking place in the context the digital information society, is the reconfiguration of the "traditional" public sphere into a digital public sphere, civil society into a digital civil society, the usual offline dialogue between the government and society into an intersubjective digital online dialogue. Unfortunately, many of these changes up to the present time remain completely unexplored by Russian political science and related fields and branches of socio-humanitarian knowledge. The scientific novelty of the article consist in the question of choosing the most adequate theoretical and scientific-methodological means for the study of the transformations occurring in the digital public sphere in the contest of the dialogue between government and society. The main purpose of writing this article is focused on the study and selection and choosing the most appropriate theoretical and scientific and methodological tools for the study of transformations occurring in the digital public sphere, in the dialogue between government and society, tools that make it possible to comprehend the leading transformational trends in the field of communication technologies.

The subject of the research of this article is the theoretical and methodological aspect of the transformation of dialogical interactions between government and society in the digital public sphere. The essence of this transformation, taking place in the context the digital information society, is the reconfiguration of the "traditional" public sphere into a digital public sphere, civil society into a digital civil society, the usual offline dialogue between the government and society into an intersubjective digital online dialogue. Unfortunately, many of these changes up to the present time remain completely unexplored by Russian political science and related fields and branches of socio-humanitarian knowledge. The scientific novelty of the article consist in the question of choosing the most adequate theoretical and scientific-methodological means for the study of the transformations occurring in the digital public sphere in the contest of the dialogue between government and society. The main purpose of writing this article is focused on the study and selection and choosing the most appropriate theoretical and scientific and methodological tools for the study of transformations occurring in the digital public sphere, in the dialogue between government and society, tools that make it possible to comprehend the leading transformational trends in the field of communication technologies.