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

Political communication and opinion formation have always been central topics in democratic theory. Today, all eyes are on the new digital landscape ways that it is affecting these elements of democracy. The diagnosis both popular press scholarly research revolution has anything but good for democracy: “Today conventional wisdom holds technologies brought world addictive devices, an omnipresent surveillance panopticon, racist algorithms, disinformation machines exacerbate polarization, threatening to destroy democracies from within” (Bernholz et al., 2021, p. 3). Assessing threat present information especially relevant theories deliberative democracy place deliberation at center system. In this essay, I focus Jürgen Habermas’ version assessment digitalization public sphere follows (Habermas 2022c). This identifies fragmentation privatization as most serious threats a properly functioning sphere. While agree function sphere, question whether their primary cause suggest we should be focusing political actors who intentionally pursue strategies fragment polarize Thus, culprit here not so much technology acquisitive platforms authoritarian elite intent dulling power hold account. Deliberative broad paradigm. Very generally, can described “talk-centric” rather than “vote-centric” view (Chambers, 2003, 308) which studied evaluated “from point quality processes through individuals come discuss, debate mutually justify respective stances before voting or taking other sorts action” (Scudder & White, 2023, 12). normative core developed, studied, theorized what might called two levels On one level, see development indeed proliferation citizen initiatives. These concrete exercises bring citizens together face-to-face designed settings with information, trained moderators, procedural norms promote participant equality decision-making process. Here, practice structured within institution. There thousands initiatives across democracies, non-democracies, immense variation design (Farrell Curato, 2021). Their use insertion into systems rise and, many places, significantly addressing deficits. mini-publics assemblies, however, there no social media, fake news, affective pathologies associated post-truth absent mitigated. We learn great deal translate some wild open spaces writ large, they do add up system, would mistake think begins ends deliberate second branch seeks develop fuller theory applicable macro level. principle legitimacy connects systemic analysis variations articulation (Cohen, 1997; Dryzek, 2017; Habermas, 1996; Mansbridge 2012). But tie inclusive reason-giving, where affected equal right opportunity participate collective translated action (or will) through, example, elections. how does “reason-giving” precisely go mass democracy? It translating level theories. What very rare (but critics often claim see) idea translates utopian vision each every ought engage aspire in) epistemically demanding about matters (Habermas, 2022b). Applying involves looking different parts full system playing functions instituting ideal legitimacy. investigate two-track model introduced by Habermas developed subsequent theorists Cohen Fung, 2021; Lafont, 2020). players informal formal institutions government, legislatures. Other models—for Dryzek (2002), Bächtiger Parkinson (2019), al. (2012)—all highlight put less stress clearing house linking government. stands between civil society state. Communication highly mediated disaggregated ranges along vast multi-dimensional continuum everyday talk includes growing number variety platforms. When works, provides “a close-to-the ground, locally infirmed, dispersed arena detecting problems, exploring them bringing view, suggesting solutions, debating problems important worth addressing” (Cohen Fung 28). Democracies when respond act concerns, issues confront real people society. further extent process topics, proposals, solutions raised, honed, make onto legislative agendas meet conditions: those participants governed “the force reason” 2022a, 150). Epistemic participation tightly linked picture 2017). model, division labor inclusivity epistemic quality. First, asymmetrical, participating audience. words, readers, viewers, listeners, consumers messages hopes become subject internal deliberation, reflection, talk, consideration. Second, ideas, claims, positions, demands raised anarchic justifiably agenda, any case, need clarification, articulation, translation order agenda. Therefore, must “filter,” word, claims putting feedback loop scrutiny then ever more rigorous justification 2009, 159). As moves closer center, traditional rules arguing rigorous, conversation looks like (at least ideally). deliberating over clear policy options takes higher ladder. content deliberation—what gets deliberated—comes out communicative filter, clarify, prioritize narratives working well, result considered opinion, is, opinions shaped constituted problem-solving. stylized proper No comes close, although occasionally glimpses national debates approximate functional characteristics. Many conditions prerequisites—from legal protection speech association adequate equality—need achieve even minimum functionality. now want media way meeting challenge Technologically, fundamental difference era shift broadcast (one-to-many) networked (many-to-many) communication, effectively zero marginal costs communication. infrastructure defined its distinctive flow (i) providers distributors content; (ii) thus enjoy vastly greater choice among kinds content, (iii) particular directed targeted) providers, advertisers, companies, users groups 36). situation negative impact say, circulation reasons inclusiveness debate. Networked leads demise gatekeepers, were never perfect lent side status quo interests owners nevertheless ensured standards responsibility 41; 160). neither produce nor edit select; instead, furnish anybody everybody connect curate using profit-oriented algorithms. huge uptick amount accessible downtick information. (and discuss next) being exploited bad push via (Chambers Kopstein, 2022). Disinformation, manipulation, propaganda endemic spheres. concern, outsized role may exponentially increase danger falsehood. part story just also creation enclaves insulated types criticism expose problem landscape. steered gives plurality audience citizens. opinions, compiled contributions assume profile, compete issues, correct goals best problem-solving 151). toward consensus producing unified will; produces multiple conflicting shared salient concern. To makes impossible conversation, will unable perform paradox here. sense, excessively inclusive, fails create function, voices contributing shaping agendas. Instead, increasingly siloed talking other. dimension particularly worries Habermas. creates us authors, readers. writing personal letters massively widely circulated self-conscious figures “Different apply composition printed matter addressed anonymous reading private correspondence” 165). self-consciousness author performing space. Do myself, journalist adhering professional code debate? Or individual sharing my “friends”? becomes our reflections mostly likeminded consumers. longer (potential) problems. This, he suggests, radical democratically unfortunate transformation dangers grim. Epistemically, worry threefold: first, lose access trustworthy sources facts upon build opinions; second, skeptical distrustful including ones; finally, believe fellow lost fact trust serious. overarching fragmentation, privatization, migration closed enclaves. Under conditions, loses means decision take making decision. millions billions sent friends whole virtual boundless messaging universe. How accurate diagnosis? Most entering impacts admit early days future conditional tense. Like climate crisis, lot “this happen if act.” different. He sounding alarm trajectories. threats, jury still get handle sensible mitigate worst. suggests regulation education play stemming fragmentation. agree. offer slightly well privatization. produced uses technology. And secondly, reader asymmetrical phenomenon majority creators content. Echo chambers filter bubbles widespread feared 2022; Guess 2018). respect, news. news untrustworthy asymmetrically distributed Across spheres, context matters. United States, seen pollution during elections European liberal some. American (aka polarization) themselves bottom pathologies. asymmetry Data gathered 2016 2018 showed portion population caught right-wing ecosystem exhibited “all characteristics echo chamber radicalizes inhabitants, destabilizes ability tell truth fiction, undermines confidence institutions” (Benkler 2018, 383). did extend beyond politically constructed wing eco-systems, however. Politically determined characterizes mainstream sources. Information legacy filtered gatekeepers truth-telling, fact-checking, journalism, civility Opinion polls show mistrust skewed conservative (Swift 2016). Focusing technological curation maximize profit false symmetry All receive curated equally victims misinformation, susceptible undermining Citizens find pernicious shielding possibility correcting beliefs target misinformation campaigns elites necessarily features platform algorithms (Starbird 2019). Furthermore, empirical evidence aggregate people's ecosystems porous thought (Burns, needs conscious effort wants limit one's items fit preexisting views. hand, homogeneity consumption correlates knowledge activism, implying isolation effect (Guess shows intensifies consumer's views extreme (Sindermann too algorithmic work. Of course, existence resilience cannot democracy, data supports this) general centrifugal trend itself revised. unexpected creating centripetal dynamic factors contributed response crisis Ukraine. Claire Berlinski argues latest advances Google translate, saw breakthroughs beginning 2016, (Berlinski, 2023). created journalists, pundits, communicate instantaneously language barriers. Millions Europeans follow Zelenskyy whose tweets automatically followers native language, links ordinary Ukrainians exchanging time. enormous potential supra intra readers phenomenon. true that, transformations one-to-many many-to-many model. turn identified embodied “influencers.” Here dream smart phone gain potentially shape opinion. perhaps influencer, can. remains Trump's Twitter account example height his power, was shy 89 million followers, 99.9 % whom, tweeted themselves. tweet journalists covering tweets. massive generated chatter. astutely observed regarding expressed vendettas grudges, random thoughts thrown land. public, failed minimal publicity test made possible, Trump similar leaning populists interest space pluralist Indeed, wrecking tweeting did, surely following book outlined advisors, Steve Bannon, remarked interview, “The Democrats don't matter. opposition media. flood zone shit” (Lewis, intention generate cacophony sort untruth, path forward. Failure adopt appropriate accompany solving strategy aimed weird Bannon's statement same conclusion democrats: is. Elections endogenous context. Rather forward alternative ideological message, impossible. certainly facilitated technology, necessary outcome solution regulation, education, activism. Deplatforming Facebook step him office had biggest non-public kicked off won election. My serious, devastating ignore seek because know such developments dynamics coupled personalization deleterious host prevents opinion-and will-formation attention issue—including stand regulation.” compounded “lack awareness problem” (2022b, 26). last wide having yet irreversibly fragmented. post-2016 disclosures campaigns, Russian bots, micro targeting, voter suppression, amplification crazy conspiracies theories, Cambridge Analytica, curating extremism, chambers, complete failure going on, let alone moderate free all, shocking eye opener Even informed engaged hard pressed noticed bells ringing landscape, claiming things straighten mess. worries, close panic, fueled astonishing unprecedented explosion institutes, centers, programs, tanks, NGOs, academic studies, conferences, colloquia, devoted assessing studying domains. symposium course mobilization. Money resources poured support work area. study paralleled constant stream discussion reflection endless commissions congressional committees disturbed black box curation. Much governmental investigations taken aim rapacious Big Tech moguls run villains narrative. Despite market share, everyone loves hate revelations shenanigans, double standards, ethics violations sells copy. tech exposés whistle blowing journalistic genre own right. survey after spectrum globe concerned undermined (Rainee 2019; Watson, adds moment regulation. Parliaments legislatures effective protecting strengthening transformation. privacy moderation Perhaps few regulatory tools halt sections everybody) cut reliable starting points, product consumer choices pushed propaganda, exposing publicly criticizing manipulation used apps opening Simone Chambers Professor Chair Science University California Irvive. She theorist teaches writes theory, crtical