Social Media and the Digital Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere

Abstract

This article explores the question of how to understand social media following the Habermasian theory of the structural transformation of the public sphere. We argue for a return to political-economic fundamentals as the basis for analysing the public sphere and seek to establish a characteristic connection between digital-behavioural control and singularised audiences in the context of proprietary markets. In the digital constellation, it is less a matter of immobilising the citizen as a consumer but rather of their political activation – albeit in conditions under which commercial interests have primacy: privatisation without privatism.

‘The non-interference principle’: Debating online platforms’ treatment of editorial content in the European Union's Digital Services Act

“…This much is partially echoed by Habermas, who posited that ‘a democratic system is damaged’ when the ‘infrastructure of the public sphere can no longer direct the citizens’ attention to the relevant issues that need to be decided’ (2022: 167). Though, Habermas seems to ‘[reproduce] the criticism of the development of filter bubbles and echo chambers as an effect of algorithmic dispersion’ (Staab and Thiel, 2022: 133), he does point out the importance of editorial processes in distributing information that is valuable for democratic deliberation, especially compared to how platforms curate and serve content (Habermas, 2022: 159).…”

The role of citizens in platform governance: A case study on public consultations regarding online content regulation in the European Union

“…Likewise, in the field of social and political sciences, scholars have talked about how global commercial online technologies may constitute a new structural transformation of how our public spheres are shaped (Seeliger & Sevignani, 2022); what role private social media platforms may play in creating social silos (Habermas, 2022), or in appropriating citizens’ participation in socio-political deliberations for profit (Staab & Thiel, 2022). Others have argued that such capacities may be employed to foster ‘deliberative e-rulemaking’, that is, ‘the development of [a] law-making environment online which enables and facilitates public participation’ (Deligiaouri & Suiter, 2020, p. 4).…”

A polarizing multiverse? Assessing Habermas’ digital update of his public sphere theory

“…He acknowledges the value and importance of his former approach, and his reformulation is explicitly an attempt to be more precise about the driving forces of the digital transformation. By exploring the rise of the semi‐publics, he focusses on a development that is closely related to what Philipp Staab and I had in mind when we portrayed platform societies (Staab & Thiel, 2022). Habermas has produced a rich description that moves back and forth between micro and macro aspects, and is keenly aware of how processes intertwine.…”

“…By exploring the rise of the semi-publics, he focusses on a development that is closely related to what Philipp Staab and I had in mind when we portrayed platform societies (Staab & Thiel, 2022). Habermas has produced a rich description that moves back and forth between micro and macro aspects, and is keenly aware of how processes intertwine.…”

“…But by doing so, he missed a larger and systemic development: namely, how social media created new incentives for people to express themselves and become active in the public sphere, while at the same time commodifying all this activity. We concluded that, as a result, the “identification of preferences comes to occupy the place once occupied by political contestation and there is an emergence of structural power mechanisms that—geared towards the operations of proprietary markets—seek to monopolise access to social life: representation without the public sphere” (Staab & Thiel, 2022, p. 140).…”