The networked public sphere is today’s most active domain of public debate. Platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and a number of micro-spheres in the form of comment sections on news sites and blogs provide a platform unlike open societies have ever seen. Debate rages on the internet, thanks to significantly open exposure of ideas, and at least the potential of finding ideas far divergent from one’s own. There were hopes early on in the days of the internet that this would usher in a renewed form of deliberative democracy. Unfortunately there are a number of problems with the current form of discourse the internet gives rise to.

Given the right structures, social interaction can lead to perspectives that would not have been likely otherwise. I would argue that these structures have not arrived in the networked public sphere. Simply relying on the lower-level network architecture of the internet and the web in order to create the kind of productive deliberation that an open society needs to function is not enough. What I will describe here is one instantiation of novel structures for a social network, intended to increase respectful deliberation, relegating interactions to a more confined and guided space, trading some of the outright limitless architecture for one with norms encoded in it, so that conversations occur in a protected space and allow a pair of deliberators to hear one another clearly.

Full Paper Here

– Sands Fish  |  @sandsfish  |  http://sands.fish

The Actualizing Citizen as Action Path User

Appealing to the community volunteering and community action propensities of the AC, Action Path creates a space that allows for distributed, ad-hoc participation in civic and community issues; what Bennet describes as “loose networks of community action”[1]. Self-Actualizing Citizenship values a sense of agency that is felt primarily when participation is not run through a hierarchical governmental authority structure. In Action Path, there exists the potential for a “lower” (hierarchically speaking) and hopefully deeper state of engagement with issues that affect the user directly. That said however, the perception of trust and community in this tool lies heavily on the origin of the prompt. If it is simply “the service” creating geo-fences and surveys, or businesses, or elite members of society, or even used simply as a channel to pre-established governmental organizations, it is possible that Action Path may not resonate with strictly individualized AC to the same degree. If, however, the prompts are crafted by community groups mobilized around issues they feel are being led by a group where ordinary citizens are underrepresented when discourse occurs, or if the tool is enabled in such a way that any given civically motivated actor can say “pinch and zoom” their own geo-fence and quickly add a prompt, dynamically creating a sphere in which the public can participate, it is possible that the AC would see the tool as a trustworthy space for civic reflection, rather than a part of the urban intelligence industrial complex [2].

The Dutiful Citizen as Action Path User

Appealing to the propensities of the DC to become informed about issues of government and voting as a core democratic act [1] Action Path provides a way to vote, not in the conventional sense, but in a technologically enabled way that allows them to participate in public debate when they might otherwise find themselves detached from issues local to them. The difference in affordances from the AC use of Action Path is that they may be more likely to engage or trust in the space the tool creates when the government or official sources are the origin of the prompts. Not quite a one-way communication, but with DC’s today being more technologically informed than in previous generations, Action Path provides a way that official communications coming through this channel could actually engage citizens in a way that the DC is comfortable and familiar with, simply via a new channel. While the AC may leverage social networks like Facebook and Twitter and feel they are actively participating in civic reflection and debate, it is less likely that the DC would be comfortable with this decentralized or distributed form of discourse. Depending on the affordances granted to users, and the perception that this gives to the them of the app as a channel for sanctioned vs. open citizen transmission, it is possible that the DC may see this as meaningful in a way that social networks are not. The tone of the communications also plays a factor. While DC’s are accustomed to communications that are “generally information rich, but also filled with the views of officials and government authorities” and that “generally lacks much in the way of citizen voices or action ideas”, if they see a platform run rampant by unofficial voices, it is possible the will discount the conversation, and the platform as well, as too messy and unconventional.

Designing for Different Models of Citizenship 

Finding a balance in designing tools that target both of these communities is a difficult challenge, as one risks alienating one or the other. It may require providing different sub-spheres of conversation users can opt into to feel that they are engaging in the type of citizenship that best matches the sources they trust for civic organization and discourse. A further challenge is not to downplay any one against another. Making, for instance, “official” or “verified” accounts for government officials may betray the AC’s confidence in who the platform favors as a valid viewpoint. Putting them at the same level hierarchically as every other citizen may be a turn-off to the DC, who expects some degree of official indication and a default trusted viewpoint that they see as impartial. It is perhaps possible, if one has as their goal the “migration” of one form of citizenship to another (and inherently taking a political stand that “up” in this migration means e.g. toward a more AC form of participation and reflection), it may be possible to channel a user through the platform’s structure in such a way that it  allows them to become accustomed to new modes of interaction. Care must be taken, however, as a more cynical perspective might call this indoctrination. In this case, transparency has a delicate role to play.

1. “Changing Citizenship in the Digital Age”. https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/9780262524827_sch_0001.pdf

2. “Action Path Presentation at 2014 Knight-MIT Civic Media Conference”.  https://vimeo.com/99736172#t=2437s

Social networks are pervasive in modern human communication, and they typically provide the same or similar affordances. Speaking, liking, sharing, commenting. These provide for the very basic contours of conversation, with options for limited non-verbal engagement. So limited in fact, that expressing negativity or disagreement non-verbally is not an option. These choices are made delicately, and are tangled up with the company’s bottom line. Take for instance the Facebook decision to avoid including a “Dislike” button. It justifies this decision based on a philosophy that it would not be good for the world at large, however these choices, which are likely made more based on what is profitable, dramatically influence what kind of conversations take place. “Its algorithms optimize for ‘engagement’, which includes posts, likes, clicks, shares, and comments. Among the metrics Facebook does not optimize for: honesty, exchange of ideas, critical thinking, or objective truth.” [1]

There are an infinite number of affordances one could imagine for nudging and steering the direction of discourse, and largely these remain unexplored. What also remains unexplored (at least in implementation) are the ends to which these affordances could be applied. The solution space for directing discourse is not even limited to accessible user affordances. Technologies like machine learning, natural language processing, and sentiment analysis, while imperfect, can help to craft conversations that are better informed and contextualized, more respectful, and more reactive to what is said and how participants behave. In addition, non-technical information design choices hold potential for instance in crafting a civil and equalitarian environment for discussion and debate by enforcing identification of users; what is called the “Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects” or “SIDE”. [2] Decisions like these have significant ramifications for participation [3] and risks exclusion of groups that are typically targeted with hate speech and need anonymity as a matter of personal safety. In addition to questions around identity, networked information access influences the experience of discourse and deliberation online, particularly in large networks. A number of studies support the idea that “as one’s network size increases, the probability of interaction with sources of new information grows, since one is more likely to encounter a higher number of politically active individuals.” [4] In current popular models of interaction on social networks, these networks (subject to the privacy configuration choices of the user) frequently require a commitment to other individuals in the network, usually a formalized “friendship” that allows the users to see each other’s contributions and interact.

It cannot be understated how much care (and transparency) is required in crafting these environments and tools. Brought to scale, as we have seen with the likes of Facebook and Twitter, a large percentage of communications of the human race can be affected, and it is not always clear what the ultimate repercussions of these effects are. If users of a system do not understand how what they see and how they are seen by others is manipulated (and manipulation is the appropriate term here), their world view can be skewed based on the invisible decisions of the algorithm responsible for manipulation. In the case of Facebook’s “curatorial” algorithms for users’ news feeds, (the site’s primary interface for information delivery) some research suggests as high as 62.5% of users at the time of the study were unaware their news feed was being filtered. [5]

I propose Shifter, a model for a social network that supports values of exposure to alternate perspectives, patience, and expansion of understanding, and which leverages a non-static model of social relationships, in addition to other affordances that encourage respect and the ability to navigate difficult subject matter while minimizing social friction. In this model, users relinquish the almost universally assumed ability to choose who they are connected to in the network. Instead, a shuffling algorithm would modify the network based on properties self-identified by each user, in addition to interactions and ratings generated through discourse that happens on the site itself, and mediated by the chosen tolerance each user sets for exposure to individuals with opinions divergent from their own. An effect of this shuffling is that the potential interactions with various individuals and viewpoints on the network dramatically increases. In addition to participation in conversations via the social network, users will also be allowed to create prompts for other users to help define their position on a variety of contentious issues. These variables would allow for a much higher resolution of identity than typical dichotomies like “liberal” and “conservative”, which force users into camps that carry a lot of (frequently inappropriate) baggage and assumptions. The hope is that such a network could provide a deeper understanding into the complex political and ideological identities typically unrecognized in much modern political discourse.

Restrictions on speech and user agency can be extremely problematic when the social network represents a generalized and significantly sized digital public sphere, however constrained social environments with specific goals and values provide opportunity for experimentation with affordances that may or may not work at scale. In addition, they provide the ability for subaltern counterpublics to have socio-technical affordances designed with their specific issues in mind, something that could never be done across a large and diverse digital community. Ultimately, the goal of bridging gaps of misunderstanding, and the possibility of progress around social issues that result in even greater societal ills is what the structure of this network aims to accomplish.

1. “You Can’t Dislike This Article”. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/12/facebook_dislike_button_why_mark_zuckerberg_won_t_allow_it.html

2. “Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_identity_model_of_deindividuation_effects

3. “Facebook Apologizes To LGBT Community And Promises Changes To Real Name Policy”. http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/01/facebook-apologizes-to-lgbt-community-and-promises-changes-to-real-name-policy/

4. “Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression”. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563212002762

5. “Uncovering Algorithms: Looking Inside the Facebook News Feed”. https://civic.mit.edu/blog/natematias/uncovering-algorithms-looking-inside-the-facebook-news-feed

Exposure to a variety of viewpoints is seen as valuable to “foster individuals’ knowledge, ability to consider the perspectives of others, consideration of the rationales put forward by others, and tolerance for those with differing views” [1], and the Participatory Politics: New Media and Youth Political Action report “did not find that those who engage in participatory online activities are limiting their exposure to those with whom they agree.”

The 2013 “Report on the Commission of Youth Voting and Civic Knowledge” [2] recommends we: “Encourage parents to participate in civic activities within schools, e.g., by judging students’ portfolios or by joining discussions of current events.” however this does not leverage the more significant diversity that exists across school districts, state lines, and regional boundaries where perspectives and concerns may be significantly different than the ones students are exposed to via their teachers or parents, regardless of how well informed and well intentioned those may be.

Enabling these types of cross-cutting connections is exactly what the internet is good at, technically speaking, despite not always being leveraged for such goals. [3] Given the existing free tools for text, audio, and video interaction, the internet could be used to connect geographically disparate students and help them engage in challenging, yet considered, healthy debate that benefits both participants.

Imagining such a tool, one can anticipate that the logistics of creating valuable discourse will be more challenging than the technical aspects of creating such a system. It would be of no use, or potentially even damaging or further polarizing if the conversations across political lines were not staged carefully, and expectations clearly established. Here are a number of ways a system/platform might be set up to accomplish mutually beneficial political conversations:

1.) Allow The Students To Propose Topics They Are Interested In and Engaged With

Assigning issues to students that they feel no personal investment in (regardless of whether it actually impacts them) is not going to further their engagement with civic issues. A system that allows students to draft descriptions of issues they care about would allow a space for educators to learn from students about the topics they’re concerned with, and also to start a dialog around how these issues might be discussed in a broader context. Every recommendation may not be ideal for wider discussion, but it could lead to a greater mutual understanding between teacher and student about what the definition of a civic issue is, and what kinds of issues students feel they could have agency in. Given that the submission would be done in an online, participatory environment, the experience for students could be modeled after other online civic engagement platforms, preparing students for more significant, non-educational actions in the future. There is also potential for wider (perhaps state-wide) data-based analytics to understand what issues are of most concern to local students.

3.) Set Expectations About Respect and Debate

Online communities and platforms tend to have norms of behavior that can be reinforced by media available on the site itself. Providing examples of successful conversational etiquette, and also of disrespectful behavior could prime the conversations to be more productive, or at least provide a framework for later classroom critique where fellow students can point out ways in which the conversation could have been managed more respectfully. Students could also contribute to the database of “dark conversational patterns” that they feel are counterproductive.

4.) Archive Conversations For Future Analysis and Class Consideration

Allowing for storage (in whatever format the system allows debate in) and providing tools for annotation, issue categorization, and future engagement via comments or other communication, the site could serve as a valuable archive of teaching material, and a low-barrier point of entry for students to continue conversations in a participatory platform that would remain current and be made up of their peers, allowing for political engagement without the trappings of agenda-setting by political parties or others who might portray political and civic engagement as not relevant to the students’ every day life.

There is no doubt that building a system like this would have to be done delicately, and school (as well as student) buy-in would also be a challenge. If these hurdles were overcome however, more conversational hurdles may await. School newspapers have controversial debates about what is published and also what is affiliated with their school. Organizational issues aside, if a system such as this were build thoughtfully, it could provide a way for students to engage in civic issues they see value in before ever having to set foot in potentially more toxic, confusing, or high-stakes arenas, allowing them to acclimate and learn from one another, before moving on to more official platforms, and taking part in public civic communities.

—

1. “Participatory Politics: New Media and Youth Political Action”, http://ypp.dmlcentral.net/sites/default/files/publications/Participatory_Politics_New_Media_and_Youth_Political_Action.2012.pdf.

2. CIRCLE, All Together Now: Collaboration and Innovation for Youth Engagement, http://www.civicyouth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/CIRCLE-youthvoting-individualPages.pdf.

3. Zuckerman, Ethan. Rewire. W. W. Norton & Company, 2013. Print.

Far from an uncontested term, the potential definitions for citizen journalism span a number of gamuts. There is the affiliative range, along which examples of journalism range from the independent citizen to one publishing in partnership on a conventional news organization’s platform with their editorial review. There is also the range of professionalism, where an individual could have no experience presenting news to an audience (e.g. the bystanders who filmed the Charlie Hebdo attacks posting their videos to social media) or a professional journalist acting independently of any news organization.

There are many examples along these axes that are fairly defensible. An individual with some small amount of experience authoring and presenting information for public consumption posting on an open news platform falls well within most definitions of citizen journalism. Toward the edges however, we find cases that are more difficult to defend. Can a professional journalist ever be called a citizen journalist or do their background and professional affiliation exclude them from this label.

Another axis along which the definition gets fuzzy is the specific definition of journalism itself. How formal does the presentation of information need to be before one can call it journalism? Is posting a video with little or no accompanying text anything more than a share? At what point does it become journalism? Does intent matter? Is it simply news if the publisher specifies it as such?

Conflict Kitchen (http://conflictkitchen.org) lies on the edges of these axes. While the main identity of CK is a restaurant, without a doubt they publish current information (in the form of “disposable” paper wrappers for much of their food; far from an exalted format) researched, composed, and designed by the owners, addressing current events relevant to their patrons. (Format is of course another property of publication that may or may not fall within some definitions of journalism.) While some may argue that CK is an art project or simply an event, I would argue that it is very much a form, albeit a rare one, of citizen journalism. It is, in fact, a very rich form of journalism. Not only do the iterations of CK include textual reporting, included are interviews, visual designs inspired by the country of focus, and a number of viewpoints that are designed to promote debate and discussion.

One of the reasons I find CK so compelling as a citizen journalism effort is their ability to play with these very formats. Because they are not relegated to the stale forms typically reserved for conventional journalism, they are able to have much more impact. They can craft their media in such a way that it engages readers, contextualizing it with food, visual design, and even performance so that consumers are immersed in the issues being presented. In a way, they make the cultures they are reporting on undeniable. One must confront them as a people with history, politics, and art. A typical journalistic outlet may treat populations simply as a a collection of assumptions or as a weak representation of an otherwise rich and complex entity.

Along the spectrum of effort, Conflict Kitchen is quite far in the direction of heavily prepared (a far cry from a simple blog post or video share) and the definition is stretched by the fact that they operate with funding from supporters and post job opportunities. That said, they operate well outside of the traditional journalism industry, and provide alternative viewpoints not seen elsewhere. Their final product may be a beautiful, polished, nuanced presentation, but certainly we should not exclude projects from the citizen journalism space because they succeed at it.