Javnost - The Public, Vol. 28 - 2021, No. 4
Structural Logic of AI Surveillance and Its Normalisation in the Public Sphere
This study examines the fundamental logics of surveillance impetus in the rapid transition to AI-based information processing. In this paper, these logics are called axioms—three principles of (1) concentrated architectural codes, (2) constrained user psychology, and (3) peculiar characteristics of data as information. This study argues that each axiom perpetuates AI's tendency to solidify data surveillance and normalises it in newly emerged AI-driven public spheres. This is a conceptual paper structured in the following sections—(a) axioms (three principles maintaining the impetus of surveillance normalisation), (b) mutual shaping (interaction between users and institutions reinforcing surveillance), and (c) policy remedies (policy principles fixing normalisation). The thesis of this paper is the normalisation of AI—perpetuated by three axioms—is the product of mutual shaping between institutions and uses as “data-hungry” algorithms exacerbate the tendency in which users are to participate willingly in surveillance. This poses the concern that data surveillance in its pronounced normalising processes becomes an industrial structural problem, not an episodic one. This paper concludes by calling for sanguine intervention measures, collectively tackling the structural recurrence of surveillance in the U.S.-specific contexts but also touching upon even broader global policy discussion.
Full text (available at Taylor & Francis)
|
Export Reference
|
Link to this article
Promoting Democracy in the Digital Public Sphere: Applying Theoretical Ideals to Online Political Communication
Democratic debate has undergone a structural transformation due to the rise of the Internet, social media and online communities. Scholars of political communication have sought to diagnose the threat that these changes pose by theorising “filter bubbles” and “echo chambers.” Responding to a growing desire on the part of policymakers to react to these trends and to uphold democratic values, we draw on empirical analyses of online discourse to consider the difficulties involved in this endeavour. Highlighting the diversity of trends detected by empirical studies of the digital public sphere, we argue that both political theory and empirical analysis are needed to promote democratic ideals. Using Jürgen Habermas’s “coffeehouse model,” we establish theoretical markers for desirable deliberative practice and consider the conditions under which these ideals can be advanced. By focusing on the significance of both digital design and user behaviour, we suggest initiatives that can promote favoured democratic ideals.
Full text (available at Taylor & Francis)
|
Export Reference
|
Link to this article
A Neoliberal Media Welfare State? The Swedish Media System in Transformation
The concept of the Media Welfare State describes Nordic specificity in how media are organised and how they serve a lively and inclusive democracy. This article engages in a dialogue in regards to the contention that this media system has persisted in the midst of rapid social change. We synthesise previous research and documented changes in media policy in Sweden, covering the last three decades, to show the ways in which the Swedish media system has undergone significant transformations. Media use is becoming more polarised and connected to social class. The state is retreating from its involvement in media policy; consequently, the press and public service media are facing unprecedented challenges. Finally, the “consensual” relation between media companies and the state, which is said to be typical for the media welfare state, no longer characterises the media market. While some of the features of the media welfare state system remain in Sweden, the current media system is best characterised as a neoliberal media welfare state. The article discusses tensions and conflicts in the existing model and possible future developments.
Full text (available at Taylor & Francis)
|
Export Reference
|
Link to this article
To Mobilise or to Mediate? Re-assessing the Democratic Role of News Media in Social Protests in China
Protester-sympathising media reports validate activists’ claims, expose official wrongdoing, and mobilise public support, which allows scholars to highlight the importance of the media in promoting democratic participation in authoritarian China. Reaffirming media’s crucial role in sustaining communicative rationality, the article re-evaluates media coverage of four rural protests against land expropriation in China, combining framing analysis of media reports, in-depth interviews, and an extensive reading of court files, etc. It unveils that two storylines—transgressive collective action for maximising economic gains and conflicts inside villages—are tailored off, when information is woven into the dominant media frame “struggle of the weak”. Simplified, but logically coherent, the media narrative is likely to exclude the necessity for public deliberation, reduce the fleeting public activism into anger-venting, and pressures local governments into makeshift concessions at the cost of public good. The one-dimensional civic engagement urges Chinese journalists to consider innovating protest reporting frame.
Full text (available at Taylor & Francis)
|
Export Reference
|
Link to this article
Accounting for Culture in Deliberation through Meta-discursive Analysis
This study suggests a meta-discursive approach for analysing citizens’ perceptions of public discourse in their society, as a basis for adapting deliberative theory to the particularities of varying contexts. Utilising qualitative meta-discursive analysis of open-ended responses collected from Israeli communication students (N = 204), we examine Israelis’ descriptions of existing public debate and their perceptions of the desired nature of public debate, thus disclosing cultural-discursive barriers to deliberative practice. We found that respondents’ perceptions of existing political discourse point to non-deliberative characteristics which align with ethnographic scholarship, while their normative concept of public discourse aligns with deliberative norms. Based on these findings, we propose a theoretical premise for the cultural adaptation of deliberative theory, which suggests engaging in a meta-discursive study of a given speech community as precursor to adapting deliberative norms to specific cultural contexts.
Full text (available at Taylor & Francis)
|
Export Reference
|
Link to this article
“Brave New World” of Fake News: How It Works
The spread of fake news poses a serious threat to democracy and journalism. Fake news has found the ideal tools to thrive in the digital world. Therefore, it is urgent to understand this phenomenon. The purpose of this review is to analyse the various stages of the fake news circuit, in order to clarify the phenomenon, its causes and processes, identifying the various routes for spreading fake news, the reasons behind its manufacture and the factors that contribute to its rapid proliferation and success. Our results showed that the problem is not just social media, but the entire digital and technological universe, as well as user behaviour. On the one hand, programmatic web advertising, coupled with ideological motivations, remains an incentive for the creation of fake news. On the other hand, malicious bots and bad algorithms (initially created with good intentions) are being the great allies of fake news, promoting the creation of filter bubbles and echo chambers. In addition, literature has shown that filter bubbles are created not only by bad algorithms, but also by users who are unaware of how the algorithms work and prefer to consume information according to their beliefs, limiting themselves to a closed view.
Full text (available at Taylor & Francis)
|
Export Reference
|
Link to this article
Corrigendum
Visit Ramasubramanian, S., and C. Miles. 2018. "White Nationalist Rhetoric, Neoliberal Multiculturalism and Colour Blind Racism: Decolonial Critique of Richard Spencer’s Campus." When the above named article was first published online, two errors were present:
- On page 2, Charleston, South Carolina should have been Charlottesville, Virginia.
- On page 2, Charlottesville, South Carolina should have been Charlottesville, Virginia.
Full text (available at Taylor & Francis)
|
Export Reference
|
Link to this article