Notes from the 4th Internet, Law and Politics Congress.
Towards citizenship 2.0?
Eduard Aibar, Vice President, Research, UOC.
So, the landscape has changed… but have citizens? has the concept of citizenship so much shifted as, supposedly, has the Web?
Ana Sofía Cardenal, Professor of Political Science, UOC
We’re putting all our eggs in the Web 2.0 basket, but data seem to bring evidence that all the promises of the web do not seem to apply:
- The demand for political information has not increased despite the supposition that it would be cheaper (in money, in time) to be informed on a digital socielty
- The supposition that costs of information have decreased is at stake too
- The participation does not seem to have changed either
- Few sites collect most links: so information might be cheaper to diffuse… but only in specific sites
What’s the political blogosphere like in Spain? Hypotheses
- Balcanization: atomization, decentralization
- Few blogs get most audience, the rest remain invisible. But who are they? Are they influential?
David Osimo, e-Government researcher and activities coordinator, European Commission’s Institute for Prospective Technological Studies
Web 2.0 is an opportunity, but it’s not taking up. So, where or what are the limits?
- Limited take-up: how to reach the second wave of adopters (after the digerati)?
- not so important
- invisible because pervasive
- not sustainable financially
- no time for this
- social fragmentation
- intellectual property rights
- steered by vested interests
- lack of trust
- lack of accountability
Different kind of participation, of citizens’ involvement
- Producing content (3%)
- Providing ratings, reviews (10%)
- Using user-generated content (40%)
- Providing attention, taste data (100%)
- … of all Internet users (50% of EU population)
It’s not about mass collaboration, it’s about involving specific users, the most relevant ones.
- There’s a gap from what the Government expected from the Web 2.0 (mass collaboration) with the reality of it (qualitative, relevant collaboration)
- It’s a new way of doing the traditional “find-contact-ask the expert”: it’s not representative, but highly qualitative
Eduard Aibar, Ana Sofía Cardenal, Joan Subirats, Helen Margetts, David Osimo
Helen Margetts, Director of Research, Professor of Society and the Internet, Oxford Internet Institute
Skepticism is about ignorance of the online world.
Evidence shows that people rely on the Internet to find all the information they do not want to force themselves to remember. And the shift towards this attitude has been huge. For instance, if we ask people for politicians’ names, they might not remember them, but this is not political disengage, but optimization of their (memory) resources.
Smallest actions just like using YouTube to upload presumably stupid political videos might not be a lot,
but it definitely is something, and it was not there before the Web 2.0.
The Internet has the possibility to reconfigure the dynamics and logic of collective action: allows geographically disperse groups to gather; increases the visibility/exposure of free riders; etc.
Joan Subirats, Professor of Political Science, Autonomous University of Barcelona
Have we adopted a new concept of participation 2.0? Have the new tools or way of behaving?
More individualization, higher presence, constant flow of information that challenges the concept of representativeness. And, indeed, if the majority is more heterogenous, the minority can still represent that majority? And, with such an intense presence and changing scenarios, do the results of the elections (happened 3 or 4 years ago) still apply?
The Web 2.0 challenges the concept of a Government and an Administration designed as benevolent omniscient institutions, that know what’s better for the citizenry… but that now is informed and can have their voice heard.
On the other hand, voting is cheap in effort for the voter. It actually is the cheapest way of participation. So, do we want to increase the burden/costs on the voter? Does he want so?
The web 2.0 leaves plenty of room for autonomy, equality (being aware of the digital divide, of course) and diversity. Does poor in the reaching of consensus and the collective creation of a common, stable project.
Me: Have we to redefine what participation is? is uploading a video to YouTube participation? is forwarding it to my contacts list participation? What’s the blogosphere? A blog? A blog aggregator? A blog + youtube + Flickr + Slideshare +… +…? Is the blogoshpere an unmeasurable hydra? Isn’t it as important as the aggregate the non-aggregate, personal approach of the emitter that can now send the message, more efficiently, with more efficacy. HM: Indeed, the reasons why people participate are many and very different. Thus, it is important to take into account any kind of participation, despite its aggregate impact, as it is a gate to participation itself and to political engagement.
Marc López: how can we use the Web 2.0 to operate smallest changes (e.g. to decide the menu of my children at their school with the other parents) without having to focus on big impacts? What’s the role of the Government in enabling and fostering this? DO: From Fix my Street to Fix my School. HM, JS: there’s plenty of room for policy making in these issues.
4th Internet, Law and Politics Congress (2008)
If you need to cite this article in a formal way (i.e. for bibliographical purposes) I dare suggest:
Peña-López, I. (2008) “4th Internet, Law and Politics Congress (VIII). Towards citizenship 2.0?” In ICTlogy,
#57, June 2008. Barcelona: ICTlogy.
Retrieved month dd, yyyy from https://ictlogy.net/review/?p=744