The first thing that came to mind was the new form of politicking by utilizing social networks and social media. Never in the history of politics has it been so important for the public to be allowed access to the exact stances politicians have on every particular subject they will potentially encounter. The public is now in a position to base choice on the information (albeit given to them by the politician directly)that makes the framework of each politicians political view, instead of being subjected to ONLY interviews, debates, and speeches. The political process of choice is now very much in the public sphere, and only those politicians willing to be democratic with their own individual information will be those who will become trusted. There is now too much public supervision of political stances to try to avoid the public sphere.

The second thing that affected me was the perception that Habermas believes that complete democratization of information is a good thing. To the point that he refers to “public relations work” as a “betrayal” (77). Am I reading this incorrectly? He seems to be adamantly pushing this point, and thus it would seem that it’s his opinion that this is a necessity.

In Poster’s work, it seemed to compliment Habermas’ desire for a public sphere, but Poster’s more afraid of the ramifications, specifically involving the types of information shared and the security behind this information. The differences in the specific interactions online are a very interesting subject, especially in this “To Catch a Predator” Age that we’re all living in. It seems that the internet, while providing the ultimate public space, must do so while providing an extreme cover of anonymity.

Poster asked a lot of questions in the article. One thing that caught my attention was claiming the internet to be a social space than a thing in the decentralized technology section. I wonder if we choose to treat the internet more as a thing (tool), will that make the internet safer. We don’t always know the people we meet online. All we get is the impression that they want us to get. Should we treat this kind of “social space” the same as the physical social space? To which point should we interact with the technology and to which point should we call a stop to it? Although some might say how we use the technology is a lifestyle that we choose, but I can’t stop feeling that we are close to the stage where technology is being forced into our lives and the environment we are in actually made the choice for us. Then, how do we separate private from public?

Habermas states the Public Sphere “mediates between society and state” and all people have access to the public sphere. Habermas describes the public sphere over several historical periods. During the Middle Ages, nobility or “princes” identify the public sphere. The “princess seal” retains the public sphere, which was both public and private because the relation between the nobility remained constant. The “higher power” represents and sustains the “public sphere” because the representation is public. Eventually, the representational public sphere becomes “public authority”. This construct renders an institutional realm of the public sphere or the “the bourgeois public sphere” which became suspicious of the governing institutions. This would be the new reconfiguration of power, which could be seen in several historical revolutions and the use of mass media through newspaper, which was utilized to control the public opinions or shape public opinions. This is visible in Habermas’s Liberal model of the public sphere. Within Habermas’s construct of the “Public Sphere in the Social Welfare State of Democracy, he warns of the “arcane” special interest groups using the public sphere to shape public opinion for their own personal interests.

Poster explores the decentralization process of the Internet. He explains that this process of technology has many implications on society. These include new evolutions in communication and the effects on identity. Specifically, the decentralized Internet allows for multiple non-linear communications and in various time variables. Poster’s explication echoes McLuhan’s thoughts of a return to tribalization of the global village through the way identity restructured or even masked which is the case of the false identity of the female. Also, Poster brings the conflict of lack of representation of the female gender on the Internet or the bastardization of the female gender. Question, to what extent is the female gender exploited or under recognized on the Internet according to Poster? Also, Poster introduces the question of reconfiguration of power or the formation of politics on the Internet. The reconfiguration of power relates to Habermas’s construct on the relations of power in the several constructs of the “Public Sphere”. Finally, could Poster in his explication of the decentralization of the Internet actually be raising several questions, which may need more exploration? At this point, specifically, regarding the reconfiguration of power relations and politics need more discussion.

As the private sphere’s voice grows, the public sphere is weakened in a sense in that there is no strong public opinion. One reason for this perhaps is the wildly individualistic nature of an unchecked private sphere. How exactly does the media play into this? Habermas seems to think that, in “a climate of nonpublic opinion,” the media is used by the private sphere to gain “public prestige for people or affairs” (77). So, in an arena of little or no public opinion, things become a competition, where any sort of ground gained in the public sphere counts as points gained, and the media act as vehicles used to gain those points in a more effective way?

In response to Jacob’s post regarding Poster’s intent in “Cyberdemocracy”, I actually believe Poster is suggesting that the Internet IS indeed a public sphere rather than simply asking the question. In the section “The Internet as Public Sphere”, he explicitly states that “the age of the public sphere as face-to-face talk is clearly over” and that “the question of democracy must henceforth take into account new forms of electronically mediated discourse” (Poster 165). He also suggests that Habermas’ concept of the public sphere is obsolete and “systematically denied in the arenas of electronic politics” (265). Rather than merely raising the question, I interpret this as Poster in fact taking a position on the matter of the Internet as a public sphere.

The question of how will powerful and corporation who own a vested interest in the internet will they continue to profit from having a web presence? I can think of two types of infrastructure that can change the way revenue gained form the owning the infrastructure P2P and wireless.

Although, you will have to pay have access to the infrastructure. P2P and wireless continue the trend of segmentation of the internet playing catering to special interest business and entertainment. P2P and wireless infrastructures can lend themselves to virtual communities. These virtual communities can be organized in a way to take advantage of the internet to saves money.

Also, Poster’s idea of public sphere in the post modern section refers to bulletin board services and MOO are similar to several websites Tweeter and blog websites. Are website like Tweeter and Blogspot.com virtual representations of the public sphere. Social website played an important role in the last presidential election. Are the candidate’s websites and news forums the public sphere Poster is talking about?

Poster makes a very interesting point about the technology and the internet the effects of materials and other materials. Poster said “the internet resists the basic conditions for asking the question of the effect of technology.” I am not clear on the new regime of the relations the internet has to humans and matter as natural discourse. (p262) His theory leads to comparison of the internet to the German Hammer. Is there is more at stake to the democratization of the internet than organizing and winning elections?

Mark Poster asks alot of questions regarding the fate and the direction the internet is heading. But one question in particular really caught my attention. In page 263, he wonders what kind of people will be exchaning information on the internet, and what kind of community will occupy this space? If he had waited 10 or so years in writing this article, he might not have asked as many questions as he is, and might have been able to answer some instead. In my opinion, internet is probably the single most innovative and flexible form of communication technology that we had by far. Almost every nation that had made the jump to literacy, should have a computer and an internet connection. Everyone is a producer, and everyone is a consumer. The goods are the informaton. The amount of community around the internet is countless to say the least. And the possibility of different forms the internet can transform and adapt into is astounding. Internet also provides complete immersion of human psychy. No other technology before it, was able to have the whole community form an intricate bond with one another at the scale the internet is presenting them with. Surely when printing press came about, people immersed themselves in their books and might not have left their house for days.. maybe weeks! But with internet, not only it can immerse massive amount of people in a virtual environment, but they are not just communicating by themselves, but with many different people from many different places. Seeing all this unfold before Poster’s eyes, it’ll be interesting to hear from him the change of view he as about the public sphere and the transformation of the internet.

Marx explains history through material life and modes of production: tribalism to feudalism to capitalism. For Habermas, the stages are less about production of materials and more about the production of information and knowledge — it seems to me via newspapers. According to Habermas, in feudal society the notion of public/private doesn’t matter (par. 3). When feudalism disintegrates and national/territorial states arise, “those occupied in trades and professions” became the sphere of the bourgeois society. As Habermas says, “The bourgeois public sphere [is] the sphere of individuals assembled into a public body, which almost immediately laid claim to the officially regulated ‘intellectual newspapers’ for use against the public authority itself” (par. 6). So, for the first time in history, public discussion has a medium. The bourgeois public sphere opposed supervision and wanted all proceedings made public (par. 7), a lot like Obama’s promise to share all public laws before instituting them. The public sphere is predicated on rational and well-informed individuals, and not as much on political authority. It seems to me in my reading that when the public sphere prized rationality over politics, individuals were valued more for what they thought than for what they did for a living. This would be another difference between Habermas and Marx. Habermas quotes Karl Bucher: around 1798, “The press remained an institution of the public itself, effective in the manner of a mediator and intensifier of public discussion, no longer a mere organ for spreading of news but not yet the medium of a consumer culture” (paragraph 9). Public discussion via print is an agent of change. In this way, it seems the superstructure _could_ change the base. “The idea of the public sphere… calls for a rationalization of power through the medium of public discussion among private individuals” (paragraph 12). This is not the system Karl Marx describes.

Poster and Nichols provide an interesting contrast. Poster says that the Internet “imposes a transformation of the subject position of the individual who engages with it” (4). More specifically, the Internet changes interactions and power relations between individuals. It forces one to constitute an identity in a new way, without hand gestures or clothing for example. One only has language (10). Poster says that identity “is not a fixed essence, presocial and prelingusitic […] Internet discourse constitutes the subject as the subject fashions him or herself” (9). There is no pre-existing self for Poster, and what’s more, the individual must make efforts to represent an identity online. Though Poster writes almost ten years after Nichols, somehow Nichols seems more relevant. Nichols takes into account the fact that the identity we constitute has ethical implications. When we measure our identity through cybernetic systems, we can tend toward collectivity or, worse, control (Nichols 22). Poster’s notion of how identity is created seems to irresponsibly ignore how creating an identity online gives us a false sense of control which we could then transfer over into our real-life judgments and reasoning.