Is the Internet - a stronghold of democracy?

Recently in Turkey blocked access to Twitter'u. What for?

Officially, the country's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan reasoned decision "double standards", which supposedly uses the service manual. Supposedly impartial tweets for the UK government and the United States, upon request, removed, and Turkey stands request to withdraw from public access incriminating evidence the country's leadership as Co Costolo and go to renouncement.

The media reported that the sword of Damocles hung Turkish censorship also on Facebook and YouTube. If this happens, Turkey will join countries such as China, Pakistan and Iran, where these services are already blocked.

Lock the leading Internet services occurred in other states. However, under the pressure of public discontent with the authorities they were forced to return access.

Why does the government so afraid of the Internet? And the citizens so cherish them? Are Network - a bastion of democracy, where everyone can freely express their opinions?

Try to understand.

The printing press as a precedent

First, we create communication tools, and then they shape us. Marshall McLuhan

In 1964 he published a book of Canadian philosopher Marshall McLuhan outstanding theorist of communications - "Understanding Media: external extensions of man."

Its main idea is that the means of communication affects the person and society itself. It forms personality, dictating to her certain behaviors. In this important role played by the speed of information dissemination.

Hardly would the Reformation of Martin Luther had such a wide resonance, if it had not coincided with the development of printing.

Mass typographic activity has led to an increase in the level of people's literacy and access to information. The powers that person, including a significant role played theological leaders who understood the dangers of the current changes. Therefore, the printing press has repeatedly tried to ban.

So, in 1534, Francis I issued an order to close all printing; and in England the number in the Middle Ages was strictly regulated.

Online versus traditional media

For decades, TV, radio, newspapers were our "attorneys" in the information space. As a political party expresses citizenship of its members, and the media told their audiences through the mouth.

"Analog" sources of information dissemination - is a powerful force, which is not without reason called the fourth power of a democratic society, in addition to the legislative, executive and judicial. The press and television are really able to influence public opinion.

But with the advent of the Internet changed everything. People no longer need the "intermediaries" in the face of the media to express and replicate their IMHO.

Suddenly, the Internet has become not less, and perhaps more, a heavy force that fear. Examples like the one that happened recently in Turkey, a clear confirmation.

Social media - is the curse of modern society. Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Experts debate whether blogs newspaper displace radio - podcasting and TV - videobloging. Especially that "digital" sources of information is another significant plus.

Media format always limited: no more than 500 words on a piece of news, no more than 3 minutes of airtime. The online formats do not exist - everybody can express their opinion in the form in which it sees fit.

Changing the digital landscape

In the era of digital media anyone can become their own media - to create and distribute news as it sees fit. It should not have a license or sophisticated equipment.

In addition to the format, the traditional media are limited to political and social factors. Highlighting this or that event, they always rely on the opinion of a "leader", "official", "representative".

Therefore, when such a person is not present (for example, during the mass protests) or, on the contrary, these people too much, the traditional media is difficult to remain objective.

Give the floor to each of the thousands of people on the street - it is unreal. We have to take a position and to focus the audience's attention to some of the most prominent figures.

In this sense, digital media channels seem to be more democratic. They allow any person, including, located inside the crowd, to speak and be heard.

But this coin has a reverse side. Due to the lack of internal and external censorship, people often speak and write the truth. False information spreads rapidly and may produce negative consequences.

People know that the information from Twitter, Facebook's and other digital sources, no one checked and is not filtered. Hence - skepticism.

Democracy and the Internet

Compare: salons movie rental, where the windows of the latest "blockbusters", which, according to the owners, should please the public, and services like Netflix, where the user It offered a variety of options based on his preferences, including long-forgotten or "misunderstood" audience films nizkoreytingovye TV shows, etc. Which of the services, according to you, more democratic?

So it is with the Internet. "Analog" media like the cabins rental, while the global web provides not just a choice (after all, among the traditional means, you can select the media), but its diversity.

Therefore, it is obvious that, in order to achieve greater democracy, it is necessary, on the one hand, the state has learned to listen to and hear the signals given by the citizens through digital media channels.

In this case, we are talking not only about the changes in the state apparatus, creating channels of direct communication "power - people" (as long as the majority of startups focused on the commercial interest). cultural changes necessary to catalyze.

Mobile phone for two decades - an integral part of our lives. But society is still not fully developed the behavioral norms, in what situation is appropriate to use the phone, but what is not (in conversation with friends, at a business meeting, etc.).

On the other hand, the traditional media have to be reborn in a new environment. Policy - the solution of today's problems yesterday's tools. If TV, radio and newspapers do not adjust to the new digital format of presentation of information, then they will become of these "tools".

Democracy - the worst form of government. Except for all the others. Winston Churchill

Returning to the question posed at the beginning - is whether online bastion of democracy - it seems clear positive response. People no longer want to express their opinion through "intermediaries".

However, freedom of speech - not the only component of democracy. A significant role is also played by self-management, self-organization of people.

It is obvious that humanity has formed a new means of communication. If McLuhan is right, soon it will begin to mold us (or has already started?). It is therefore important that the network remains democratic channels of expression of each individual, and the state does not reflect, and learned to listen to their citizens.

instead of an epilogue

March 26, 2014 Ankara court decided to unblock Twitter, as its lock "is contrary to the principles of the rule of law."

Do you think the Internet democratic? Write your thoughts on this in the comments.