In Lister's view, the Internet can provide a public sphere in terms of finding people with the same interests as yourself and being part of an online community with them. Although this is true, Lister questions how far public communication can be determined by 'electronic mediated texts.' By definition, a public sphere must be characterised by maximum access. This is true, however with only around 10% of the world's population having access to the Internet, can this form of communication really be defined as 'worldwide'? And, considering this, can online communication be defined as a public sphere?
Blanchard and Horan (2000) showed that social capital increases when opportunities for engagement are facilitated by virtual communities. This shows that This does not mean that online communities and communication can, or ever will, replace face to face communication, or be as rewarding as a face to face relationship.
Do you not think online groups cannot constitute online communities even though they have a characteristic of 'everybody belonging' and have muutual interest on certain subjects? As it says in Lister they do not give a true reflection of a communitiy because of they do not show a variety of ages, ethnicities, sexes etc, but could you say that these online communities are just a development of the times? Because people don't meet much IRL anymore and neightbourhoods probably aren't as friendly as they used to be, do you think that the online communities have just developed from this?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHow annoying...I commented on this earlier and it hasn't showed up. I will try and say what I did before...
ReplyDeleteWhile 10% may not seem like a lot, I can't imagine any other form of communication that allows wider/larger access than the internet does....can you?
10% is certainly not worldwide but it's probably the nearest we have at the moment, so I think it certainly helps achieve the 'maximum access' talked about.