The differentiation of issues within the public sphere is an unusual phenomenon. The public sphere impacts our insights of knowledge concerning the political, social and cultural standards of societies. However, within the ‘digital age,’ the globe is influenced by technological communication within the concern of individual media-based areas of the web which practices the internal differentiation of issues of interaction within the current public sphere, satisfying different from the older functions of face-to-face communication and the mass media. Internal divisions of labour within the public sphere arise, which compels us to re-examine ordinary comprehension of the political public sphere by a political deliberation. This blog will address this new complexity of public discourse within this rapid transition of social orders and on its functions. Notably, with regards to the current issues of the Cambridge Analytica scandal and the integration of niche media and social media understanding. (Shapcott, 2016).
(CEO of Cambridge Analytica Alexander Nix speaking at the 2016 Concordia Summit, at Grand Hyatt New York. Photo by: Bryan Bedder/ Getty Images)
In consequence of that, the fact that Cambridge Analytica has had a massive impact within the context of the public sphere, as Cambridge Analytica has been found to be specialising within the “psychographic” profiling, meaning that the organisation unstilted data collection online to develop personality profiles for political voters. (Illing, 2018). The organisation then took information and targeted persons with specific grouping through the utilisation of online advertisements, which were spread primarily through bots on social media platforms. In which these advertisements got shared, liked and retweeted. The advertisements that got the most reproduced and redistributed based on their popularity and appeal benefited this kind of data that permits data organisations like Cambridge Analytica to form more sophisticated psychological profiles of internet users. (Channel 4, 2018).
This example of Cambridge Analytica supports the concept of the public sphere in different mains. Since Cambridge Analytica collected higher amounts of data points on Facebook profiles meant that more predictive power made within societal groups. (Channel 4, 2018). This example explains the German theorist Jürgen Habermas’ theory that “political power can only be legitimate if it is applied following the best, common interests of the society…but these interests can only crystallise in discursive debates between members of society.” (O’Mahony, 2013). Notably, this statement is evident in the actions of Cambridge Analytica as the formation of this data profiling gathered from social media platforms was idealised as gaining political insights of the public “common interests” and wants. (Dean, 2003). However, in doing so, that data gained was a breach of privacy which limits Habermas’ theory as the data was gained un-justly, which is against the idea of “interests being crystallised in discursive debates between members of society”, (O’Mahony, 2013) as the political and public sphere was damaged because of the Cambridge Analytica behaviours. (Dean, 2003).
(CEO of Cambridge Analytica Alexander Nix speaking at the 2016 Concordia Summit, at Grand Hyatt New York. Photo by: Bryan Bedder/ Getty Images)
Furthermore, Cambridge Analytica has formed the basis of discourse within the public sphere, which demonstrates the ‘Contemporary Theory’ of the Public Sphere, by Peter Lang, which presents the notion that “the necessary extension of democracy fundamentally depends on the reasoning capacities of the public”. (O’Mahony, 2013). Since Cambridge Analytica was able to utilise real-time information to determine which messages were populated most, this aided then to shape those needs to be scheduled around it. So overall Cambridge Analytica used propaganda to alter societal mindsets, thus making an individual’s decision unreasonable, which contradicts Lang’s and even Habermas’ theories as the political sphere was undemocratic, as the data would hinder the actions and behaviours of the political candidates, (Illing, 2018). Which created false influence towards the public. (O’Mahony, 2013).
References
Channel 4 News 2018, Cambridge Analytica Uncovered: Secret filming reveals election tricks, online video, 9 February, Channel 4, viewed 3 April 2018, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpbeOCKZFfQ>
Dean, J 2003, ‘Why the Net is not a Public Sphere’, Constellations, no. 10, view 3 April 2018, <http://pages.uoregon.edu/koopman/courses_readings/phil123-net/intro/dean_net_publicsphere.pdf>
Illing, S 2018, Cambridge Analytica, the shady data firm that might be a key Trump-Russia link, explained, Vox, weblog post, 17 March, viewed 3 April 2018, <https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/16/15657512/cambridge-analytica-christopher-wylie-facebook-trump-russia>.
O’Mahony, P 2013, The Contemporary Theory of the Public Sphere, New York, USA
Shapcott, G 2016, Rebuilding the Public Sphere, Green Agenda, weblog post, 19 March, viewed 3 April 2018, <https://greenagenda.org.au/2016/03/rebuilding-the-public-sphere/#fn18-1159>.