A Tricky Democracy

Andy Williams lecture last thursday, on user-generated content (UGC) and the people who make it, got us thinking about the democratic potential of the web.

Citizen Journalism enthusiast Dan Gillmor, author of We The Media, states that “Big media treated the news as a lecture… Tomorrow’s news reporting will be more of a conversation. The lines will blur between producers and consumers.”And yes, the web does offer this potential. If freedom of expression is a human right, then assumedly this should extend to all of us, not just those who have been trained as professional journalists. The technology of Web 2.0 means that content can potentially be made by anyone with access to a phone line and their thoughts, feelings and viewpoints entered into the media debate.

Also, it is well-reported that journalists are the least trusted profession – perhaps the internet may encourage the public to trust the media more if they feel they can engage in a two-sided discussion with it?

But unfortunately, this free speech utopia carries some downfalls. ‘Trolls’ and hoaxers set out to cause trouble and hinder the debate, perhaps damaging public trust even more. Cases such as the ‘Dorset Elks’, which has managed to find its way into several different news outlets, shows just how susceptible UGC is to these hoaxers. If readers know that anyone can upload unregulated content to sites such as CNN’s iReport, then how can they trust what they see and read?

And anyone who has read online comment sections will know they often bear more resemblance to a playground bully’s taunts than a mature adult discussion. The anonymity of the internet takes away the usual standards of behaviour we adhere to, and instead of constructively critiquing what they see and read users often resort to insults and name-calling. Rather than encouraging freedom of expression, the internet may scare ordinary people off speaking their minds if they find they are met with insults when they do.

The obvious way to handle these negative elements of UGC would be for tighter moderation of the websites. But if we attempt to silence the voices we find offensive, are we not acting in opposition to the democratic space we tried to nurture in the first place? What’s ‘regulation’ to one may be ‘censorship’ to another.

I guess it all goes back to the same freedom of speech debate that has been going on for centuries. “I disagree with what you say but I shall defend to the death your right to say it” – who does this right extend to? Holocaust deniers? Extreme pornography enthusiasts? I don’t claim to have the answers to these questions, but I’m interested to see how the online world debates them in my lifetime.