Şener G. (2015). “Paradigms in Digital Activism”, Approaches on New Media Proceedings of 1st International New Media Conference, (ed.) Tuna S. & Akçay D.,Istanbul Gelişim University, May 21, 2015, Istanbul, Turkey, p. 61-‐74.
PARADIGMS IN DIGITAL ACTIVISM RESEARCH Gülüm Şener1 Öz: Dijital iletişim teknolojileri toplumsal muhalefetin çeşitlenmesini ve küreselleşmesini sağlayan başlıca araçlardır. Günümüzde sosyal hareketler sosyal ağlar üzerinde ortaya çıkmakta, örgütlenmekte ve eyleme geçmektedir. Bu yazıda, dijital aktivizm üzerine yapılan akademik çalışmalar ve bilimsel araştırmalarda kullanılan kuramsal çerçeveler ve geliştirilen gerekçeler irdelenmekte ve internet-‐demokrasi ilişkisini açıklamak için yeni bir paradigmaya ihtiyaç duyulduğu ileri sürülmektedir. Anahtar kelimeler: demokrasi, dijital aktivizm, sosyal hareketler, yeni medya, kamusal alan Abstract: Digital communication technologies are the primary means of diversification and globalization of social opposition. Today, social movements are emerging, organized and move to action on social networks. In this paper, theoretical frameworks used in scientific research on digital activism and arguments developed are being examined and it is suggested that a new paradigm is required in order to explain the relationship between the Internet and democracy. Keywords: democracy, digital activism, social movements, new media, public sphere Activism undergoes metamorphosis in the era of digital technologies. A recent example came on April 14th, 2015 from Madrid where Spanish activists have staged the world’s first hologram protest during which thousands of holograms marched past the Spanish Parliament to protest against a new law, the Citizen Safety Law that bans demonstrations outside of public buildings. Turning back the clock to 2011 when many protests broke out around the world, we find Adbusters, a group of activists from Canada struggling against consumer culture, who inspired by the Arab Spring called for a gathering in New York with the hashtag #OccupyWallStreet. This hashtag tactic worked well with hundreds of people meeting in Zucotti Park to protest neo-‐liberal system, subsequently spreading the Occupy Wall Street movement across the U.S. These two examples prove the potential of digital communication technologies to build social movements, first in the digital space then in the streets. But how should one define digital activism? What are the differences between analogue and digital activism? In different works, digital activism is also called as online 1
Assist. Prof., Hasan Kalyoncu Üniversitesi, Güzel Sanatlar ve Mimarlık Fakültesi, Görsel İletişim Tasarımı Bölümü,
[email protected].
1
activism, Internet activism, cyberactivism, e-‐activism, virtual activism, new media activism etc. Digital activism is the act of getting organized around a certain goal in order to defend a certain cause or perform a certain action; and transmitting messages of this cause to the public through a communication campaign. The main dissemination tools of activists’ activities are found in social media such as blogs, podcasts, video and photo-‐sharing web sites etc. which allow a wide audience to access to the real-‐time information sharing2. From a socio-‐historical perspective, two main changes emerge behind digital activism. The first is the transformation of social movements. From modern to postmodern eras, social movements can be characterized by four currents: labour movements that started in 19th century as a reaction to mass industrialization of Western European and North American countries, the protests of 1968 around the world based on civic rights, new social movements which began in 90s against globalisation and neo-‐liberalism with the slogan of “Another world is possible”; and finally ‘square protests’ which took place in different cities around the globe for a couple of years. There is a shift from class-‐based movements in modern period to identity-‐based movements in postmodern one. The second change is the evolution of digital communication technologies where commercialization of the Internet in the early 90s (with the National Information Highways projects, Information Society projects etc.) and the proliferation of electronic social networks have enabled a new participative culture and new activism practices. In short, today’s digital activism is based on identity movements’ values and participative communication technologies. The history of digital activism may include a wide range of protests and mobilizations: Zapatistas’ uprising against NAFTA in Mexico (1994), Seattle WTO protests (1999), 9/11 Attacks (2001), the Obama campaign (2008), the Green Movement in Iran (2009), Wikileaks (2010), the Arab Spring (2011), Occupy Wall Street (2011), London Riots (2011), İndigñados (2012), the Gezi Park Movement in Turkey (2013) etc. Considering the evolution of the Internet, Sandoval-‐Almazan & Gil-‐Garcia distinguish three periods of activism and summarize their characteristics as follows: 1) Activism before cyberspace: In this period, actors are local and their engagement is physical, the flow of information is slower and restricted to traditional media, social movements are organized around leaders and the interaction with citizens is lower than today’s activism. 2) Cyberactivism 1.0: This time actors may be international or regional and their engagement is still offline. Social movements have more horizontal organization attached either to the NGOs or a leader. Beside traditional media, e-‐mail and websites remain the main communication tools though the flow of information is still restricted and limited to organizers. Unlike the previous period, the interaction between citizens is partially online and offline. 3) Cyberactivism 2.0: Today’s activists are globally and horizontally self-‐organized. Their engagement is online, instant and permanent. They communicate through social media and there is a constant flow information. They engage mostly online and partially also offline. 2 Özgür Uçkan, “ ‘Dijital Aktivizm’mi , ‘Aktivizm’ mi?”, http://guernica.tv, 2012, Altan Kar & Sevgi Kesim (akt.), “Dijital Aktivizm, Gerçek Bir Aktivizm Ruhunu mu? Yoksa Bir Vicdan Temizleme Ayinini mi Temsil Ediyor? Dijital Aktivizmin Sosyo-‐Psikolojik Arka Planı”, Yasemin İnceoğlu ve Savaş, Çoban, (der.) , İnternet ve Sokak, İstanbul, Birikim, 2015, p. 131.
2
Table 1. Actors Diffusion of ideas
Activism Local M2M, printed, electronic
Organization
Leaders
Viral organization
Non-existent
Content update Recruitment Flow of information
Slow Person to person Limited to content and traditional media Restricted to the activists Physical Reduced interaction with other citizens.
Language Engagement Interaction
Cyberactivism 1.0 International or regional Traditional media, e-mail, websites Horizontal attached to NGOs or leader Dependent, organized Medium speed E-mail and websites Restricted and limited to organizers Restricted to country or region Offline Partially online and offline
Cyberactivism 2.0 Global, no borders Websites, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter Horizontal self-organized Independent, self-organized, devices automated Instant, permanent updated Permanent online recruitment Constant flow of data No language restriction Online, instant, permanent Online mostly and partially offline
Source: R. Sandoval-‐Almazan, J. Ramon Gil-‐Garcia, “Towards cyberactivism 2.0? Understanding the use of social media and other information technologies for political activism and social movements”, Government Information Quarterly ,31, 2014, p. 365-‐378.
Cyberoptimists vs. cyberpessimists The research agenda on digital activism is interdisciplinary, mostly at the intersection of political science, political sociology and new media and communication studies. Scholars from a wide range of disciplines, among them sociology, political science and communication, have been cooperating to understand these changes, with numerous journal articles, dissertations and books published since the mid-‐1980s and the topic maturing into a stable research area by the mid-‐90s3. In 1993, Rheingold drew attention to the potential of virtual communities to link to world into public discussions and to give birth to online activism4. Castells was the first scholar who investigated the role of the Internet for social movements calling Zapatistas “first informational guerrilla movement” in the history5. Since the early 2000s, theoretical and empirical studies which investigate the 3 Kelly Garrett, R. “Protest in an Information Society: a review of literatüre on social movements and new ICTs”, Information, Communication & Society, 9 (2), 2006, p. 203. 4 Howard Rheingold, The Virtual Community, Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier, Massachusetts, Addison-‐Wesley, 1993. 5 Manuel Castells, The Power of Identity, The Information Age: Economy, Society & Culture, Vol. II, Cambridge, Blackwell, 1997.
3
relationships between the Internet and democracy, social movements and digital activism have proliferated and become enriched with various national and regional case studies. The absence of a common set of organizing theoretical principles can make it difficult to find connections between these disparate works beyond their common subject matter6. Even though the classification of digital activism studies requires a hard work, Boulianne did a meta-‐analysis of current research on social media and participation. Despite numerous competing theories on how the use of social media might affect participation, she found that the meta-‐data demonstrates a positive relationship between social media use and participation7. Boulianne distinguishes two basic theoretical approaches: 1) Theories that focus on social media as a forum for gathering information or news from family, friends or traditional news media organizations: “Social media use is expected to develop citizens’ knowledge of political issues, which then facilitates participation in civic and political life.”8 2) Theories that focus on the role of social media in creating social networks ties that can be mobilized. This network research can be divided into three streams: a focus on network size, a focus on social ties to groups, organizations and activists and a focus on diffusion through peer groups. Digital activism may be considered as a small part of a bigger issue, which is the democratic potential of new media. The discussions around democratic potential of new media are often reduced to opportunities and risks of the Internet (or pros and cons) where two main paradigms emerge: techno-‐optimism and techno-‐pessimism. The first paradigm is derived from technological determinist approaches and fetishizes the Internet as a principal tool for ‘Revolution’. Techno-‐optimists consider new media as an alternative space for freedom9 and free speech, democratisation10, public sphere11, collective action12, globalization of solidarity among activists, greater information access, cheaper, faster and non-‐hierarchical communication, new forms of participation, formation, reinforcement and exhibition of 6 Garrett, op.cit., p. 203.
7 Shelley Boulianne, “Social media use and participation: a meta-‐analysis of reserach on social media use and participation”, Information, Communication & Society, 18:5, p. 524. 8 Boulianne, op.cit., p.525. 9 Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks, Yale University Press, 2006; Larry Diamond, Liberation Technology, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 21, No.3, July 2010, http://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles-‐files/gratis/Diamond-‐21-‐3.pdf 10 Philip N. Howard, The Digital Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010; http://philhoward.org/wp-‐content/uploads/2012/12/Howard_Digital-‐Origins-‐of-‐ Dictatorship-‐and-‐Democracy.pdf, Deborah Wheeler, The Internet in the Middle East, Albany, State University of New York, 2006; Michael D. Ayers & Martha Maccaughey, Cyberactivism: Online Activism in Theory and Practice, New York, Routledge, 2003. 11 Peter Dahlgren, “The Public Sphere and the Net: Structure, Space and Communication”, Mediated Politics: Communication in the Future of Democracy, (2001): p. 33-‐55; Peter Dahlgren, “The Internet and the Democratization of Civic Culture”, Political Communication, 17.4, 2000, p. 335-‐40; Peter Dahlgren, “The Internet, Public Spheres and Political Communication: Dispersion and Deliberation”, Political Communication 22.2, 2005, 147-‐62; Keith Hampton & Barry Wellman, “Neighboring in Netville: How the Internet Supports Community and Social Capital in a Wired Suburb”, City & Community, Vol. 2, Issue 4, Dec. 2003, p. 277-‐311. 12 Ronald Deibert, Parchement, Printing & Hypermedia, Communication and World Order Transformation, Columbia University Press, 1997; Clay Shirky, Here Comes Everbody: The Power of Organizng without Organizations, London, Penguin Press, 2008; Tom Postmes & Suzanne Brunstig, “Collective action in the age of the internet: Mass communication and online mobilization”, Social Science Computer Review, Vol. 20, Issue 3, Fall 2002, p. 290-‐301.
4
various political identities etc. Techno-‐pessimists, on the other hand, take digital democracy as a myth, using the following arguments: digital surveillance13 by states and corporations, censorship and control of authoritarian regimes 14 , monopolization in new media like Googlearchy 15 , digital divide 16 , clicktivism/slacktivism 17 , dissemination of hate speech through social networks, disinformation etc. Similarly, Fuchs has analysed opportunities and risks of information and communication technologies in three levels: political cognition, political communication and political collaboration18. Table 2.
Opportunity
Risk
Political Cognition
*Many-‐to-‐many online communication
*One-‐to-‐many online communication
*Vivid alternative online media
* Repressive online plurality
*Multimedia politics
*Low-‐quality political online information
Political Communication
*Online discussion
*Online isolation
*Undermining censorship *Open source information
technologies
*Overcoming social distance online
*Surveillance on the Internet and
*Information commodities *No truthfulness and rightness of online communication
Political Cooperation
*Cyberprotest
*Chaotic political online communication
*Online public spheres
*Plesibitary online voting
*Cyberprogress
*Cyberhate
Source: Christian Fuchs, Social Theory in the Information Age, New York: Routledge, 2008, p. 248-‐ 252.
I think the arguments developed by the proponents of these two paradigms are still relevant, but insufficient to explain today’s digital activism. First of all, these approaches are too ‘media-‐centric’. Karppinen, who analysed studies written on the issues of media and democratization from 1990 to 2011, criticizes media researchers for ignoring broader social and political theories and various models of democracy (representative, participative, direct and deliberative), which may explain better the relationship between media and 13 Evgeny Morozov, The Net Dilusion; The Dark Side of Internet Freedom, New York, Public Affairs, 2011, https://tropicaline.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/netdelusion.pdf 14 Shanti Kalathil & Taylor C. Boas, Open Networks Closed Regimes, Washington, Carnegie Endowment For International Peace,2003, http://www.monoskop.org/images/f/f5/Kalathil_Shanthi_Boas_Taylor_C_Open_Networks_Closed_Re gimes_The_Impact_of_the_Internet_on_Authoritarian_Rule.pdf 15 Matthew Hindman, The Myth of Digital Democracy, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 2009, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.463.6080&rep=rep1&type=pdf 16 Pippa Norris, Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty and the Internet Worldwide, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2001; Van Dijk, J. & Hacker, K., “The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon”, The Information Society, 19 (4), 2003, p. 315-‐326. 17 Henrik Serup Christensen, “Political activities on the Internet: ‘Slacktivism’ or political participation by other means?”, First Monday, 16(2), 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v16i2.3336, Vitak, J., Zube, P., Smock, A., Carr, C. T., Ellison, N., & Lampe, C. , “It's Complicated: Facebook Users' Political Participation in the 2008 Election”, Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 14(3), 2011, p.107-‐114; Morozov, op.cit., 2011. 18 Christian Fuchs, Social Theory in the Information Age, New York: Routledge, 2008.
5
democratization 19 . Secondly, these studies overuse Habermas’ notion of public sphere which was invented to explain modern democracy based on rational discussions held in the in physical gathering places between citizens20. The discussion on whether the Internet can represent a Habermasian public sphere is still ongoing, where a theoretical framework beyond deliberative model of democracy is required. Thirdly, as the world population gets more connected to social networks that play an increasingly crucial role in the socialization of daily life when compared to five years ago, the frontier between online and offline activism becomes blurred. Social movements are built and developed in digital space, then take onto the streets; dissident voices are going viral on social networks and activists are connected globally. Fourthly, more cross-‐cultural analyses on digital activism are required as political regimes, level of oppression, democratic culture and activism practices may vary from one cultural context to another. Towards a new paradigm? As digital communication technologies progress and new activism practices emerge, a new paradigm is required in order to understand the logic of digital activism. Scott Uzelman21 proposes the term ‘rhizome’ developed by French philosophers Deleuze & Guattari in order to explain media activism. This biological term is used to define horizontal, bottom-‐top, decentralized communication forms. In his recent work, Castells22 also refers to this concept and suggests that today’s social movements are built around social networks. There is constant and instantaneous interaction between offline and online mobilizations. According to Gerbaudo, social media is not an alternative to the physical world, instead it is a complementary space, a new tool for getting closer and maintaining face-‐to-‐face communication 23 . In a fragmented social life, social media creates a new feeling of centralization and a “choreography of assembly” for activists and social movements. Roberts considers new media from a dialectical perspective saying that new media is part of the battle for hegemony in and around political and social projects24. In the future, digital activism will certainly be transformed by new technological developments; and the battle of tactics and counter-‐tactics between power elites and social movements will also continue and digital activism practices will be shaped by these interactions. 19 Kari Karpinnen, “Uses of democratic theory in media and communication studies”, Observatorio
(OBS*) Journal, vol.7 -‐ no3, 2013, p.003. 20 Jürgen Habermas, Kamussalığın Yapısal Dönüşümü, İstanbul, İletişim, 2010. 21 Scott Uzelman, “Hard at work in the bamboo garden, media activists and social movements”, Andrea Langlois & Frédéric Dubois (ed.), Autonomous Media Activiting Resistance & Dissent, Québec, Cumulus Press, 2005, p. 20-‐21. 22 Manuel Castells, Redes de Indignacion y esperanza, Madrid, Alianza Editorial, 2012. 23 Paulo Gerbaudo, Twitler ve Sokaklar, Sosyal Medya ve Günümüzün Eylemciliği, Osman Akınhay (trans.), İstanbul, Agora, 2012, p. 21-‐23. 24 John Michael Roberts, New Media & Public Activism, Bristol, Policy Press, 2014.
6
Türkçe özet: Dijital iletişim teknolojilerinin yaygınlaşması ve gündelik alışkanlık haline gelmesiyle birlikte siyasi eylemcilik de dönüşüme uğruyor. 1994’te Meksika’daki Zapatistalar’ın mücadelelerini e-‐posta yoluyla tüm dünyaya duyurmasından bugüne geçen zamanda yeni medya, sosyal hareketlerin doğmasında, örgütlenmesinde ve eyleme geçmesinde önemli rol oynuyor. 60’ların mirası kimlik hareketleri, internetin ticarileşip yaygınlaşması, Web 1.0’dan daha katılımcı uygulamalara dayanan Web 2.0’a geçiş, neoliberalizm karşıtı dalganın yükselişi ve ağ üzerindeki tartışma kültürü günümüz dijital aktivizminin ortaya çıkmasına neden olan etkenlerden önde gelenleri. Bu bildiri, dijital aktivizm üzerine akademik çalışmaları ve bu çalışmalarda kullanılan kuramsal çerçeveleri konu alıyor. Özelde dijital aktivizm, genelde internet ve demokrasi ilişkisini inceleyen bilimsel çalışmaların alanı; bununla sınırlı olmamakla birlikte temelde üç bilimin kesişiminde yer alıyor: siyaset bilimi, siyaset sosyolojisi ve medya ve iletişim çalışmaları. Birbirinden farklı yüzlerce çalışma, kabaca iki paradigma üzerinden kurgulanıyor: tekno-‐iyimserler ve tekno-‐ kötümserler. Birinciler, yeni medyayı ifade özgürlüğü, demokrasi, özgürlük alanı, kamusal alan, kolektif eylem, dayanışmanın küreselleşmesi, daha fazla enformasyona erişim, ucuz, hızlı ve hiyerarşik olmayan iletişim, yeni katılım biçimleri, politik kimliklerin güçlendiği mekan olarak nitelendirirken tekno-‐kötümserler; dijital gözetim, sansür ve otoriter rejimlerin denetimi, tekelleşme ve Google hiyerarşisi, sayısal uçurum, miskin aktivizmi (slacktivizm), nefret söylemi, dezenformasyon gibi yeni medyaya özgü tehditlere dikkat çekiyorlar. Fuchs’un özetlediği fırsatlar/riskler paradigmasının aşılarak yeni medyanın toplumsal hareketlerdeki rolüne daha gerçekçi yaklaşan yeni bir paradigmaya ihtiyaç duyuluyor.
7
BIBLIOGRAPHY Christian Fuchs, Social Theory in the Information Age, New York: Routledge, 2008. Clay Shirky, Here Comes Everbody: The Power of Organizng without Organizations, London, Penguin Press, 2008. Deborah Wheeler, The Internet in the Middle East, Albany, State University of New York, 2006. Evgeny Morozov, The Net Dilusion; The Dark Side of Internet Freedom, New York, Public Affairs, 2011, https://tropicaline.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/netdelusion.pdf Henrik Serup Christensen, “Political activities on the Internet: ‘Slacktivism’ or political participation by other means?”, First Monday, 16(2), 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v16i2.3336. Howard Rheingold, The Virtual Community, Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier, Massachusetts, Addison-‐Wesley, 1993. John Michael Roberts, New Media & Public Activism, Bristol, Policy Press, 2014. Jürgen Habermas, Kamussalığın Yapısal Dönüşümü, İstanbul, İletişim, 2010. Kari Karpinnen, “Uses of democratic theory in media and communication studies”, Observatorio (OBS*) Journal, vol.7 -‐ no3, 2013. Keith Hampton & Barry Wellman, “Neighboring in Netville: How the Internet Supports Community and Social Capital in a Wired Suburb”, City & Community, Vol. 2, Issue 4, Dec. 2003, p. 277-‐311. Kelly Garrett, R. “Protest in an Information Society: a review of literatüre on social movements and new ICTs”, Information, Communication & Society, 9 (2), 2006, p. 203. Manuel Castells, The Power of Identity, The Information Age: Economy, Society & Culture, Vol. II, Cambridge, Blackwell, 1997. Manuel Castells, Redes de Indignacion y esperanza, Madrid, Alianza Editorial, 2012 Matthew Hindman, The Myth of Digital Democracy, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 2009, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.463.6080&rep=rep1&type=pdf Michael D. Ayers & Martha Maccaughey, Cyberactivism: Online Activism in Theory and Practice, New York, Routledge, 2003. Özgür Uçkan, “ ‘Dijital Aktivizm’mi , ‘Aktivizm’ mi?”, http://guernica.tv, 2012, Altan Kar & Sevgi Kesim (akt.), “Dijital Aktivizm, Gerçek Bir Aktivizm Ruhunu mu? Yoksa Bir Vicdan Temizleme Ayinini
8
mi Temsil Ediyor? Dijital Aktivizmin Sosyo-‐Psikolojik Arka Planı”, Yasemin İnceoğlu ve Savaş, Çoban, (der.) , İnternet ve Sokak, İstanbul, Birikim, 2015, p. 131. Paulo Gerbaudo, Twitler ve Sokaklar, Sosyal Medya ve Günümüzün Eylemciliği, Osman Akınhay (trans.), İstanbul, Agora, 2012. Peter Dahlgren, “The Internet and the Democratization of Civic Culture”, Political Communication, 17.4, 2000, p. 335-‐40. Peter Dahlgren, “The Internet, Public Spheres and Political Communication: Dispersion and Deliberation”, Political Communication 22.2, 2005, 147-‐62 Peter Dahlgren, “The Public Sphere and the Net: Structure, Space and Communication”, Mediated Politics: Communication in the Future of Democracy, (2001): p. 33-‐55. Philip N. Howard, The Digital Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010; http://philhoward.org/wp-‐content/uploads/2012/12/Howard_Digital-‐Origins-‐of-‐ Dictatorship-‐and-‐Democracy.pdf. Pippa Norris, Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty and the Internet Worldwide, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2001; Van Dijk, J. & Hacker, K., “The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon”, The Information Society, 19 (4), 2003, p. 315-‐326. Rodrigo Almazan & J. Ramon Gil-‐Garcia, “Towards cyberactivism 2.0? Understanding the use of social media and other information Technologies for political activism and social movements”, Government Information Quarterly, 2014, p. 367. Ronald Deibert, Parchement, Printing & Hypermedia, Communication and World Order Transformation, Columbia University Press, 1997. Scott Uzelman, “Hard at work in the bamboo garden, media activists and social movements”, Andrea Langlois & Frédéric Dubois (ed.), Autonomous Media Activiting Resistance & Dissent, Québec, Cumulus Press, 2005. Shanti Kalathil & Taylor C. Boas, Open Networks Closed Regimes, Washington, Carnegie Endowment For International Peace,2003, http://www.monoskop.org/images/f/f5/Kalathil_Shanthi_Boas_Taylor_C_Open_Networks_Closed_Re gimes_The_Impact_of_the_Internet_on_Authoritarian_Rule.pdf Shelley Boulianne, “Social media use and participation: a meta-‐analysis of reserach on social media use and participation”, Information, Communication & Society, 18:5. Tom Postmes & Suzanne Brunstig, “Collective action in the age of the internet: Mass communication and online mobilization”, Social Science Computer Review, Vol. 20, Issue 3, Fall 2002, p. 290-‐301. Vitak, J., Zube, P., Smock, A., Carr, C. T., Ellison, N., & Lampe, C. , “It's Complicated: Facebook Users' Political Participation in the 2008 Election”, Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 14(3), 2011, p.107-‐114. Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks, Yale University Press, 2006; Larry Diamond, Liberation Technology, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 21, No.3, July 2010, http://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles-‐files/gratis/Diamond-‐21-‐3.pdf
9
