The Internet as the New Public Space

The Internet has long been identified as an information agora. So much in fact many geographers worry the internet will take the place of physical public space. And to complicate matters more, the role of Internet as a public space for every citizen is being shaped by two seemingly contradictory characteristics: Internet is both ubiquitous and personal.

In other words, cyberspace, unlike the traditional media types and traditional public spaces in the physical world enables the citizenry to find new ways to interact economically, politically, and socially. This universal connectivity of the Internet is its potential for everyone and in everywhere. Yet the very nature of its ubiquity may also impinge on a variety of individual or organizational rights, thus hindering its overall usefulness.

According to Koray Velibeyoglu, PHD candidate at Izmir Institute of Technology there are three ways to define the internet as a public sphere: accessibility, ownership, and public control. Velibeyoglu argues the internet is accessible to all groups of people with various ages, gender, and ethnic background. However, is this really the case?

An important question to ask is, is the Internet really available for everyone? Problems like the “information rich” elites or countries without internet connection complicate this issue. While most view the Internet as a free, private firms and institutions have to pay for access.

In fact a survey in the United States found that 67 percent of Internet users are male and over half of them aged 18-34. Their median household income is between $50,000 and $75,000 and the most frequently mentioned occupations are education, sales, and engineering. Therefore, it is obvious accessing the Internet we are still very much in touch with economic constrains, gender issues, basic skills, and age group barriers.

Another issue is ownership. Public spaces in the city are not owned by any individuals or groups. However, on the Net we see commercial, governmental, educational institutions and individuals’ web pages that all have different purposes and different functions. For instance, individuals can easily design his/her own web page, however, he/she must pay for this service to his service provider.

In addition, privacy on the Internet is meaningless. Advertising agencies, direct mail marketers, and political consultants already know many personal details about a user’s private information. What are normally referred to as “professional privacy brokers” use and even sell personal information in return for payment and subsidies. Although hacking is a crime, there is not any proper regulation online.

A third issue of the rising Internet monster is public control. On the Internet there is no centralized control. Nothing can be regulated. Really. You can do just about anything on the Internet.

So the question remains: Is the Internet the dominant ideal of public space? Yes and no. No because there is so much information flowing through its networks, there is no way the Internet can be as affective as a physical public space. Yes because although there are imperfections to the system, the Internet provides the world with something unfathably big. It provides the world with an international blog. People can say whatever they want whenever they want in a completely unmonitered environment. Internet has allowed minorities groups to survive, the Internet has allowed news about genocide and terrorism to spread across every nation, and most importantly the Internet has provided an internation forum for news so everyone can be their own journalist. It has made our society more intelligent. It has made our society more interactive. And it has made our society more self sufficient.

The Internet is the ultimate public space, however, it works hand and hand with protesting at the local courthouse. The Internet will not replace the old ways, it will simply improve them.