No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
A major promise of the vast expansion of the Internet throughout the last decade is its potential to become a revolutionary platform for public discourse and information exchange. When connecting to the Internet, individuals are free to become active participants in conversations and information seeking regarding a wide spectrum of issues, including their social and civil lives. Joseph Nye (2002) discusses power in the information age and elaborates on Simon’s (1998) idea of the paradox of plenty. He argues that when information is accessible through such a wide range of channels, attention - not information - becomes the scarce source. “A plenitude of information” Nye concludes, “leads to a poverty of attention” (p. 68). Network literature supports this assertion. Many large networks follow a power-law distribution, where links are distributed disproportionally. The potential of the Internet to benefit individuals and society at large by encouraging civil discussion and exchange of information should, therefore, be examined neither by the mere ability of individuals to participate, nor simply by their actual contribution – volume or quality. The premise of this study is that the potential democratic contribution of the Internet should be examined via the networks created by patterns of replies individuals evoke. The goal of this study is twofold. First, to explore the structure of Usenet newsgroups as it is expressed by the distribution of replies among participants. Second, to identify what affects this structure. Two independent variables are suggested to predict reply distributions in discussion groups: size and topic of discussions. These will be discussed each in turn below. The findings should carry important theoretical implications for network literature and Internet and society. From a network perspective, the relation between type of information and the structure of a network is yet to be discussed thoroughly. Moreover, many networks follow a power-law distribution; this study suggests shifting the focus from the similarities among groups - the linearity of the log-based distribution - to the variation among groups - the slope of the distribution. From a societal perspective, understanding the structure of online discussion groups can contribute to the discussion of the Internet’s democratic contribution. In democratic societies, individuals are expected to converse freely and have the information they need to make informed decisions with regards to issues of civil and personal importance (Baker, 2002). Traditional media is expected to provide information and reflect a range of ideas regarding different aspects of public life (Siebert, Peterson and Schramm, 1963). For a variety of technical and normative reasons, mass media rarely provide a space where individuals can step in and be heard (Bagdikian, 2004; Picard, 1985) and can provide only a portion of the information individuals need. Free for anyone to access and participate in the Internet can make an important contribution to democratic societies by overcoming traditional media’s weaknesses. Online discussion forums, such as Usenet, can become a platform where people suggest topics for discussion and inquire for more information. This study aims to analyze and discuss newsgroups in the context of their potential democratic contribution to individuals and society. Specifically, it explores patterns of replies among Usenet participants. First, however, one needs to address a major issue in dispute: what potential the Internet holds for democratic processes. Many argue that the Internet, as a mass media, has the potential to fulfill a new and important role in society as an open, free platform for public discussions. The importance of free exchange of ideas in society has extensive and often reviewed literature. Starting with Mill (1859/1970), who discussed freedom of expression as a fundamental human right and Meiklejohn (1965), who perceived it as a civil and political right, free discussions are important for free flow of opinions and ideas in society. In democratic societies, it is crucial for citizens to take an active part in the decision making process. An important precondition for a free market of ideas and a fruitful public discourse is that individuals are not only able to make their voices heard, but also that they are not judged on the basis of their socioeconomic status or other characteristics. Moreover, individuals should not suffer any negative social ramifications based on their ideas (Cohen-Almagor, 2001; Habermas, 1989; Schauer, 1982). The assumption that individuals do not have the means, knowledge, ability or time to search for information and discuss it effectively has long shaped the perception of media professionals. Mass media organizations are expected to discuss issues of civil importance on behalf of the public (Hohenberg, 1978). The Internet, via Usenet groups and other discussion platforms, challenges that role as it provides the “space” for individuals to exchange information and opinions. Over the last decade, the very idea of the Internet providing a free and open space has wrought much controversy. Communication and political science scholars alike have pointed out the possibility that Internet-based communities could enhance public discourse and facilitate democratically accountable interactions between civilians and politicians. The Internet supports both weak and strong relations among users which cut across social milieus, interest groups, localities, organizations or nations, and support social ties among individuals and groups that otherwise could not have been formulated. These “virtual spheres” promote discussions where individuals’ opinions are less likely to be judged based on gender, race, age, occupation, experience, or other demographics. Importantly, interpersonal discussion matters for various aspects of individual understanding and actions. It appears, for example, that conversation amplifies memory for media content (Southwell, 2005). Moreover, discussing an issue is positively associated with better understanding of discussed matters, with political knowledge playing an important role in future engagement and processing of news (Eveland, 2004; Holbert, Benoit, Hansen, and Wen, 2003; Kennamer, 1990; Robinson and Levy, 1996; Scheufele, 1999, 2000, 2002). At the same time, these utopian ideas have been strongly challenged by dystopian visions. The division of resources, as in any other aspect of global economy, is not equal. The digital divide is significant in less-developed countries where a much lower percentage of the population uses the Internet, and users are predominantly well-connected elites (Wellman and Haythornthwaite, 2002). Others have suggested that the Internet destroys community, leaving individuals isolated and alienated because online relationships lack the satisfaction of real-life relationships. Some even suggest that the ability to create multiple and ephemeral identities could endanger one’s offline identities, and even lead to multiple personality disorders (Kroker and Weinstein, 1994; Stoll, 1995; Turkle, 1995). Moreover, the feeling of anonymity on the Internet is no more than an illusion. Whoever controls the website or a server can, in fact, identify the source of many “anonymous” messages. Online discussions lie at the heart of this matter. One important aspect of the democratic promise of online discussions is that individuals can become more than a passive audience. Participation in online discussions can be highly valuable for citizens in making informed decisions. When posting a message, individuals can benefit from the knowledge and comments of many other participants. In order to truly gain from a discussion, nonetheless, participants need to attract replies – a form of attention – to their messages. When plenty of information is accessible in Usenet groups, one should expect attention to be the scarce resource (Nye, 2002). If so, are Usenet participants likely to draw attention to their messages? How is attention distributed among participants? What this In of these Usenet as the yet highly conversation platform on the Internet can provide the discussion Internet and democratic society. Moreover, because Usenet the as will be discussed it is less likely to to Usenet can be the with of of groups and of This or mass and various of are as a of newsgroups and each one is to a by different with for for social issues and for issues and for and many more 2002). Usenet is a where individuals can and reply to one This a Usenet discussion groups are often discussed in of participants or - content - as of This many the and of discussion groups Moreover, attention and not information is the scarce resource in the information age, an understanding of the democratic contribution of online discussion be the of patterns of A discussion can be as a network of participants and their relationships. a network can be as a of by links that among in many of life and take a form of a network as a the Internet, the distribution networks such as or networks of between and many including social networks of individuals and organizations In any Usenet the major social or are who participate in the any is open for to it is to a or as a reply to a to a new discussion This a For A discussion as a the of and its network which from the Usenet It is a is lower than the and For example, the replies for its message, from and who are one message, and more to message, by and The for example, no replies for An important premise of network is that a network as a is more than the of its One is that Usenet participants are not in of their individual but in of their in a the of and the Internet, where perceived anonymity individual more than a network is only because it the among The discussion and in this study will make the assumption that an important can be discussion groups, that participants are the same and among are from with network is not to the study of online discussions. network to study patterns in and online discussion patterns of interactions in online discussions to identify a social role in technical support newsgroups – an and network to identify social in information communities – and and patterns of in online discussions and a social role in these the a power-law distribution of replies in Usenet These online conversations as networks to individual as as the and structure of a conversation as a The on replies as links is because participants benefit from and (2002) that in technical support groups, Usenet of and for positively with the of replies a is of it is a because it not address the potential of participants to the of the Moreover, not reflect the of the Internet that individuals to become more than a passive audience. In participants who replies to their have been more likely to and participate in a discussion the to not associated with – or or that or negative and that online – to a of to a In the context of political replies is to participants. a large of replies to a message, a can to the topics that are a new topic for discussion or a different on an issue that has been a highly the for the conversation In the context of a highly is more likely to the information In order to and discuss it is to major A Usenet network is created by active participants and the among to messages. A is a between participants that is by at one that is by as a reply to a by In its a is a reply in a are the of replies one to or are replies one A is the of It is the of participants to which a is and not take many any of participants. An is the of participants that to one’s messages. An is the of participants one An attention is as the of a or One can the of replies that a - replies and replies the of the - as for This is It is often the that as they become their It be to for example, that to who to content is to because many newsgroups are highly A who to a in a not even the content of the that the replies to the potential the conversation participants evoke. The in of between and is much when This relation also in newsgroups and It is to the of – and – as a for the of attention to one’s messages. The distribution of across participants holds important social implications regarding the role that and other – fulfill in society. discussed because of its open and free the Internet can individuals in democratic societies make informed decisions. At the individual distribution of replies the of participants to a discussion on an issue or to gain information they need. It the benefit of their At the the distribution of to participants a is as a This distribution can to the understanding of the democratic contribution of online that distributions of links in a variety of networks to be – as to - often follow a power-law distribution where many have links and have many A of who study the Internet and the have pointed out that networks follow this highly distribution and (1998) the structure of Usenet groups and an of with posting distribution that Usenet discussion groups to distribution. In this distribution of links among the and the the of that to each A power-law distribution as a highly distribution on a and a on a In a power-law distribution many have very and a of have a large and of links in the In the context of Usenet one can the distribution of replies by the ability of users to and a large of because this volume of information their and (2002) suggested that individuals can a range of to the of information from Usenet for example, to to messages. that participants are more likely to to messages. This type of also the distribution of as participants the of information by but participants to therefore, - and should not – expect a or distribution of attention in The to which the distribution is however, has important social The more the distribution of the less participants benefit from Two are in order to predict the of the of attention in and Two can a structure of a A on of the network as a - such as size - in its structure. A individuals and their interest in the groups, such as the type of information they exchange a future discussion and and discuss the paradox of size in argue that the of size on individual on One major of large Usenet groups is information If participants are by extensive the benefit from the One to information is to address a of participants. for new who are yet to negative the to highly participants is a Usenet participants not many replies participants have in the A distribution of however, it to identify the highly even in the suggests in large new links are to that are highly their than their One social is that people with many are more likely to become than with or The that with in has also been on network social networks of that the of has a strong with the of in the network and their of In Usenet that participants are likely to reply to individuals who are highly from the information the and more active a Usenet the the need for participants to the volume of information. In with the one a is to participants and address their messages. The and more active the discussion the more the distribution of ties is expected to The suggests a size A large network is because it more participants to exchange ideas and more opinions to A large is also more likely to a with a of information that needs the a discussion the more the distribution of attention among participants because a highly participants become even more The from the size The a the more its distributions will a size and volume the structure of a discussion network can be by individuals’ which are often by the topic of The of potential topics is and participants can Usenet groups for any topic they can topics in the can be based on the type of information likely to be and newsgroups for and social support newsgroups and on the information of groups are suggested information in conversation groups and information in information are is not one to a social and no one has the One is to be more or less valuable than The goal of participants in groups, is to exchange to and be heard, to to be the and the more a discussion, the and for example, are often highly and can be as focus on information. conversation groups, groups The goal of the is often to provide participants with a of regarding a From this perspective, one argue that many for example, are and discussions. Usenet groups, are expected to be For example, (2002) of a Usenet and that Usenet groups are for a variety of such as support and the vast of replies information to the with patterns in the between and support groups, and that are to are among the online that the Internet a of information” that discussion groups and are among the on the and (1998) that of Internet users the to gain information a or personal of Internet users for information in The between these groups the structure of and in this the distribution in a In political the major interest of the participants is to exchange no one holds the and even and opinions are are less likely to become the of the discussion to their opinions. The goal of these groups is to exchange a variety of opinions. and that individuals in political discussions on a range of topics by to by a variety of such as knowledge and could lead to more the of the discussion should not be strongly In groups – which are – discussion is expected to be more and less It is more likely for participants to become more than to attract more to become more and for the distribution of replies to become less An that will be is that attract a of replies simply because they are highly topics should to the Usenet groups will a more distribution of than political Usenet is through the and 2005). This information from Usenet discussion groups from to time of For each the information its or by a and and the of the messages. In the information is for each discussion are by which their topic the groups with the as political For groups, the and support groups groups of each topic In each only that in in only as Two of are to these discussion the individual a is the of and one needs a for are the of replies a to the of This interactions a and is in a more because it replies from a to by the same For the same however, this can be to by a highly active the of users who to a in a Usenet the time This not the however, it is less to by a highly active participants. This of attention controls for the of a The of replies of to the potential of to and benefit from the discussion their contribution. of the of one needs a for the of the networks to form a distribution such as this distribution is by a of the 2003; and This distribution is as a form or its this has often been as and 2003; and and discussed by and the distribution can be to to identify the of the and to and of the distributions of groups in groups power-law distribution of participants a large and of as by the lower portion of the as by the part of the In however, the of who are in replies is less attract a portion of the replies than in in has a more even distribution than distribution the to attract therefore, is a to attract a large of and a to or In any the the the the and the less the distribution. distribution. the in the distribution is the of links that in a network can the is the for in the network to attract the of links on the The groups in that both follow a power-law distribution, they are different in their In other in both networks is a to attract links and a to attract the to which distribution of links is the network where a Usenet is a of the independent variables are and is in of and of messages. The topic of a Usenet is as one of topics – and The is distribution in and - by of the distribution. created by who in in political and Usenet groups for this a strong between one’s contribution to a – and – and replies one from the – and significant and across groups and In other the mo
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 55 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.