In modern democracies, the public sphere mainly serves three functions: First, a participatory function; second, a control function; and third, a social integration function. While the digitization of the public sphere as often been seen as a remedy to overcome some of the difficulties of traditional public spheres, such as polarization, fragmentation, and communicative asymmetries, it is questionable whether a digital public sphere can satisfactorily fulfill these three functions. Moreover, it becomes increasingly apparent that the digitization of the public sphere creates its own polarizations, fragmentations, and power asymmetries.
In this talk, I will focus on the control function and evaluate, how civic actors within the digital public sphere can exercise this function and by which means. Specifically, using Rawls’ criteria for legitimate forms of civil disobedience, I will assess whether illegal means within the digital sphere – such as e.g. DDOS attacks and other forms of Hacktivism – should 1) be seen as legitimate: Are the protagonists really acting on behalf of a domestic/global constituency? Which moral norms do they base their illegal actions on? On the functional side, this talk will 2) look into the question whether civil disobedience in the digital sphere effectively serves the control function of a public sphere: Aside from generating media attention, can it muster the necessary force to support or even initiate social movements, given that most forms are decentralized, anonymized, and solely connected by their cause? Or will it only generate “slacktivism” and other forms of low risk activities, that may not be sufficient to induce sustainable change?
