The goal of this study is to examine—theoretically and empirically—the implications of unrestricted, computer-mediated social interactions for civil society. Discussions of 207,419 participants in 35 newsgroups over 6 years are examined. Patterns of participation and attention attraction follow a power–law degree distribution—a highly skewed distribution—as is expected in large networks. Furthermore, analysis shows that these patterns are dependent on group size: The larger a group, the more skewed is its distribution. These patterns indicate hierarchical social structures that limit equality among participants and well-informed citizenry. The growth of discussions, which can empower civil society, is in fact making it more hierarchical.
AratoA.CohenJ. L. (1992). Civil society and political theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.
3.
BaberZ. (2002). Engendering or endangering democracy? The Internet, civil society and the public sphere. Asian Journal of Social Science, 30, 287-303.
4.
BagdikianB. (2004). The new media monopoly. Boston: Beacon.
5.
BarabásiA. L. (2003). Emergence of scaling in complex networks. In BornholdS.SchusterH. G. (Eds.), Handbook of graph networks (pp. 69-84). Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH.
6.
BarabásiA. L.JeongH.NĕdaZ.RavaszE.SchubertA.VicsekT. (2000). Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A, 311, 590-614.
7.
BroderA.KumarR.MaghoulF.RaghavanP.RajagopalanS.StataR.. (2000). Graph structure in the web. Computer Networks, 33, 309-320.
8.
CalhounC. (1992). Introduction: Habermas and the public sphere. In CalhounC. (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 1-50). Cambridge: MIT Press.
9.
ChuY. W.TangJ. T. H. (2005). The Internet and civil society: Environmental and labour organizations in Hong Kong. International Journal of Urban & Regional Research, 29, 849-866.
10.
CompaineB. M. (Ed.) (2001). The digital divide: Facing a crisis or creating a myth?Cambridge: MIT Press.
11.
ConwayM. M. (2000). Political participation in the US. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
12.
CorradoA.FirestoneC. M. (Eds.). (1996). Elections in cyberspace: Toward a new era in American politics. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
13.
DahlbergL. (2001). Computer-mediated communication and the public sphere: A critical analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7(1). Available from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol7/issue1/dahlberg.html.
14.
DavisR. (1999). The web of politics: The Internet’s impact on the American political system. New York: Oxford University Press.
15.
de TocquevilleA. (1839). Democracy in America. New York: George Adlard.
16.
DiMaggioP.HargittaiE.CelesteC.ShaferS. (2004). Digital inequality: From unequal access to differentiated use. In NeckermanK. M. (Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 355-400). New York: Russell Sage.
17.
DunnJ. (1967). Consent in the political theory of John Locke. The Historical Journal, 10, 153-182.
18.
EllisE. (1999). Immanuel Kant’s two theories of civil society. In TrentmannF. (Ed.), Paradoxes of civil society: New perspectives on modern German and British history (pp. 105-131). New York: Berhahn Books.
FergusonA. (1782). An essay on the history of civil society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21.
FisherD.SmithM.WelserH. T. (2006, January-47). You are who you talk to: Detecting roles in Usenet newsgroups. Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, p. 59.2.
22.
FoleyM. W.EdwardsB. (1996). The paradox of civil society. Journal of Democracy, 7(3), 38-52.
23.
FriedlandL. A. (2001). Communication, community, and democracy: Toward a theory of the communicatively integrated community. Communication Research, 28, 358.
24.
FriedlandL.HoveT.RojasH. (2006). The networked public sphere. Javnost—The Public, 13(4), 5-26.
25.
GarnhamN. (1992). The media and the public sphere. In CalhounC. (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 359-375). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26.
GillmorD. (2004). We the media: Grassroots journalism by the people for the people. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.
27.
HabermasJ. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere. Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
28.
HabermasJ. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory, 16, 411-426.
29.
HackerK. L.HowlL.ScottM.SteinerR. (1996). Uses of computer-mediated political communication in the 1992 presidential campaign: A content analysis of the Bush, Clinton and Perot computer lists. Communication Research Reports, 13, 138-146.
30.
HancockG. R. (2003). Models for skewed count distributions [Computer Application].
31.
HargittaiE. (1999). Second-level digital divide: Differences in people’s online skills. Second Monday, 7(4), 1-20.
HillK. A.HughesJ. E. (1998) Cyberpolitics: Citizen activism in the age of the Internet. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Little.
34.
HimelboimI.GleaveE.SmithM. (2009). Discussion catalysts in online political discussions: Content importers and conversation starters. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 14, 771-789.
35.
HorriganJ.RainieL. (2002). The broadband difference: How online Americans’ behavior changes with high speed Internet connection at home. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Projects.
36.
HubermanB. A.AdamicL. A. (1999). Growth dynamics of the World-Wide Web. Nature, 401, 131.
37.
IngelhartR. (1997). Postmaterialist values and the erosion of industrial authority. In NyeJ.ZelikoP.KingD. (Eds.), Why people don’t trust government (pp. 217-236). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
JeongH.TomborB.AlbertR.OltvaiZ. N.BarabasiA. L. (2000). The large-scale organization of metabolic networks. Nature, 407, 65.
40.
JonesQ.RavidG.RafaeliS. (2002, January 7-10). An empirical examination of mass interaction system dynamics: Individual information overload and Usenet discourse. Paper presented at the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii.
41.
JongpilC. (2007, February 20-March 3). Diffusing power or concentrating control: The impact of information technology on civil society in China and South Korea. Paper presented at the International Studies Association, Chicago.
KavirajS.KhilnanS. (Eds.) (2001). Civil society: History and possibilities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
44.
KeaneJ. (1998). Civil society: Old images, new visions. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
45.
KellyW.FisherD.SmithM. (2006). Friends, foes, and fringe: Norms and structure in political discussion networks. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 151, 412-417.
46.
KieslerS.AdaniukB.LundmarkV.KrautR. (2001). Troubles with the Internet: The dynamics of help at home. Human Computer Interaction, 15, 323-351.
47.
KumarK. (1993). Civil society: An inquiry into the usefulness of an historical term. The British Journal of Sociology, 44, 375-395.
48.
LevineP. (2000). The Internet and civil society. Philosophy and Public Policy, 20(4), 1-8.
49.
MehraB.MerkelC.Peterson BishopA. (2004). The Internet for empowerment of minority and marginal users. New Media & Society, 6, 781-802.
50.
MuhlbergerP. (2004). Access, skill and motivation in online political discussions: Testing cyberrealism. In ShaneP. M. (Ed.), Democracy online: The prospects of political renewal through the Internet. New York: Routledge.
51.
NaidooK.TandonR. (1999). The promise of civil society. In Civil society at the Millennium (pp. 1-16). West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.
52.
NaginD. S. (1999). Analyzing developmental trajectories: A semiparametric, group-based approach. Psychological Measurements, 4, 139-157.
53.
NaughtonJ. (2001). Contested space: The Internet and global civil society. In AnheierH.GlasiusM.KaldorM. (Eds.), Global civil society (pp. 147-168). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
54.
NewmanM. E. J. (2001). Clustering and preferential attachment in growing networks. Physical Review E, 64, 025-102.
55.
NewmanM. E. J. (2003). The structure and function of complex networks. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics Review, 45, 167-256.
56.
NyeJ. S.Jr. (2002). The paradox of American Power: Why the world’s only superpower can’t go it alone. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
57.
OblakT. (2003). Boundaries of interactive public engagement: Political institutions and citizens in new political platforms. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8(3). Available from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol8/issue3/oblak.html
58.
PapacharissiZ. (2002). The Internet as a public sphere. New Media & Society, 4(1), 9-27.
59.
PapacharissiZ. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6, 259-283.
Pew Internet and American Lifestyle Project. (2009). The current state of civic engagement in America. Available from http://www.pewinternet.org
62.
PingreeR. (2009). Decision structure: A new approach to three problems in deliberation. In DavisT.GangadharamS. P. (Eds.), Online deliberations: design, research, and practice (pp. 309-316). Chicago: University of Chicago Press/CSLI Publications.
63.
PriceV.NirL.CappellaJ. (2006). Normative and informational influences in online political discussions. Communication Theory, 16, 47-74.
64.
PutnamR. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s decline social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65-78.
65.
PutnamR. D. (1996). The strange disappearance of civic America. The American Prospect, 7(24), 34-48.
66.
Quan-HaaseA.WellmanB. (2004). How does the Internet affect social capital? In HuysmanM.WulfV. (Eds.), Social capital and information technology (pp. 113-130). Cambridge: MIT Press.
67.
RabanD. R.RabinE. (2007). The power of assuming normality. Paper presented at EMCIS 2007, Valencia, Spain.
RäsänenP.KouvoA. (2007). Linked or divided by the web? Internet use and sociability in four European countries. Information, Communication & Society, 10, 219-241.
70.
RheingoldH. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
71.
RiedelM. (1981). Transcendental politics? Political legitimacy and the concept of civil society in Kant. Social Research, 48, 588-613.
72.
SeligmanA. B. (1992). The idea of civil society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
73.
ShahD. V.KwakN.HolbertL. R. (2001). “Connecting” and “disconnecting” with civic life: Patterns of internet use and the production of social capital. Political Communication, 18, 141-162.
74.
SharfB. F. (1997). Communicating breast cancer on-line: Support and empowerment on the Internet. Women & Health, 26(1), 65-84.
75.
SimonH. A. (1955). On a class of skew distribution functions. Biometrika, 42, 425-440.
76.
SirianniC.FriedlandL. (2001). Civic innovation in America: Community empowerment, public policy, and the movement for civic renewal. Berkeley: University of California Press.
77.
SkocpolT.FiorinaM. P. (1999). Civic engagement in American democracy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
78.
SunsteinC. R. (2006). Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
79.
TaylorC. (1975). Hegel. New York: Cambridge University Press.
WalzerM. (2002). Equability and civil society. In ChambersS.KymlickaW. (Eds.), Alternative conceptions of civil society (pp. 34-49). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
83.
WassermanS.FaustK. (1999). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
84.
WellmanB. (2001). Computer networks as social networks. Science, 293, 2031-2034.
85.
WellmanB.HaaseA. Q.WitteJ.HamptonK. (2001). Does the Internet increase, decrease, or supplement social capital? Social networks, participation, and community commitment. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 436-455.
86.
WilhelmA. G. (2000). Democracy in the digital age: Challenges to political life in cyberspace. London: Routledge.
87.
WojcieszakM. E.MutzD. (2009). Online groups and political discourse. Journal of Communication, 59, 40-56.
88.
YangG. (2003). The Internet and civil society in China: A preliminary assessment. Journal of Contemporary China, 12, 453-475.
89.
YangB. (2008). NPOs in China: Some issues concerning Internet communication. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 21(1), 37-42.
90.
ZaphirisP.SarwarN. (2006). Trends, similarities, and differences in the usage of teen and senior public online newsgroups. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 13, 403-422.
