The decline of public consensus is often linked to the rise of the Internet. Conceptualizing the Internet as a context, this paper explores its impacts on public consensus on development. The data of the World Values Survey were used for multilevel analyses with 58,926 respondents in 38 countries. It reported three counterbalances. First, Internet penetration weakens public consensus on development, but promotes the individual use of the Internet, which strengthens public consensus on development. Second, Internet freedom and Internet participation contribute to a robust online democracy, which buffers the informational impact of Internet penetration. Third, public consensus on development is nurtured in a context where Internet freedom serves as an instrument to protect an open, free public sphere, but is fragmented by a country’s overall ideological orientation towards freedom.
ArugueteN (2017) The agenda setting hypothesis in the new media environment. Comunicación y Sociedad28: 35–58.
2.
BakerCE (1989) Human liberty and freedom of speech. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
3.
BalkinJM (2004) Digital speech and democratic culture: A theory of freedom of expression for the information society. New York University Law Review79(1): 1–55.
4.
BambauerD (2006) Shopping badly: Cognitive biases, communications, and the fallacy of the marketplace of ideas. University of Colorado Law Review77: 101–169.
5.
BernerM (2003) Current practices for involving citizens in local government budgeting: Moving beyond method. Public Administration Quarterly27(3/4): 410–432.
6.
BimberB (2003) Information and American democracy: Technology in the evolution of political power. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
7.
BlumlerJG (2018) The crisis of public communication, 1995-2017. Javnost-The Public25(1-2): 83–92.
8.
BlumlerJGGurevitchM (1995) The crisis of public communication. London, UK: Routledge.
9.
BohmanJ (2004) Expanding dialogue: The internet, the public sphere, and prospects for transnational democracy. Sociological Review52: 131–155.
10.
BollingerLC (1990) The tolerant society: A response to critics. Columbia Law Review90: 979–1003.
11.
BoyntonGRichardsonGW (2016) Agenda setting in the twenty-first century. New Media & Society18(9): 1916–1934.
12.
BrewerGNeubauerBGeiselhartK (2006) Designing and implementing e-government systems: Critical implications for public administration and democracy. Administration & Society38(4): 472–499.
13.
BrietzkePH (1997) How and why the marketplace of ideas fails. Valparaiso University Law Review31(3): 951–969.
14.
BudgeI (1996) The new challenge of direct democracy. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
15.
BulkeleyHMolAP (2003) Participation and environmental governance: Consensus, ambivalence and debate. Environmental Values12(2): 143–154.
16.
BurchE (2001) Censoring hate speech in cyberspace: A new debate in a new America. North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology3(1): 175–192.
17.
BurkhalterSGastilJKelshawT (2002) A conceptual definition and theoretical model of public deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Communication Theory12(4): 398–422.
18.
CammaertsB (2009) Radical pluralism and free speech in online public sphere: The case of North-Belgian extreme right discourses. International Journal of Cultural Studies12(6): 555–575.
19.
CastilloRAHNighR (1998) Global processes and local identity among Mayan coffee growers in Chiapas, Mexico. American Anthropologist100(1): 136–147.
20.
ChadwickAMayC (2003) Interaction between states and citizens in the age of the internet: ‘E-government’ in the United States, Britain, and the European Union. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration16(2): 271–300.
21.
ChiangCY (1995) Bridging and closing the gap of our society: Social function of media agenda setting - A case study in Taiwan. Master Thesis, University of Texas at Austin, US.
22.
CitrinJMusteC (1999) Trust in government. In: RobinsonJPShaverPRWrightsmanLS (eds) Measures of political attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp.462–532.
23.
ClarkTN (1969) Gabriel Tarde on communication and social influence. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
DaviesA (2001) What silence knows – Planning, public participation and environmental values. Environmental Values10(1): 77–102.
26.
DelwicheA (2004) Agenda-setting, opinion leadership, and the world of web logs. In: 2004 International Communication Association Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA, 27-31 May 2004.
27.
DreznerDWFarrellH (2004) The power and politics of blogs. In: 2004 American Political Science Association Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, August 2004.
28.
DworkinR (1996) Freedom’s law: The moral reading of the American constitution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
FranklinAEbdonC (2004) Aligning priorities in local budgeting processes. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management16(2): 210–227.
31.
FraserN (2007) Transnationalizing the public sphere: On the legitimacy and efficacy of public opinion in a post-Westphalian world. Theory, Culture & Society24(4): 7–30.
32.
GarrettRK (2009) Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication59(4): 676–699.
33.
GrahamG (1999) The internet: A philosophical inquiry. London, UK: Routledge.
34.
GrossmanLK (1995) The electronic republic: Reshaping democracy in the information age. New York, NY: Viking.
35.
GrzywińskaIBordenJ (2012) The impact of social media on traditional media agenda setting theory: The case study of Occupy Wall Street Movement in USA. In: Dobek-OstrowskaBLodzkiBWantaW (eds) Agenda setting: Old and new problems in old and new media. Poland: University of Wroclaw Press, pp.133–155.
36.
GuoLVargoC (2015) The power of message networks: A big-data analysis of the network agenda setting model and issue ownership. Mass Communication & Society18(5): 557–576.
37.
GustonD (1999) Evaluating the first U.S. consensus conference: The impact of the citizens’ panel on telecommunications and the future of democracy. Science Technology and Human Values24(4): 451–482.
38.
HabermasJ (1994) Three normative models of democracy. Constellations1(1): 1–10.
39.
HahnHStoutR (1994) The internet complete reference. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
40.
HardtH (1979) Social theories of the press: Early German and American perspectives. California, CA: Sage.
41.
HigginsVM (2009) News media roles in bridging communities: Consensus function of agenda-setting. PhD Thesis, University of Texas at Austin, US.
42.
HillKAHughesJE (1998) Cyberpolitics: Citizen activism in the age of the internet. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
43.
HofstedeG (1980) Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
44.
HuntingtonSP (1993) The clash of civilizations?Foreign Affairs72(3): 22–49.
45.
HuntingtonSP (1996) The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
46.
IngberS (1984) The marketplace of ideas: A legitimizing myth. Duke Law Journal1: 1–91.
47.
InglehartR (1997) Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
48.
InglehartROysermanD (2004) Individualism, autonomy, and self-expression: The human development syndrome. In: VinkenHSoetersJEsterP (eds) Comparing cultures: Dimensions of culture in a comparative perspective. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, pp.74–96.
49.
InglehartRWelzerC (2005) Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
50.
IrvinRAStansburyJ (2004) Citizen participation in decision-making: Is it worth the effort?Public Administration Review64(1): 55–65.
51.
KatzE (1996) And deliver us from segmentation. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science546(1): 22–33.
52.
KimSLeeJ (2012) E-participation, transparency, and trust in local government. Public Administration Review72(6): 819–829.
53.
LashS (2002) Critique of information. London, UK: Sage.
54.
LeeJHChoiYJLeeC (2003) Agenda setting effects on online users: The analysis of the World Cup coverage and online discussions. In: 2003 International Communication Association Annual Conference, San Diego, CA, May 2003.
55.
López-EscobarELlamasJPMcCombsM (1998) Agenda setting and community consensus: First and second level effects. International Journal of Public Opinion Research10(4): 335–348.
56.
MacintoshAWhyteA (2008) Towards an evaluation framework for eParticipation. Transforming Government: People, Process & Policy2(1): 16–30.
57.
MagnetteP (2003) European governance and civic participation: Beyond elitist citizenship?Political Studies51(1): 144–160.
58.
McCombsM (1997) Building consensus: The news media’s agenda-setting roles. Political Communication14(4): 433–443.
59.
MeiklejohnA (1948) Free speech and its relation to self-government. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.
60.
MerazS (2009) Is there an elite hold? Traditional media to social media agenda setting influence in blog networks. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication14(3): 682–707.
61.
NapoliPM (2011) Audience evolution: New technologies and the transformation of media audiences. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
62.
NisbetECStoycheffEPearceKE (2012) Internet use and democratic demands: A multinational, multilevel model of internet use and citizen attitudes about democracy. Journal of Communication62(2): 249–265.
63.
OngWJ (2002) Ecology and some of its future. Explorations in Media Ecology1(1): 5–11.
64.
OwensS (2000) ‘Engaging the public’: Information and deliberation in environmental policy. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space32(7): 1141–1148.
65.
ParmeleeJH (2013) The agenda-building function of political tweets. New Media & Society16(3): 434–450.
66.
PosterM (1999) National identities and communications technologies. The Information Society15(4): 235–240.
67.
PowellMKleinmanDL (2008) Building citizen capacities for participation in nanotechnology decision-making: The democratic virtues of the consensus conference model. Public Understanding of Science17(3): 329–348.
68.
RobertsMWantaW (2002) Agenda setting and issue salience online. Communication Research29(4): 452–465.
69.
RoseRMishlerW (2011) Political trust and distrust in post-authoritarian contexts. In: ZmerliSHoogheM (eds) Political trust: Why context matters. Colchester, UK: ECPR Press, pp.117–140.
70.
SandersLM (1997) Against deliberation. Political Theory25(3): 347–376.
71.
SchauerFF (1982) Free speech: A philosophical enquiry. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
72.
SchwartzSH (2003) Mapping and interpreting cultural differences around the world. In: VinkenHSoetersJEsterP (eds) Comparing culture: Dimensions of culture in a comparative perspective. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, pp.43–73.
73.
ShawDLMartinSE (1992) The function of mass media agenda setting. Journalism Quarterly69(4): 902–920.
74.
ShapiroAL (1999) The control revolution: How the internet is putting individuals in charge and changing the world we know. New York, NY: Public Affairs.
75.
SieckmannJR (2012) The logic of autonomy: Law, morality and autonomous reasoning. Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing.
76.
SmithAD (2000) The nation in history: Historiographical debates about ethnicity and nationalism. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.
77.
SmithAD (2005) Ethnicity and nationalism. In DelantyGKumarK (eds) The SAGE handbook of nations and nationalism. London, UK: Sage, pp.169–181.
78.
SmithSA (1994) Communication and the constitution in cyberspace. Communication Education43(2): 87–101.
79.
StrateL (2008) Studying media as media: McLuhan and the media ecology approach. Media Tropes eJounal1: 127–142.
80.
Stromer-GalleyJ (2003) Diversity of political conversation on the internet: User’s perspectives. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication8(3).
81.
SunsteinC (2001) Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
82.
SunsteinC (2007) Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
83.
SunsteinC (2009) Going to extremes: How like minds unite and divide. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
84.
TolbertCMossbergerK (2006) The effects of e-government on trust and confidence in government. Public Administration Review66(3): 354–369.
85.
TsfatiYArielyG (2014) Individual and contextual correlates of trust in media across 44 countries. Communication Research41(6): 760–782.
86.
TurnerJCHoggMAOakesPJReicherSWetherellMS (1987) Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorisation theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
87.
UgartecheO (2007) Transnationalizing the public sphere: A critique of Fraser. Theory, Culture & Society24(4): 65–69.
88.
Van der MeerT (2010) In what we trust? A multi-level study into trust in parliament as an evaluation of state characteristics. International Review of Administrative Sciences76(3): 517–536.
89.
Van der MeerTHakhverdianA (2017) Political trust as the evaluation of process and performance: A cross-national study of 42 European countries. Political Studies65(1): 81–102.
90.
VolokhE (2011) In defense of the marketplace of ideas / Search for truth as a theory of free speech protection. Virginia Law Review97(3): 595–601.
91.
WangQ (2016) A comparative case study: Network agenda setting in crisis and non-crisis news. Global Media and China1(3): 208–233.
92.
WelzelC (2013) Freedom rising human empowerment and the quest for emancipation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
93.
WirthL (1948) Consensus and mass communication. American Sociological Review13(1): 1–15.
94.
YamamotoMLeeTTRanW (2016) Media trust in a community context: A multilevel analysis of individual-and prefecture-level sources of media trust in Japan. Communication Research43(1): 131–154.
95.
ZhangGShaoGBowmanND (2012) What is most important for my country is not most important for me: Agenda-setting effects in China. Communication Research39(5): 662–678.
96.
ZhuJHMilavskyJRBiswasR (1994) Do televised debates affect image perception more than issue knowledge? A study of the first 1992 presidential debate. Human Communication Research20(3): 302–333.
