Lesson Report:
Title
Revisiting the Public Sphere Online: From Early Internet Ideals to Platform Economies
Synopsis: In this Week 2 session, the class connected students’ lived social media experiences to Papacharissi’s argument that the internet’s early “public sphere� promise has eroded. After a reflective free-write and share-out on platform emotions and behaviors, the instructor lectured on the public sphere ideal and Papacharissi’s three-part diagnosis of its decline (lack of reciprocity, commercialization, rise of the private sphere). Students then began a comparative exploration of a 2003 web forum (MacRumors via the Wayback Machine) to contrast early web community practices with today’s algorithmic, monetized platforms; this analysis will be completed next class and tied to democratic implications.
Attendance
– Explicitly mentioned absent: 0
– Participation and presence notes:
– Camera-on policy reiterated for being marked present; exceptions require emailing the instructor and cc’ing Department Head Gurkam with justification.
– Several students actively participated verbally: Barfya, Igarim, two students named Nilofar (including Nilofar Rasuli), Smile, Beka, Aya.
Topics Covered (chronological)
1) Administrative and course context
– University modality: AUCA fully online for the next two weeks; this course was already designed for online delivery.
– Platform access and enrollment:
– Multiple OSUN (non-AUCA) students reported no e-course credentials; instructor requested replies to last night’s email to compile a list and escalate to OSUN.
– Enrollment key correction: “GPT democracyâ€� (earlier “democracy-gptâ€� was incorrect). Instructor offered manual enrollments as needed.
– Attendance policy: Camera must be on to be marked present; if not possible, email the instructor and forward to Gurkam explaining constraints.
– Technical note: Wayback Machine access may be blocked in Kyrgyzstan; the instructor provided PDFs as a backup.
2) Quick review of previous session: Surveillance capitalism (Zuboff)
– Economic model shift:
– Earlier economies centered on labor and production.
– Mid-2000s emergence of surveillance capitalism: platforms harvest users’ online experiences to build behavioral profiles that can be monetized via targeted ads, prediction, and influence.
– Consequences: Today’s platform architectures (e.g., Instagram, TikTok) are optimized around data extraction and monetization, restructuring online experiences and incentives.
3) Free-writing and share-out: Emotional experience on a chosen social media platform
– Prompt (3 minutes): Select one platform you use regularly (e.g., Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, LinkedIn, X/Twitter). Describe the emotions you feel while navigating/scrolling; note when/how they arise.
– Representative student insights:
– Barfya: Instagram as lifestyle showcase (curated “best side,â€� aesthetics, milestones); TikTok as trend/entertainment-forward and more addictive; Facebook for family check-ins, seldom used.
– Igarim: Instagram induces comparison and feelings of “not enoughâ€�; overcame some emotional instability by reframing use.
– Nilofar: On Instagram, experiences curiosity—constant novelty (friends’ updates, reels, breaking news).
– Nilofar Rasuli: Mixed emotions on Instagram/LinkedIn—joy and inspiration alongside consumerist pressures, comparison, dizziness from “too many lives,â€� distraction, and reduced productivity. LinkedIn induces timeline comparison with peers (elite schools, conferences) that can both motivate and undermine self-efficacy.
– Smile: TikTok’s search-based personalization quickly saturates feed with niche topics (e.g., computer vision), increasing stickiness; friend uses only LinkedIn for opportunities; prefers Twitter/X for content discovery without heavy follow-graph dependence; reports sleep disruption due to compulsive scrolling.
– Instructor synthesis:
– Curated performativity (Instagram) and rapid, extreme feed exposure (TikTok/X) amplify comparison, time loss, and emotional whiplash.
– Noted the FYP/For You dynamics on X/Twitter surfacing sensational and extreme content interleaved with light content, intensifying affective swings.
4) Lecture-discussion: The public sphere ideal and Papacharissi’s critique
– Defining the public sphere (with student contributions: Nilofar, Beka):
– An inclusive space where citizens from diverse backgrounds deliberate common concerns, debate political matters for the common good, and cohere toward a public consensus that informs democratic decision-making (historical roots in the agora; early examples like coffeehouses).
– The early internet was heralded as a potential “perfectâ€� public sphere—broad inclusion and low barriers to participation at scale.
– Context circa 2010:
– Facebook rising to dominance; Google AdSense sophisticated; YouTube monetization nascent but expanding.
– Papacharissi’s (2010) diagnosis: Why the virtual public sphere frayed
– Lack of reciprocity:
– Fewer dialogic exchanges; more one-to-many broadcasting.
– Fragmented micro-communities and echo chambers; cross-cutting debate often devolves into incivility rather than deliberation.
– Commercialization:
– Platform logics prioritize monetization and engagement over civic dialogue.
– Algorithmic curation optimizes for ad revenue, profiling, and retention, not deliberative quality or inclusivity.
– Rise of the private sphere:
– Self-presentation shifts toward persona/performance, not authentic civic personhood.
– Users interact as crafted characters; follower counts and algorithmic gatekeeping shape who gets heard (Aya’s point: those with large platforms speak; others self-censor).
– Framing question for the unit: How did we get from early internet democratic ideals to today’s platform economies, and what does that mean for democratic practice?
5) Comparative activity: Experiencing the “old internet� (MacRumors Forums, 2003)
– Objective: Contrast early web forum affordances and norms with today’s social platforms, and identify where elements of the public sphere persisted or eroded.
– Access:
– Primary: Wayback Machine archive of MacRumors forums (2003).
– Backup: Instructor-provided PDFs for those blocked in Kyrgyzstan or without VPN.
– Round 1 (4–5 minutes, small groups): Light exploration
– Walk through forum structure, threads, and interaction patterns.
– Note initial impressions: why users come to the space; how navigation feels; signs of community norms and moderation; visible monetization (ads/sponsorships) if any.
– Screen sharing enabled after a permissions fix.
– Round 2 (targeted questions, 10 minutes, small groups):
– What is the main purpose of this space for users?
– How do users talk to each other? Describe a typical conversation.
– How do you think the website makes money? How visible is the funding?
– How do users present themselves (real names vs. pseudonyms)? What personas are portrayed?
– Instruction: Anchor answers in concrete artifacts from pages (UI features, thread content, usernames, timestamps, ads, moderation notices).
– Time management:
– Groups began analysis but did not report out due to time. Instructor will resume the activity Thursday and connect findings to implications for democratic deliberation.
Actionable Items
Immediate (within 24–48 hours)
– E-course access (OSUN/non-AUCA students)
– Reply to the instructor’s email if you still lack credentials so he can compile and send the list to OSUN.
– Use the corrected enrollment key: “GPT democracy.â€�
– Thursday prep
– Finish the Papacharissi reading (2010) if not already done.
– Bring your group’s notes/answers to the forum analysis questions; be ready to report out.
– Attendance compliance
– Keep camera on to be marked present; if impossible, email the instructor and forward the explanation to Department Head Gurkam.
Near-term (by next class)
– Old-internet exploration
– Verify Wayback Machine access; if blocked, use the provided PDF archive.
– Ensure someone in your group can screen share during report-out.
Follow-ups for Instructor/Admin
– OSUN credential escalation
– Finalize and send the list of students missing e-course credentials; confirm issuance.
– Manually enroll students who still cannot join with the key.
– Tech logistics
– Ensure Zoom screen-sharing permissions remain enabled for student hosts in breakout rooms.
– Re-share Google Drive backup link in case the Wayback Machine becomes inaccessible.
Optional/Community
– WhatsApp group
– Join the student-initiated WhatsApp group for coordination/discussion (link to be circulated if not already).
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Finish the Papacharissi reading
You will complete the assigned Papacharissi text (2010) on the internet and the public sphere to ground our next discussion on how the early democratic promise of the web shifted toward commercialization and the “private sphere,� and to connect the reading with your own social media experiences and our 2003 forum exploration.
Instructions:
1) Access the reading
– Find the assigned Papacharissi chapter/article on the course page.
– If you do not have access yet, reply to the professor’s email (sent last night) so your name can be forwarded for credentials.
– If you need to self-enroll, use the corrected enrollment key: “GPT democracyâ€� (note: the earlier “democracy-gptâ€� was incorrect).
2) Read the entire text before Thursday’s class
– This is the only homework announced for Thursday.
3) Focus your attention on these core ideas as you read
– The original democratic “public sphereâ€� ideal: a space where everyone can participate in reasoned debate and a public consensus can form.
– Papacharissi’s diagnosis of why the internet stopped resembling that ideal:
1) Lack of reciprocity (few true back-and-forth dialogues; fragmented audiences; comment threads that escalate rather than deliberate).
2) Commercialization (platform logics and algorithms optimized for profit and attention rather than public debate).
3) Rise of the private sphere (performative personas and curated selves displacing civic identity and shared public reasoning).
– Context circa 2010: Facebook’s rise, early YouTube monetization/ads, and the shift from community-building to monetization.
4) Annotate as you go
– Underline or note definitions of key terms: public sphere, reciprocity, commercialization, private sphere/persona.
– Mark passages that connect to emotions and behaviors you described in class about Instagram, TikTok, LinkedIn, and X/Twitter (e.g., comparison effects, addictive feeds, “For Youâ€� volatility).
– Note any claims that help explain what we observed on the early-2000s forum (e.g., how conversation structure, anonymity/pseudonyms, and funding models differ from today).
5) Prepare brief notes for discussion (no submission required; for in-class use)
– Write down 3 insights you gained from the reading.
– Note 2 questions you want to raise in class.
– Identify 1 concrete example (either from the 2003 MacRumors forum pages we explored or from your current social media use) that illustrates one of the three breakdowns Papacharissi describes.
6) Bring your notes to class and be ready to connect the reading to:
– Your group’s observations from the archived forum (purpose of the space, how users talked, funding/ads, user self-presentation).
– The broader course thread from last week on surveillance capitalism and platform incentives.