Lesson Report:
**Title: Reclaiming the Digital Public Sphere: From Surveillance Capitalism to vTaiwan and Polis**
In this session, the class revisited early-semester theories of the public sphere and linked them to contemporary problems with the Internet’s ad-driven business model. The instructor then introduced Taiwan’s vTaiwan project and the Polis platform as a concrete example of using AI and digital tools to foster genuine democratic deliberation. Students applied these ideas by designing Polis-style opinion-mapping exercises around urgent political issues in their own countries, as preparation for the final predictive assignment on AI and democracy.
—
### Attendance
– **Number of students explicitly mentioned as absent:** 0
– Several students experienced **temporary connectivity issues** during breakout rooms (e.g., Amine, some Afghan group members, Nilofer, Mohammad Omar), but they were not described as absent from class overall.
—
### Topics Covered (Chronological, with Activities)
#### 1. Administrative Announcements & Course Trajectory
– **Thanksgiving schedule**
– Instructor announced that:
– Class met today as usual.
– **No regular class session on Thursday** due to American Thanksgiving, as the university follows the U.S. academic calendar.
– Implication: Today’s class needed to do a lot of conceptual pivoting and setup for the final assignment.
– **Overview of final assignment (prediction paper)**
– Students will:
– Choose **one specific issue** in the **AI–democracy nexus**, ideally related to the topic they used in their earlier **policy memo**.
– Instead of explaining the current problem or proposing an immediate solution, they must:
– **Predict what this issue will look like in ~15 years.**
– Argue whether we will likely be in a **better or worse place** on that issue.
– Support their speculation with **evidence and logical argumentation**, drawing on:
– Course themes.
– Existing research.
– Current trajectories (e.g., regulatory trends, technological developments).
– Emphasis:
– This is not pure science fiction: they must use **present information and research** to build a **most-likely scenario**.
– The instructor signaled a desire to pivot away from the semester’s heavy pessimism to **more constructive, future-oriented thinking**.
—
#### 2. Revisiting the Public Sphere and Its Democratic Promise
– **Prompt:** “What is the public sphere, and how could the Internet have been an ideal public sphere?â€�
– **Student recall of PapaÂcharissi’s public sphere concept**
– Amin (and Gavin via chat) framed the public sphere as:
– **A social space where citizens exchange opinions and ideas**, discuss problems, and debate concerns.
– Initially envisioned as something the **Internet could provide**:
– A space where people “come together to solve problems.â€�
– Comparable to early web forums where discussions about, for example, Apple products became central hubs of exchange and following/liking mechanisms.
– Instructor reinforced:
– Public sphere = **public space for conversation and debate**, where citizens can articulate preferences and contest ideas.
– **Why is the public sphere linked to democracy?**
– Elijah:
– Connected back to **ancient Greek democracy**:
– Physical public space (agora/assembly) where **citizens gathered, spoke, and participated**.
– Every citizen had some opportunity to voice opinions, with varying levels of participation.
– Suggested that:
– Modern technology has created **physical distance**.
– An **online public sphere** is an attempt to reconstitute that democratic gathering: giving people a **voice and participatory space**.
– Barthia:
– Added that in democracy, governments are supposed to:
– **Listen to the needs and concerns** of citizens.
– Ensure **free voices and free elections**.
– So the public sphere is crucial not just as a talking shop but as:
– A channel through which citizen discussions **feed into government decision-making**.
– Instructor synthesis:
– The public sphere is:
– The **site where democracy happens**: equal voices, debate on matters of common concern.
– Normatively, public-sphere discourse should **influence policy and government choices**.
– The early vision of the Internet cast it as:
– A kind of **global agora**, enabling anonymous or named participation, transnational idea exchange, and organic competition among ideas where “the bestâ€� would rise by merit and public agreement.
—
#### 3. What Went Wrong with the Online Public Sphere?
– **Prompt:** “What went wrong? Why did the early utopian vision fade?â€�
– **Misinformation and manipulation**
– Barthia:
– Identified key problems:
– **Misinformation, fake news, manipulative content, false social media accounts, propaganda**.
– These distort **public debate** and confuse citizens.
– Cited:
– **Rise of digital media and social networks** where anyone can publish and share without fact-checking.
– Platforms designed to **reward attention**:
– Sentimental, shocking, emotionally charged posts go viral regardless of truth value.
– Banu:
– Expanded on platform design and human behavior:
– Social platforms prioritize **speed over accuracy**.
– Viral content is often **emotional, outrageous, or fear-inducing**, not necessarily factual.
– Fact-checking is **slower** than viral spread, so false/exaggerated information often “wins the race.â€�
– Instructor:
– Highlighted the **“attention economyâ€�**:
– Platforms prioritize content that maximizes **time-on-site, clicks, and engagement**, not truth.
– This accelerates the spread of misinformation.
– **Underlying driver: advertising, data, and profit (surveillance capitalism recap)**
– Instructor pushed students to identify the **deeper structural cause** beyond human psychology:
– Gavin (chat) pointed to **power and money**.
– Instructor laid out the logic:
– The critical Internet business question early on:
**“What is the most effective way to make money online?�**
– Companies like **Google** discovered:
– Every user action online generates **behavioral data**:
– Click patterns, dwell time, pages visited, scroll behavior, etc.
– Individual data is almost useless, but at **massive scale** (millions of users) those traces can be modeled to:
– Predict what people are likely to click, watch, or buy.
– This is extremely valuable to **advertisers**:
– You can target very specific audiences more efficiently than with TV or billboards.
– As targeted advertising proved lucrative:
– Ads were integrated more deeply into:
– Search results.
– Social media feeds.
– Platform design as a whole.
– Platforms began optimizing their entire structure for:
– **Maximal engagement**, because:
– More engagement → more ad impressions → more revenue.
– This “snowballâ€� effect made **data extraction and ad optimization** the **raison d’être of major platforms** (Google, Meta/Facebook, etc.).
– Political use:
– The same behavioral modeling tools that drive advertising are also powerful for:
– **Persuading people politically**.
– Influencing votes and shaping beliefs.
– Thus, surveillance capitalism became intertwined with **political manipulation**, not just commercial marketing.
– **Metaphor: “They Liveâ€�**
– Instructor referenced the 1988 film *They Live*:
– In the film, special glasses reveal the hidden reality that everything is saturated with hidden commands like “BUYâ€� and “CONSUME.â€�
– Analogously, once one puts on “critical glassesâ€� regarding the Internet:
– The **profit motive** and **ad-driven design** become visible everywhere.
– This can foster deep **cynicism** about the Internet as primarily:
– Corrupting.
– Psychologically unhealthy.
– Centered on exploiting attention rather than supporting democratic processes.
– **Transition question: can we use the Internet differently?**
– Instructor posed a key question:
– Given the enormous power of digital technologies, **is there really no way** to repurpose them to support the **original ideal** of a democratic public sphere?
– That question set up the introduction of vTaiwan and Polis as a **counterexample**.
—
#### 4. vTaiwan and Polis: AI for Democratic Renewal
– **Audrey Tang and vTaiwan**
– Students were assigned a short reading by **Audrey Tang**, Digital Minister of Taiwan, about **vTaiwan**.
– Some students missed the reading (e.g., Elijah reported not seeing the link), so the instructor summarized:
– **vTaiwan** is a government-linked, civic-minded project designed to:
– Use the Internet to create a **real, functioning public sphere** in Taiwan.
– Allow everyday citizens to **deliberate on real policy issues**.
– Feed those results into **actual policy discussions and decisions**:
– In some cases, the government **implements** consensus-based proposals emerging from the process.
– **Core technology: Polis**
– Instructor introduced **Polis** as the principal platform used in vTaiwan:
– Unlike TikTok/Instagram/Facebook, Polis does **not** optimize for engagement.
– Instead, it uses **AI to maximize agreement and map opinion clusters**.
– Basic Polis workflow (explained with Uber in Taiwan example):
1. **Define an issue**:
– Example: “How should Uber be regulated in Taiwan?â€�
2. **Seed a set of statements** (not simple yes/no questions) related to the issue.
– Example statement from the Uber case:
– “I feel that UberX is not currently operating legally, which makes me feel risky when taking a ride.â€�
– Participants respond by **agreeing or disagreeing** with many such statements.
3. **Collect responses at scale**:
– Participants are shown a variety of statements and can also propose new ones.
4. **AI-driven analysis**:
– The system produces an **opinion map** (clustering users into groups based on patterns of agreement/disagreement).
– It identifies:
– Areas of **consensus** (statements widely agreed on across groups).
– Areas of **division** (statements where groups differ sharply).
5. **Policy use**:
– Policymakers can see:
– Where there is broad agreement (e.g., Uber can operate but with specific registration rules).
– Which compromises might be acceptable to most citizens.
– This allows policy that is more **inclusive and consensus-based**.
– **Instructor characterization**
– vTaiwan + Polis = one of the most significant attempts to use digital platforms and AI for:
– **Civic-led, deliberative democracy** at scale.
– It reorients the affordances of the Internet:
– Away from surveillance capitalism and engagement-maximization.
– Toward **consensus mapping, inclusive debate, and policy co-creation**.
—
#### 5. Comparing Polis/vTaiwan to Mainstream Social Media
– **Prompt:** “What is different about using Polis vs. TikTok/Instagram/Facebook/Twitter for public debate?â€�
– **Student responses**
– Elijah:
– Noted that vTaiwan/Polis tries to **restore the original purpose of democracy**:
– Inclusive participation.
– Gathering people for **collective problem-solving** (e.g., air quality, environment).
– Contrasted this with social media:
– Users effectively pay with their **time and attention**, yielding little civic benefit.
– Engagement is oriented toward **entertainment and time-wasting**, not societal improvement.
– Polis, by contrast, channels engagement toward **“bettering society.â€�**
– Gavin (chat):
– Emphasized that Polis seeks **true dialogue and a true public sphere**, rather than engagement-driven conflict.
– **Instructor’s Twitter thought experiment**
– Asked: “What would it look like to decide Uber regulation via Twitter instead of Polis?â€�
– Students and instructor jointly observed:
– Twitter’s algorithm surfaces:
– **Extreme, incendiary, or polarizing content**, because that drives engagement.
– “Negative battles,â€� spamming, and attacks dominate.
– Policymaking based on Twitter sentiment would:
– Overrepresent **extreme voices**.
– Further **polarize** opinions.
– Underrepresent the **average citizen’s nuanced position**.
– In contrast, Polis:
– Makes disagreement legible while surfacing **shared ground**.
– Offers policymakers a structured view of **consensus and legitimate disagreement**.
—
#### 6. Activity: Designing a Polis Consultation on Local Political Issues
– **Individual brainstorming (2–3 minutes)**
– Students were asked to:
– Identify **2–3 urgent political issues** in their **country/state/city** that would benefit from broad democratic input.
– Think specifically about issues needing:
– **Collective agreement or trade-off decisions**.
– Potential for **structured online deliberation**.
– **Breakout room organization (by country)**
– Instructor created breakout rooms roughly by **country of origin**.
– Notable logistical points:
– **Lillian (France)** placed into the **“Team USAâ€�** room due to lack of other French students.
– Amina initially paired with Amine, but he disconnected; she was given autonomy to choose an issue.
– Several Afghan students (e.g., Nilofer, Mohammad Omar) had unstable connections.
– Instructor clarified the **task**:
1. Choose **one** concrete, urgent political issue in your country.
2. Formulate a **main question** in Polis terms (e.g., “How should issue X be handled?�).
3. Draft at least **three ‘seed’ statements** that:
– Go beyond simple “for vs. against.â€�
– Cut across different aspects of the issue.
– Are designed so that some citizens would agree and some would disagree, enabling clustering.
– **Clarifications during activity**
– To Banu:
– The expected output:
– One chosen issue + three Polis-style statements to map opinion differences.
– To Elijah:
– Confirmed that yes, they should think about Polis as an **alternative to Twitter-style debate**, using the same logic discussed earlier.
—
#### 7. Group Reports: Applying Polis to National Issues
Because of time and connectivity constraints, only a subset of groups reported back, but the examples framed how Polis could be used across different political contexts.
##### 7.1 Team USA: Abortion Ban
– **Chosen issue:** U.S. **abortion bans** and reproductive rights.
– **Concept for Polis use (as described by Elijah)**
– Envisioned a Polis consultation where:
– People share **personal accounts** and opinions related to:
– Abortions.
– Unwanted pregnancies.
– Social impacts of abortion bans (e.g., increased numbers of children in group homes).
– An algorithm aggregates responses, identifying:
– The **general consensus** trend (Elijah anticipated consensus around opposition to outright bans).
– A **supervisory panel**:
– Reviews and interprets the aggregated data.
– Communicates the results to policymakers as a clear signal of what the public wants.
– The **normative condition**:
– Government actors would **commit to honoring** the consensus emerging from the Polis process.
– **Instructor feedback**
– Affirmed that this is exactly the type of **highly contentious, value-laden issue** Polis can help structure:
– By making visible where common ground exists (e.g., exceptions, conditions).
– Without reducing the debate to the loudest extremes typical of other platforms.
##### 7.2 Afghanistan: Education, Economy, and Information
– **Participants:** Mainly Banu, due to others’ disconnections.
– **Identified major issues:**
1. **Ban on girls’ and women’s access to secondary and higher education**
– Described as **the most urgent and visible problem**:
– Girls/young women prevented from attending secondary schools and universities.
– Articulated impacts:
– Weakening Afghanistan’s **long-term development**.
– Undermining **economic growth and health outcomes**.
– Intergenerational effects:
– An educated woman tends to educate her family and community.
2. **Severe economic crisis and unemployment**
– Many families **cannot earn even $1 per day**.
– Acute hardship limits capacity for civic engagement.
3. **Digital misinformation and lack of trusted information sources**
– Widespread misinformation.
– Scarcity of **reliable, trusted digital channels**.
– **Proposed solutions (high-level)**
– Banu indicated:
– She had thought through **potential solutions** for each issue (e.g., community advocacy for girls’ education, economic interventions, information infrastructure).
– But judged many currently **impractical** under existing Afghan political conditions.
– **Instructor reflection**
– Acknowledged:
– Afghanistan presents specific challenges for Polis-style systems due to:
– **Limited connectivity and digital infrastructure**.
– Political constraints on free expression and participation.
– Noted:
– In future classes, Afghan examples—especially around **misinformation**—will be important when connecting AI and democracy in difficult environments.
##### 7.3 Myanmar: Conflict and Online Scams
– **Reported issue (briefly mentioned):**
– Myanmar is “going backwardsâ€� politically:
– Rising **conflict** and **instability**.
– Rapid increase in **online scams**, visible across communication channels.
– **Instructor response**
– Recognized this as a significant AI/digital governance problem:
– Exploitative online behavior.
– Weak regulatory/control frameworks.
– Time constraints prevented deeper exploration, but it was flagged as a **relevant AI–democracy problem** for future work.
—
#### 8. Closing: Connecting to Next Steps & Assignments
– **Link back to course arc**
– Instructor emphasized:
– Polis is not the **only** democratic-tech solution but is a **concrete, functioning example** of:
– Using AI and the Internet to **revive the public sphere**, rather than degrade it.
– Today’s group work is a **setup** for:
– Next week’s deeper exploration of **future trajectories** of AI and democracy.
– The final assignment: predicting **where a chosen AI–democracy issue is heading**, and how technology or policy could bend that trajectory.
– **Continuation plan**
– The **same breakout groups and country-focused issues** will be used next week.
– Students will:
– Build on their **Polis drafts**.
– Integrate these examples into the broader **future-of-democracy** discussion.
– **Administrative Q&A**
– **Reflection journals (30% of grade)**
– There will be:
– **One more reflection journal due this Thursday** (page to be posted that night).
– **One additional required reflection journal** after that.
– An **extra credit option**:
– Revisit the **first reflection journal** (on early concepts like public sphere and surveillance capitalism) and connect original views to current, more developed understanding.
– **Policy memo grading**
– Instructor is still grading ~60 midterms for other classes.
– Policy memo grades are delayed but expected to appear on the LMS **by this weekend**.
– **Video journals**
– For the student who already submitted a video journal:
– That submission will count for **this Thursday’s** requirement.
– There will be:
– **One more required video journal**.
– **One optional extra-credit video** at semester’s end.
– Reminder: **No Thursday class** due to Thanksgiving (mentioned at the start, implicitly in closing).
—
### Actionable Items
#### High Priority (Before Next Class)
– **For Students**
– **Complete the newly posted reflection journal** due this Thursday (check the LMS; topic will likely connect to today’s themes).
– **Ensure you have read** Audrey Tang’s piece on vTaiwan and the Polis documentation, especially if you missed it before.
– **Refine your Polis issue and seed statements**:
– Confirm the main question for your country’s issue.
– Draft or revise at least **three clear, debatable statements** suitable for Polis (agreement/disagreement).
– Start identifying the **AI–democracy issue** you will use for your final prediction assignment (ideally aligned with your earlier policy memo).
– **For Instructor**
– Post the **new reflection journal assignment** (with clear prompt and deadline).
– Consider sharing **concrete examples of Polis statements** (e.g., Uber case) in a centralized resource to help students fine-tune their own.
#### Medium Priority (This Week / Weekend)
– **For Instructor**
– **Grade policy memos** and post feedback/grades by the announced weekend deadline.
– Post any additional **formatting and detail guidelines** for the final prediction assignment (beyond what is in the syllabus).
– **For Students**
– Review feedback on policy memos once posted, as **input for the final assignment** (especially on argumentation and use of evidence).
– Begin outlining how your chosen issue might realistically evolve over **15 years**, guided by:
– Course concepts (public sphere, surveillance capitalism, platform incentives).
– Real-world initiatives like **vTaiwan/Polis**.
#### Longer-Term / Optional
– **Extra credit opportunities**
– Plan for:
– The **extra reflection** revisiting your first journal in light of the full course.
– The **optional extra-credit video journal**, if you aim to boost your grade.
– **Conceptual follow-up**
– Consider how **Polis-like tools** could:
– Be adapted to low-connectivity or repressive contexts (e.g., Afghanistan, Myanmar).
– Interface with **AI regulation, content moderation, or platform design**—potential themes for final projects.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Final Prediction Paper on an AI–Democracy Issue
In this final assignment, you will select one specific issue in the AI–democracy nexus and project how that issue is likely to look about 15 years from now. Instead of describing the problem’s past and present (as you did in your policy memo), you will make and defend a reasoned prediction about whether things will be better, worse, or simply different, using evidence and concepts from the course.
Instructions:
1. **Review the assignment description in the syllabus**
1. Locate the “final assignment� description in the course syllabus.
2. Note any requirements given there for format, length, citation style, and grading criteria.
3. The professor explicitly said that what is in the syllabus is sufficient and that only minor formatting clarifications might be added, so treat the syllabus requirements as authoritative.
2. **Choose your focal issue in the AI–democracy nexus**
1. Select **one concrete issue** where AI and democracy intersect.
– Examples of the *type* of issue (do not feel limited to these):
– Algorithmic amplification of misinformation and its impact on elections.
– Surveillance capitalism and voter profiling/micro‑targeting.
– Automated content moderation and free speech.
– AI-driven online public consultation tools (like Polis and vTaiwan).
– AI in predictive policing and civil liberties.
2. You are encouraged to **reuse the same issue you worked on for your policy memo**, as the professor suggested:
– “You’re going to be selecting one particular issue within the sort of AI democracy nexus, just like you did for your policy memo assignment.â€�
3. Make sure the issue is **narrow enough** that you can make a specific prediction (e.g., “use of AI micro‑targeting in national election campaigns� rather than just “AI and politics�).
3. **Clarify the time horizon and the core question**
1. The assignment specifically asks you to look about **15 years into the future**:
– “You’re going to be explaining what do you think that particular issue might look like in, I think it’s 15 years.â€�
2. Formulate a central guiding question such as:
– “What is the most likely state of [issue] in 15 years, and will this change place democracy in a better or worse position?â€�
3. Decide, tentatively, whether you expect the trajectory to be **improvement, deterioration, or a mixed outcome** for democratic practices and institutions.
4. **Review what you already know from the course**
1. Go back through your notes, readings, and earlier assignments related to your chosen topic.
2. Pay special attention to:
– The early optimism around the **public sphere** (Papacharissi’s ideal of the internet as a democratic forum).
– The later turn toward **surveillance capitalism** and the **attention economy** (e.g., how platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook maximize engagement and monetize behavior and data, as discussed in class).
– The role of **misinformation, manipulation, and algorithms** in distorting public debate.
– The example of **vTaiwan** and **Polis** as an attempt to reorient digital tools toward democratic consensus rather than click‑driven engagement.
3. List the **key mechanisms** currently driving your issue (e.g., targeted advertising, recommender systems, data brokerage, government regulation or lack thereof).
5. **Conduct targeted research on current trends**
1. Gather **recent, credible sources** about:
– The present state of your chosen issue (statistics, case studies, legal developments, technological capabilities).
– Trends that could influence the next 15 years (e.g., new regulations, technological breakthroughs, public backlash, corporate strategies).
2. Use a mix of:
– Academic articles and books.
– Policy reports from reputable organizations.
– High‑quality journalism.
3. As you read, keep asking:
– What directions are **already visible** today?
– Which actors have power (governments, big tech companies, civil society, international bodies)?
– What incentives are they responding to (profit, political advantage, public pressure, etc.)?
6. **Formulate your prediction**
1. Based on your course knowledge and research, articulate a **clear, specific prediction** about your issue 15 years from now.
– Example structure: “In 15 years, [issue] will likely look like [specific description], and this will [strengthen/weaken/transform] democracy in the following ways…â€�
2. Make sure your prediction is:
– **Speculative**, but not random; the professor emphasized that you should be “supporting your speculation with evidenceâ€� and “think logically and explain based on the information that we have today what is the most likely outcome.â€�
– **Grounded** in recognizable trends, incentives, and constraints.
3. Decide how you will characterize the overall outcome:
– Are we “in a better place,â€� “in a worse place,â€� or in a **different but ambiguous** situation for democracy?
7. **Build an argument that links present mechanisms to future outcomes**
1. Structure your paper so that you **move logically from present to future**:
– Describe the current configuration of the issue.
– Identify the underlying drivers (profit incentives, attention economy, regulatory changes, civic innovations, etc.).
– Show how these are likely to play out over 15 years.
2. Explicitly connect this to course themes, for example:
– How the **monetization of attention and data** (as discussed with Google, Facebook/Meta, TikTok, etc.) might continue to distort or reshape the public sphere.
– Whether models like **vTaiwan and Polis** could realistically scale or spread and counteract some of the harms.
– How features of the **public sphere** (equal voice, meaningful impact on government decisions) might be restored, transformed, or further undermined.
3. Support your reasoning with **concrete evidence** from your sources (not just opinion).
8. **Organize and draft your paper**
1. Outline a clear structure—e.g.:
1. Introduction (issue, time horizon, and your main prediction).
2. Background (current situation and mechanisms).
3. Drivers and trends (economic, technological, political, social).
4. The predicted future state (detailed scenario 15 years out).
5. Implications for democracy (better, worse, or mixed, and why).
6. Conclusion (what this suggests about how we should act now).
2. Write a first draft that stays focused on your **single issue** and **single coherent prediction**.
3. Make sure you are not just narrating “what might happen,� but **arguing why that outcome is more likely than reasonable alternatives**.
9. **Revise with attention to clarity, evidence, and course connections**
1. Re‑read your draft and check:
– Is your prediction clearly stated and consistently defended?
– Do you explicitly explain how course concepts (public sphere, surveillance capitalism, attention economy, democratic participation, etc.) inform your forecast?
– Are your claims backed up by trustworthy evidence?
2. Tighten any vague or overly speculative sections; tie them back to present‑day evidence and logic.
3. Ensure proper citations, following the style indicated in the syllabus.
10. **Finalize and submit**
1. Confirm that your paper meets:
– The **length, formatting, and citation** requirements from the syllabus.
– Any additional formatting details the professor may post.
2. Proofread carefully for grammar, clarity, and coherence.
3. Submit your final version by the deadline in the format specified on the assignment page.
—
ASSIGNMENT #2: Extra‑Credit Reflection – Revisiting Your First Reflection Journal
This optional extra‑credit assignment asks you to return to your very first reflection journal from the start of the semester and critically re‑examine the ideas you expressed then—especially about the public sphere and surveillance capitalism—in light of everything you have learned since (including our discussions of misinformation, the attention economy, and democratic experiments like vTaiwan and Polis).
Instructions:
1. **Locate your first reflection journal**
1. Find the very first reflection you submitted at the beginning of the semester.
– The professor specifically mentioned: “go back to your first reflection journal and then sort of rethink the ideas that you posited there.â€�
2. Re‑watch or re‑read your own work carefully, taking notes on:
– Your main claims and assumptions.
– Any examples you used (e.g., early ideas about the internet as a public sphere, or first impressions of surveillance capitalism).
– Your overall tone (optimistic, pessimistic, neutral).
2. **Identify key concepts you discussed or implied**
1. Note where your first reflection touched directly or indirectly on:
– The **public sphere** (drawing on our second‑week reading from Papacharissi/Papacharazzi).
– **Surveillance capitalism** (the use of behavioral data for ad targeting and profit, which we later saw linked to political manipulation).
– Your early views about the role of the internet in democracy (as empowering, corrupting, or both).
2. Mark any parts where you now feel you were:
– Missing important dimensions.
– Too optimistic or too cynical.
– Unaware of mechanisms we later discussed (algorithms, engagement metrics, data collection, etc.).
3. **Compare your earlier understanding with your current one**
1. Make a list with two columns:
– Column A: **“What I thought at the beginningâ€�** (summarize your original positions).
– Column B: **“What I think nowâ€�** (summarize your updated, more informed views).
2. Use recent course content to explain what has changed, drawing on:
– Our discussions of how the **attention economy** and **ad‑driven business models** pushed the internet away from the ideal public sphere (e.g., Google and social platforms using data to optimize ad clicks rather than democratic deliberation).
– The rise of **misinformation and manipulation**, and why they became so prevalent (speed, virality, emotional content, platform incentives).
– The example of **vTaiwan and Polis** as attempts to reclaim the internet for **democratic, consensus‑seeking purposes**, rather than purely for engagement and profit.
3. Highlight at least **2–3 specific ways** your thinking has deepened, become more nuanced, or changed direction.
4. **Choose a focus for your new reflection**
1. Decide what you want the **center of this extra‑credit reflection** to be. For example:
– How your understanding of the **public sphere** shifted from an abstract ideal to a more complex reality shaped by algorithms, ads, and political actors.
– How learning about **surveillance capitalism** changed your view of “freeâ€� online services and their democratic implications.
– How examples like **vTaiwan and Polis** affected your level of pessimism/optimism about whether the internet can still serve democratic goals.
2. Formulate a guiding question such as:
– “How has my understanding of the internet as a public sphere changed over the course of this semester?â€�
– “What do I now see differently about surveillance capitalism and its impact on democracy?â€�
5. **Outline what you will say in the new reflection**
1. Plan a short structure, for instance:
1. Brief recap of what you said in your first reflection.
2. Key course concepts and discussions that challenged or refined those views (e.g., misinformation, attention economy, ad‑driven platforms, vTaiwan/Polis).
3. Your updated perspective now, with specific examples.
4. A closing thought on where you stand between pessimism and hope regarding AI, the internet, and democracy.
2. Note specific course moments you might reference (e.g., class discussion about how Twitter vs. Polis would handle a contentious issue like Uber regulation, or the broader turn from optimism to cynicism to renewed possibilities).
6. **Record your extra‑credit reflection (video or the usual format)**
1. Use the **same basic format and approximate length** as your previous reflection journals, following the norms already established for this course.
2. When you speak or write, make sure to:
– Explicitly refer back to your original reflection (e.g., “At the start of the semester, I argued that…â€�).
– Clearly explain how your views have changed or become more complex, not just that they have.
– Integrate course vocabulary and ideas appropriately (public sphere, surveillance capitalism, attention economy, vTaiwan/Polis, misinformation, etc.).
3. Aim for a reflective, self‑critical tone: you are not “correcting past mistakes� so much as **showing your intellectual growth**.
7. **Connect your personal evolution to the course’s larger trajectory**
1. The professor noted that many of our conversations have been “deeply cynical and pessimistic,� and that this part of the course aims to move us toward more **positive, constructive possibilities** (like vTaiwan).
2. Reflect on how your own trajectory mirrors or diverges from that:
– Did you start optimistic, become cynical, and then see new reasons for cautious hope?
– Or did you move in a different pattern altogether?
3. Make explicit how the course’s exploration—from the ideal public sphere, through surveillance capitalism, to democratic experiments with technologies like Polis—has shaped where you now stand.
8. **Finalize and submit**
1. Review your reflection to ensure it:
– Clearly contrasts your initial and current ideas.
– Uses specific course concepts and examples.
– Feels honest and reflective rather than generic.
2. Check that it follows the **same technical and length expectations** as your other reflection journals (e.g., file format, naming, etc.).
3. Submit it under the extra‑credit reflection assignment by the deadline indicated on the course site.
4. Remember: this assignment is **optional** and is intended to provide extra credit, but doing it thoughtfully can both improve your grade and help synthesize what you’ve learned over the semester.