Title: The platformization of the public sphere and its challenge to democracy
Domain: philosophy

Question: How does the market entry of platforms influence the public sphere, and how can this impact be addressed？

Background: 1.The public sphere has changed due to advancing social differentiation, accelerating | digitalization processes and the institutionalization of digital platforms. Information | provided on digital platforms permeates the public sphere according to the platforms’ algorithms which are based on the rules and norms of global private-sector companies. This has triggered a severe transformation of the public sphere. | 2.Younger users obtain information about current topics via platforms. This has consequences for media and journalism: They have lost reach and revenue in the advertising and the (paying) audience markets. | 3.Social media introduce new techno-commercial mechanisms in public communication. A whole sector as well as a profession are in a state of upheaval, in a fundamental transformation process — outcome unknown.

Definitions: 1.Public sphere: A concept in social and political theory, primarily associated with the work of Jürgen Habermas, referring to a space where individuals come together to freely discuss and debate societal issues, share ideas, and form public opinion through rational-critical discourse. It serves as a societal mediation system, independent of the state and market, where citizens engage in communicative action to influence political and social outcomes, fostering democracy and civic participation. | 2.Journalism: The practice of gathering, verifying, analyzing, and disseminating information about current events, issues, and trends to inform the public. It involves producing news and stories through various media—such as newspapers, television, radio, and digital platforms—with the aim of providing accurate, timely, and objective accounts that contribute to public knowledge and discourse. | 3.Intermediary system: It refers to a set of institutions, processes, or platforms that facilitate communication, interaction, or exchange between different parties in society, such as individuals, organizations, or the state. It acts as a mediator, enabling the flow of information, resources, or influence within the public sphere or other social structures.

Methodology: 1.Examing the influence of platforms from the perspective of public sphere and democracy theories. | 2.Reviewing the transformation of the intermediary system and the consequences of platformization

Answer: 1. Demands on and functions of the public sphere as a societal mediation system | The conception of public sphere: The term public sphere describes (a) the social sphere where people exchange their opinions, discuss, and deliberate on public topics and (b) the process of public deliberation which leads to the formation of a public opinion. It is an important prerequisite of democracies as it enables people to observe the opinion building on political and societal topics, and therefore allows an introspective view on society. The public sphere is to be understood as a system of social mediation – an important function in today's democracies. | Theories of the public sphere can be assigned to three different paradigms. First, in the liberal paradigm, the public sphere serves as a representative sounding board for all issues and opinions on political topics. Second, in the deliberative paradigm, the power of the better argument is considered essential. The goal is to find a rationally based social consensus. Third, the participatory paradigm demands that everyone should be involved in public decision-making processes and all opinions should be considered. Everyone should be able to take part and have access without discrimination. | The functions of public sphere: It integrates different topics and opinions, legitimizes political decisions by informing citizens about facts and debates (transparency) and thus provides a prerequisite for participation. In addition, it enables public deliberation and participation in discussions. With these capacities, the public sphere contributes significantly to social orientation. | 2. Traditional media's services to society | Traditional media, which have institutionalized journalism, play an essential role in societal mediation processes: they disseminate information, ensure public communication, and still play a key role in the creation of public spheres. They are regarded as a key player for vital (mediatized) public spheres and the tenor of their reporting (= published opinion) is equated to public opinion. | However, criticism of the media and journalism has increased during the past years: Journalistic media are defamed as Lügenpresse. Journalists are accused of a biased selectivity. Economization and an increasing media concentration have had consequences for spatial and social diversity in the media, too. Therefore, trust in media fluctuates. | Journalism has fulfilled the demands of both the liberal and the deliberative paradigms with its selection and presentation of news. But these achievements are not sufficient regarding the participatory paradigm as this paradigm postulates a broader access to public communication in order to involve as many people as possible in decision-making processes. In contrast, social media offer easily accessible alternative channels to discuss all topics publicly. | 2.1 The significance of mass media for public communication in a changing society | Mass media are among society's intermediaries, as are political parties, associations, trade unions and social clubs. Historically, media were linked to the intermediaries: parties, trade unions or churches each had their own media to reach their members but also a general public. Traditional media such as the press, radio and television were the most important intermediaries – until the establishment of the internet and communication platforms. | Nowadays, new political interest groups bypass traditional media by using social media because they are able to gain access to the public sphere without the obstacles journalism has posed before. | 2.2 The structure of journalism and its contribution to society | Journalistic programs of media organizations are determined by the owners of newspapers or the socially relevant groups in the case of public broadcasters. Together they form the journalistic supply structure and formats. Over time, there has been a shift from a journalism which focused on individual political interests, where journalists oftentimes were also members of parliament, towards an understanding of journalism as a 'non-biased' service. | Driven by the success of platforms, traditional media offer more content on various different channels, which was only possible through an increase in content production. Journalistic workplaces which were formerly a place of political debate, are increasingly transforming into coordination centres for procurement, control of production, and distribution of content. The automatization of these processes which is based on algorithms supersedes former journalistic activities. Commercial pressures gain importance. | The demands on journalism have increased significantly in this process. Corresponding models are being discussed for functions of journalism: for example, 'participatory journalism', 'data journalism', and 'civic or citizen journalism'. | | Conclusion: A whole sector as well as a profession of journalism are in a state of upheaval, in a fundamental transformation process – outcome unknown. It is no longer enough to select issues and to publish articles or features with a strong emphasis on elites' and experts' opinions. Journalism must cope with new expectations. | | 3. The consequences of platformization | 3.1 Media and journalism's adaption to platform logic | Digital platforms are new intermediaries: Digital platforms are new intermediaries that constitute, coordinate and control markets by offering a wide variety of services such as the exchange of goods, the provision and exchange of information, and the facilitation of communication, in public and in private. They do not provide information services themselves but enable others to place information on the platform and communicate with each other. | Digital platforms with their new business models where users benefit from 'free' access by paying for the services with their data, have a major impact on traditiona media. Now users can access information for free which makes news consumption on the internet attractive. And because there is an increasing amount of information available free of charge, people are less willing to pay for traditional news media. Advertisers are able to target their customers more efficiently via platforms. These processes have led to a funding crisis for journalism. | Platforms are changing the norms and rules of journalism. Media and journalism had | to adapt to the multiple new distribution channels all of which have their own logic. Traditional media have become 'platform complements'. | 3.2 Increasing tabloidization and emotionalization throughout the public sphere | The new forms of provision, distribution and use of journalistic content have a variety of effects on how traditional media outlets produce content. In traditional media, content's relevance was determined by its social or political scope. That has changed. Relevance on social media is related to clicks, views, likes and shares. The orientation towards an attention-seeking economy is increasing. Content is adapted accordingly. Ever more topics need to be covered and distributed. Successful social media posts trigger attention and excitement. Traditional media, now seeking success on platforms imitate this kind of content. The social media logic is rubbing off on journalism: journalistic news contributions have been found to be increasingly emotionalized and personalized. | 3.3 Audience fragmentation and news avoidance | Traditional media are losing their audience. In the 2020 Reuters Institute's survey, among 18 to 24 year olds only 16% accessed traditional media via their own channels, the most common gateway to news was social media. | Another more recent development, which is worse, is the fact that people choose to ration or limit their exposure to news. | | Conclusion: Platforms are new institutions in the intermediary system. With the increasing dominance of platforms for public communication, they establish new norms and rules in the intermediary system. Platforms have a different business model than traditional media, but their market entry has structural and procedural effects on traditional media, journalism, and the public sphere. | | 4. The transformation of the intermediary system | Political journalism is losing resources as well as relevance. The financial crisis of traditional media has negative effects on the profession and the profession's performance. | Platforms influence the way users select information. It remains to be seen whether journalism as a service will survive in other organizational contexts than publishing houses or with other financing models than by subscriptions or donations. | The decontextualization of content, topics, and issues, in addition to the change of how people use media services could trigger social problems: The highly individualized media repertoires might lead to separate user communities, even sub-publics. | 5.Concluding remarks on the current debate and legal regulation | The influence of platforms on the intermediary system needs to be discussed from the perspective of public sphere and democracy theories. Because of platforms, the public sphere is becoming more diverse in terms of space and time. More people gain access, and more topics are being discussed. The universal access changes the constitution of the public sphere, it is getting more dynamic. However, due to these dynamics, the vast number of participants, the diversity of perspectives, views and interpretations as well as instant reactions, the aggregation of the underlying communication towards a public opinion is difficult. The public sphere loses its power to stabilize society and to integrate and it is becoming increasingly difficult to transform deliberative processes into political ones. | | Conclusion: The market entry of platforms has had structural as well as procedural consequences for the public sphere and political communication: Platforms have facilitated the access to the public sphere (input) and have also partially democratized it. However, processing topics (throughput) has become unclear and messy due to the sheer volume of topics which are now discussed in public simultaneously, and aggregation has become demanding as there are no institutionalized actors taking care of the process. The institutionalization process of platforms requires new policies. A fundamental debate about the future constitution of society as well as the development of a 'new public media system' needs to be held.

Checklist: 1. Does the answer include the content of the demands on and functions of the public sphere as a societal mediation system? | 2. Does the answer include the content of the structure of journalism and its contribution to society? | 3. Does the answer discuss the consequences of platformization? | 4. Does the answer include the content of the transformation of the intermediary system? | 5. Does the answer discuss how to address the influence of platforms on the intermediary system from the perspective of public sphere and democracy theories?