Cyber-Libertarianism 2.0: A Discourse Theory/Critical Political Economy Examination
Abstract
Cyber-libertarian discourse has recently made a “come-back” in popular technology and academic discussions about the democratic potential of “Web 2.0.” here, becoming a digital citizen means becoming an autonomous and creative “do-it-yourself citizen-consumer.” This paper identifies some of the limits of this “cyber-libertarian 2.0” discourse. It does so first by drawing upon post-Marxist discourse theory to outline the central elements of the discourse, and second by contrasting the cyber-libertarian understanding of “the situation” with a critical political economy reading that draws upon Debord's theory of “the spectacle.” The comparative analysis is structured by way of the normative categories “liberty,” “equality,” and “the demos,” which both discourses embrace in different ways when speaking of digitally enabled democracy. The critical political economy reading identifies a range of factors limiting the extension of democracy through Web 2.0, factors that are not taken into account by the cyber-libertarian discourse. Identifying such factors provides a starting point for a critical exploration of how democracy can be extended through the Internet. In conclusion, lines for such exploration are suggested, specifically in relation to a radical conception of democracy.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The reality of openness is problematic both in terms of overall participation, dropout rates, and quality of experience.
“Despite the promise of openness-online work where anyone can, in theory, participate-the reality is problematic both in terms of overall participation, dropout rates, and quality of experience [19, 25].”
From Paradoxes of Openness: Trans Experiences in Open Source Software (2024) · cites this paper as [19]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Paradoxes of Openness: Trans Experiences in Open Source Software
Frluckaj, H., Stevens, N., Howison, J., & Dabbish, L. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3687047 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Dahlberg, L.
- Corresponding author
- Dahlberg, Lincoln
- ORCID
- Dahlberg, Lincoln
- Venue
- Cultural Politics
- Publisher
- Duke University Press
- Published
- 2010-11-01
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 331-356
- ISSN
- 1743-2197 (ISSN-L)
- 1751-7435
- OpenAlex
- W2164213789
- Cited by
- 59
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 6.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cultural Politics an International Journal (publishedVersion)
- Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
- Social Sciences › Communication › Cultural Studies and Postmodernism
- Keywords
- Web 2.0, digital democracy, digital citizenship, critical political economy, Guy Debord, freedom, equality, the demos, radical democracy, internet and democracy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review