Online Debate in the Post-Truth Era
Heather Swan
April 2018
Abstract
The concept of post-truth has gained traction in the past few years among scholars and journalists alike. Online debate sites have emerged alongside the conceptualization of post-truth and are similarly gaining popularity, however very few studies have investigated either concept with consideration of the other. This essay addresses the emergence of rational debate sites with special attention to the context of the post-truth era. By drawing on interviews with three software designers currently working on a debate platform and three months of observation of the new rational debate site Kialo.com, I attempt to place online debate sites within the context of the post-truth era. Additionally, I investigate two features particular to online debate sites with consideration of Habermas’ Public Sphere and Arendt’s Space of Appearance. I argue that the disregard for facts and appeal to emotion characteristic of the post-truth era are one factor that instigated the upsurge in rational debate sites. In conclusion, this essay sheds light on a new and important phenomenon (i.e. debate sites) that has yet to be adequately assessed in academia by considering it within the context of post-truth.
Introduction
As I wrapped up my Skype interview on a cloudy Friday morning with Bentley, a software engineer, he enquired why I chose online debate as the focal point of my research in the first place. “I am interested in politics and how people discuss politics online,'“ I had replied. In retrospect, my interest in investigating this topic was influenced by what was taking place in the political world myself and others around me are inevitably a part of. And much of this political world existed online. I ended up narrowing down my research topic to the new emerging trend of online debate websites. The ironic thing, I told Bentley, was that I myself am in fact a terrible debater and have never enjoyed the debates I was forced to participate in during high school. Bentley replied: “a lot of the disadvantages you have with trying to debate may be mitigated by our new systems. Having time to do research, the time to think about it, and not getting flustered.” Bentley hopes that online debate sites transform how we debate one another – and that this transformation, among other things, will enable more people (such as myself) to participate.
This research paper places the emergence of debate sites in the context of the contemporary political climate. Based on interviews with three software engineers developing a debate platform and approximately three months of participant observation with the online debate site Kialo.com, I argue that the influx of online debate sites comes partially in response to the large-scale shift towards what has been called ‘post-truth’. In understanding what this might mean, I examine two key components on online debate sites by way of a Habermasian concept of the ‘public sphere’ and Arendt’s ‘spaces of appearance’.
What is Post-Truth?
In 2015, the term “post-truth” went mainstream, marked by a 2000 percent increase in usage. (McIntyre 2018:1) The Oxford Dictionary named “post-truth” the 2016 word of the year, defining it as: “Relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” (Oxford Dictionary, 2018) In a similar vein, the Economist (2016:6) described post-truth as “making assertions that ‘feel true’ but have no basis in fact.” McIntyre (2018) contends that while the Oxford definition focuses predominantly on what post-truth is, it is important to discern why this event occurs. He asserts that post-truth “amounts to a form of ideological supremacy, whereby its practitioners are trying to compel someone to believe in something whether there is good evidence for it or not.” (McIntyre 2018:13)
Widely reported examples of post-truth in action came from Donald Trump, who in 2017 made such unsupported claims as the assertion that his inauguration was the largest in US history and that he would have won the popular vote had it not been for “millions and millions” of illegally cast ballots. (Watkins 2018) The appeal to emotion and “feelings” with a disregard for facts or evidence is not, however, only executed by politicians. Indeed, it has been argued that the internet, specifically social media, has been used as a tool for spreading lies with the explicit intent of appealing to emotion. (McIntyre 2018:122)
The Public Sphere
According to Dahlgren, “a functioning public sphere is understood as a constellation of communicative spaces in society that permit the circulation of information, ideas, debates – ideally in an unfettered manner – and also the formation of political will (i.e. public opinion).” (2005:148) Jurgen Habermas is arguably the most influential theorist of the public sphere. He understood the public sphere as “a domain of our social life in which public opinion could be formed out of rational public debate. [...] Informed and logical discussion could lead to public agreement and decision making, thus representing the best of the democratic tradition.” (Papacharissi 2002: 10) In his book The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, he traces the development of the bourgeois public sphere beginning in the 17th century to its eventual decline in the 20th century. Habermas asserts that early bourgeois public spheres were “composed of narrow segments of the European population, mainly educated propertied men, and they conducted a discourse not only exclusive of others but prejudicial to the interests of those excluded.” (Calhoun 1992:3). The developments of the public sphere highlighted by Habermas led ultimately to the expansion to include more and more participants. At the core of his argument, he proposes that “this inclusivity brought degeneration in the quality of discourse, but he contends that both the requirements of democracy and the nature of contemporary large-scale social organization mean that it is impossible to progress today by going back to the elitist public sphere.” (Calhoun 1992: 3)
The Space of Appearance
In addition to Habermas’ conceptualization of the public sphere, I assert that Hannah Arendt’s Space of Appearance is a useful concept to understand the transformative implications of online debate. The polis, properly speaking, is not the city-state in its physical location; it is the organization of the people as it arises out of acting and speaking together, and its true space lies between people living together for this purpose, no matter where they happen to be. [...] It is the space of appearance in the largest sense of the word, namely, the space where I appear to others as others appear to me, where men exist not merely like other living or inanimate things but make their appearance explicitly. (Arendt 1958:198-199)
How one appears to another takes on a whole new dimension online. How are we to understand Arendt’s polis as the spaces of appearance when it entails a potential expansion in which individuals spreading across the entire globe can simultaneously be involved? Additionally, various factors such as anonymity online should be taken into consideration.
Internet & Optimism
As computer programmer Timothy High notes in the Canonical Debate white paper (2018), the emergence of the internet was marked by the optimist belief that it would “bring about an era of enlightenment, peace and unprecedented productivity.” The technological advances of the internet enabled us to have access to a wide range of information like never before, encompassing diverse points of view. Through this, the public would now be able to make informed decisions and promote citizen activity. (Papacharissi 2002:10) Indeed, Papacharissi noted that “proponents of cyberspace promise that online discourse will increase political participation and pave the way for a democratic utopia.” (2002: 10) Furthermore, it was believed that with the advent of the internet, the accessibility to debate would increase exponentially, as anyone with an internet connection would be able to join. This would lead to a significant expansion in participation, perhaps along similar lines with Habermas’ description of the public sphere in the twentieth century. At large, it was believed that the structural changes brought about by the technological advancement of the internet would “eradicate the problem of human ignorance and bring people around the world together into higher levels of mutual understanding and cooperation.” (High 2018) As it became apparent with the advent of post-truth, however, this initial promise was not fulfilled.
Internet & Disappointment
McIntyre wrote, “How ironic that the Internet, which allows for immediate access to information by anyone who bothers to look for it, has become for some nothing but an echo chamber.” (2018:96) Indeed, the problems associated with debate online are many. According to the Canonical Debate Lab, debates are scattered and difficult to access. Additionally, trolling exacerbates online interactions. As Prado notes, “trolls disrupt conversations, not because they have a point to make but because they love disruption. They attack others, not because they have a principled objection but because they love attacking others. Reasoning with a troll is virtually impossible.” (2018:137) Another issue that is emerging particularly through social media and news sites is political polarization. Through the “filter bubble effect”, social media and news sites are selecting what is shown to a given user based on an algorithmic assessment of their likes, “rather than on an analysis of what they need to know.” (High 2018) Additional issues highlighted by Papacharissi include that internet technology is not universally accessible and “ones that frequently induce fragmented, nonsensical, and enraged discussion otherwise known as ‘flaming’, far from guarantee a revived public sphere.” (2002:10) These problems, in addition to others, are deemed be structural in nature and thus amendable. One possible solution is the Canonical Debate.
Canonical Debate
The Canonical Debate is a project currently underway that hopes to solve the structural issues noted above. I had the great opportunity to interview three individuals who are involved in the Canonical Debate Lab. Their project is “a proposal to fix the current state of online discourse through the promotion of fact-based reasoning, and the accumulation of human knowledge.” (High 2018) Essentially, the project entails the creation of a debate platform where, according to my main interlocutor Timothy High, the discussion “had already been held and was more or less resolved. If not resolved, then at least every argument had been made and there was nothing else to say on the subject.” The idea is to create a “Wikipedia of debates”, where people could go to “get the basic rundown”.
Timothy envisions the Canonical Debate as solving the problem regarding people not having enough information about issues. He claims it is canonical in its singular representation of a claim. Additionally, he envisions the Canonical Debate being a potential means to solving inconsequential arguments online. More specifically, he anticipates people linking specific debates held on the Canonical Debate platform to comment threads on social media where trolls had engaged with people and their discussion is futile. By posting a link to a site where all the arguments had already been listed, he hoped that this would lead to the person engaging with the troll to “move on”.
In all three interviews, I enquired what prompted my interlocutors to get involved in online debate platform design. For Timothy, there were a number of contributing factors, including his work as a software architect where he had to work with trade-offs and decision- making. He highlighted how he had “watched the internet evolve” when there was a lot of optimism about how it would “give instant access to all information and lead to some sort of utopia of people being well-informed.” He began to realize that this was not the case through observing YouTube and Facebook comment threads, “instances where the conversations really were not very intelligent or factual at all.” The 2008 presidential election was when it became clear to him that “this is actually a serious problem.” He noted how fact-based discussions were being toppled by trolls. The problem with trolls, he said, is that “they say things designed to piss you off, designed to really make people angry without caring how true it is.” Trolling, then, is an appeal to emotion with little or no regard to evidence or facts – the definition of post-truth. For Timothy, it was this moment that made him feel as though he needed to “make an impact on all of this.” This was the starting point of his experimentation with making debate websites.
Kevin, my second interlocutor, has been a software developer for more than 10 years and recently attended law school – where deliberative skills are necessary. It was at the intersection of software development and debate that he became interested in online debate. Kevin highlighted how he is pragmatic, in the sense that he “hates involving emotion in debates.” His observations point towards how in online debates, people tend to separate into “tribes” based on opposing opinions that are characterized by a deep hatred for the other side. He states, however, that this is not only limited to online. People, more generally, are prone to “make their opinion something emotional”, ranging from political opinions, to sports clubs.
My third interlocutor, Bentley, became interested in making online debate sites after a personal interaction. An argument emerged between two of his friends about vegetarianism, and in attempt to reconcile the issue, he searched about it online to no avail. “There was so much information, it was so unorganized, there was no one place where you could find the pros and cons listed against each other.” Bentley asserts that although the Canonical Debate attempts to apply rational debate, it does not necessarily disregard emotion because “emotion is an important part of it.” He importantly notes, however, that “you do not want emotion pointing you away from truth. If you’re too emotionally involved, it’s hard to think rationally.” On all three accounts, my interlocutors expressed concern about how emotion is afflicting debates online. Timothy’s account of trolls’ disregard for emotion in particular ties in with the larger issue of post-truth afflicting online interactions today.
Kialo
Debate platform powered by reason - A tour of Kialo | Kialo Figure 1. A video run-through of Kialo.com, including the homepage, the discussion typology infographic and discussion pros and cons list with the interactive tree structure.
Readers are welcomed to Kialo.com by a fresh and sophisticated homepage comprising of a slew of discussion topics or “theses” that each have an associated image attached. Online viewers can scroll the homepage and familiarize themselves with debate topics ranging from “Should Governments Ever Limit Free Speech?”, to “Is Morality Objective?” and “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?" Once they have decided which discussion they wish to jump into and select it, they are first shown an information page with general context and a visual circular infographic called the “discussion typology”, where the green represents claims supporting the thesis and red represents claims that oppose it. Once inside the discussion page, the viewer is shown all the claims, arranged side-by-side and separated according to pro and con. The interactive tree at the top of the page displays layer upon layer of claims, either upholding or refuting the claim.
Kialo, similar to the Canonical Debate, is a debate platform launched in 2017 that is a “purpose-built tool for critical thinking, thoughtful discussion, and collaborative decision- making.” (Medium 2017) Its mission is to “empower reason and make the world more thoughtful.” (Margolis 2018) Kialo does not seek to remedy disagreement, rather “it embraces it.” (Wild 2018) There are two key components of Kialo that I would like to investigate in terms of Habermas’ Public Sphere and Arendt’s Space of Appearance.
It is commonly believed that winning is the end-goal of any debate; the winner will have managed to convince the most people to support their claim. However, both the Canonical Debate and Kialo refute winning as the focus of debate and rather the goal is shifted towards presenting the most complete diversity of viewpoints possible. As noted by Timothy, being persuasive “is not the same thing as trying to be correct [...], being honest”, and this “really undermines the whole point of having a discussion.” The Canonical Debate and Kialo both attempt to minimize this issue by making the goal of debate less about winning and more about gathering all possible arguments. I argue it is relevant to take up this shift with regards to Habermas’ Public Sphere. The end goal of deliberative action according to Habermas is not winning. Rather, it is understood as a venue through which “public opinion could be formed” (Papacharissi 2002:11) While it is currently impossible to determine Kialo’s impact on public opinion, we should understand it as a method for individuals to seek information and develop their own viewpoint. Although at the moment, it may not be possible to discerne any large-scale correlation between political action and rational debate sites such as Kialo, it appears to me that the existence of a platform in which all points of view are welcome enables people to successfully develop their own opinion, which in and of itself is a very political action.
Additionally, it is useful to apply Arendt’s concept of the ‘space of appearance’ to online debate sites. When one reaches the discussion page where all the pros and cons are listed on Kialo, they may be surprised by how at a first glance, claims seem to be left anonymous – it is not clear who posted it. Although users on Kialo are not anonymous, there is an obvious attempt, as Kevin noted, to “take away the claim from the person who said it.” I argue this is a reimagining of the Space of Appearance. On debate sites (and perhaps even the internet more generally), I appear to others anonymously. This, however, does not seem to inhibit the deliberative flow and sharing of ideas that occur between people. Despite not knowing who you are appearing to nor who is appearing to you, the deliberative practice is still successful.
Conclusion
This essay has argued that the appeal to emotion observed in the post-truth era online has played a central roll the emergence of rational online debate sites. The current state of online deliberation is imperfect and they are attempting to solve some of the issues they have identified by developing the Canonical Debate. Additionally, I examined two particular components of online debate sites, namely the shift from winning towards displaying all viewpoints and the semi-anonymous nature of online debate sites, using Habermas’ Public Sphere and Arendt’s Space of Appearance. As a new phenomenon, rational debate sites have yet to be thoroughly analyzed in academia. This essay contributes to the very limited existing literature on online debate sites.
References
Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. (Charles R. Walgreen Foundation lectures). Chicago: University of Chicago press.
Calhoun, C. (1992). Habermas and the public sphere (Studies in contemporary German social thought). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Dahlgren, P. (2005). The Internet, Public Spheres, and Political Communication: Dispersion and Deliberation. Political Communication, 22(2), 147-162.
Economist, Editorial, September 10, 2016, Vol. 420, No. 9006, p. 9.
High, T., Davis, B., and Wicklund S. (2018) The Canonical Debate [White Paper]. Retrieved December 18, 2018 from the Canonical Debate Lab: https://github.com/canonical-debate-lab/paper/blob/master/README.mediawiki
Margolis, J. (2018). “Meet the start-up that wants to sell you civilised debate”. Chronicle of Higher Education, 64 (29), A6.
McIntyre, L. (2018). Post-truth (MIT Press essential knowledge series).
Medium, “KialoHQ”, https://medium.com/@KialoHQ, accessed November 2018.
Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere: The internet as a public sphere. New Media and Society, 4(1), 9-27.
Post-truth. (2018). OxfordDictionaries.com. Retrieved from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/post-truth
Prado, C. (2018). America's Post-Truth Phenomenon: When Feelings and Opinions Trump Facts and Evidence. Praeger.
Watkins, E. (April 5, 2018). Trump repeats debunked voter fraud claim. Retrieved from: https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/05/politics/trump-voter-fraud-california/index.html
Wild, S. (November 13, 2018) Can Kialo turn online shouting into enlightened debate? Harvard Business School Digital Initiative. Retrieved from: https://rctom.hbs.org/submission/can- kialo-turn-online-shouting-into-enlightened-debate/