Hi Adasa Nkrumah!

I believe that Internet is a major source for promoting ideology & Propaganda. A good example of this can be the social campaign by the social media team of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal, Chief Minister of Delhi (Capital of India). The team used social networking sites like twitter & facebook to improve his image, mention his achievements and to convert all negative comment with a stream of positive work. The use of memes by the team across the internet was quite interesting and his win in the recent elections is majorly credited to the Internet.

"The internet" as a medium is a neutral weapon, meaning that it can be used for good or bad. Some of the characteristics of various places on the internet can allow for more abuse.

Greater Internet F***wad Theory says that a "normal" person, when given anonymity and an audience, will become abusive. I think that we could extrapolate that to say: for any medium that allows/encourages expression of opinions, the more users there are, and the more anonymous the users can be, the more likely that medium will be used for ill intents.

This conversation on Research Gate (where our names, institutions, etc. are available) would be quite different on, say, 4chan (where identifying information is not readily available).

Technology is agnostic in the sense that it can be used for "good" and "bad", definitions of which will—more likely than not—vary across time, space, and circumstances. Because there is no easy answer to questions about ethics in technology (e.g., digital divide, information overload, intellectual property, privacy, security, work–life balance, etc.), and because people can hold deeply-held beliefs about why their particular moral choice is best, it is always essential to justify why we think a decision is "right" and another is "wrong". Considering the (admittedly fast-growing) ethical predicaments of information and communication technology from a variety of different perspectives (e.g., utilitarianism, Kant's categorical imperative, justice as fairness, pragmatism, altruism) will profit all.

No. The server-based network, called Internet, is by all means so far nothing else as a dumb medium, enabling people a two-way communication. The new aspect of it is the enormous range of extremely low publishing costs and global outreach, its immediacy - actually paired with poor surveillance, especially in liberal and/or poor societies. This all is for dual-use, meant for good and for bad intentions. Algorithms which are able to scan and foresee the individual intentions of the issuer will (when we consider the given distribution of power and control) be able to ethically adapt its users on a global scale. Would you call it propaganda when users are trained in societal appropriate behaviour? The decentralised internet will have its counter-effects here, forming again niches with limited outreach. This is not comparable to the actually so-called "dark web", but this would be go to far here. Best wishes, Thomas

No doubt the internet is an excellent medium for any type of quick communication. Success depends on how extensive are the connectivity and the number and nature of users. Peoples' literacy is an important consideration.

For me, it is both. Internet did empower individuals and gave them a voice to challenge elite discourses but this voice was then also given, by extension, to those who hold the Far Right views. I think we need more organised activism on the Left to reach out to wider population rather than living in our echo chambers (I am as guilty of this as everyone else) and perhaps use PR more. It is true that PR originated in propaganda and is often a corporate function but tools and strategies PR uses can be deployed on the Left too. Hope this helps.