Expressions and embeddings of deliberative democracy in mutual benefit digital goods

摘要

Since democracy is so desirable and digital technologies are so flexible and widespread it isworth asking what sort of digital technologies can, through use, enhance democratic practice.This question is addressed in three stages. First, the notion of Mutual Benefit Digital Goods(MBDGs) is developed as a tool for discerning the digital goods that hold a potential fornurturing democratic virtues. MBDGs are those digital goods that allow a user to make suchgoods one’s own and to put something of oneself into them. This can be achieved eitherdirectly, by working at creating a derivative of a digital good, or by engaging a community ofproduction for digital goods. The second stage is the identification of a theory of democracythat is adequate for discussing democracy in relation to cyberspace. Deliberative democracy,particularly as presented by Dryzek, is put forward as the most appropriate conception ofdemocracy to be used. This conception makes it possible to overcome the difficulties posedby the notions of citizens and borders as presented in other conceptions of democracy. Inrelation to cyberspace, such notions are particularly problematic. In the last stage, MBDGsand deliberative democracy are brought together by means of the theory of technologicalmediation and Feenberg's theory of technological subversion. The theory of mediation holdsthat the use of technologies modulates our moral landscape. Because of mediation, subversionof digital technologies is always self-expressive to some extent. Therefore it exhibits the samegrounding characteristics as deliberative democracy: mutual respect, reciprocity,provisionality and equality. Since MBDGs are most open to subversion, they are also thedigital technologies with the most potential for fostering democracy. This claim iscorroborated by looking at iconic MBDGs (Free/ Libre/ Open Source Software and Wikipedia)and revealing how the virtues necessary for deliberation are manifest in some of the activitiessurrounding these digital goods. The ideas presented, if accepted, have practical implicationsfor institutions desirous of enhancing democratic practice. Such institutions ought to evaluatetheir choices on digital technologies also on grounds of democratic potential, reduce obstaclesto alternative appropriation of digital goods through regulation, and foster MBDGs.