This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/14/twitter-flotation-facebook-politics-social-network

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Twitter and the transformation of democracy Twitter and the transformation of democracy
(3 days later)
The news that Twitter has taken the first steps towards a stock market flotation has triggered a predictable storm of speculation about the valuation of the company. How much is a corporation with 200 million monthly users actually worth? How does it compare with Facebook, with its billion users?The news that Twitter has taken the first steps towards a stock market flotation has triggered a predictable storm of speculation about the valuation of the company. How much is a corporation with 200 million monthly users actually worth? How does it compare with Facebook, with its billion users?
The answer is: nobody knows. But that doesn't matter because it's not the important question. Although Twitter and Facebook are categorised as social networking services, in fact they are as different as chalk and cheese. And, of the two, Twitter is more important in one respect: its impact on the arena in which societies discuss their political issues.The answer is: nobody knows. But that doesn't matter because it's not the important question. Although Twitter and Facebook are categorised as social networking services, in fact they are as different as chalk and cheese. And, of the two, Twitter is more important in one respect: its impact on the arena in which societies discuss their political issues.
What is astonishing about Twitter is that in the seven years since it was founded as a side project to share messages among a group of friends, it has become the de facto newswire for the planet. And, unlike the recognised newswires (Reuters, AP etc), it is available to everyone, which is why even governments sometimes now use it to release news before they give it to mainstream media.What is astonishing about Twitter is that in the seven years since it was founded as a side project to share messages among a group of friends, it has become the de facto newswire for the planet. And, unlike the recognised newswires (Reuters, AP etc), it is available to everyone, which is why even governments sometimes now use it to release news before they give it to mainstream media.
But Twitter also has the capacity to turn "ordinary" people into broadcasters, a development whose implications we are only just beginning to digest. The hapless folks who retweeted false allegations about Lord McAlpine, for example, did not realise that they were in the broadcasting business. And the tweetstorms of bile and aggression directed against women in recent months have led to vociferous demands for the company to regulate what passes through its servers.But Twitter also has the capacity to turn "ordinary" people into broadcasters, a development whose implications we are only just beginning to digest. The hapless folks who retweeted false allegations about Lord McAlpine, for example, did not realise that they were in the broadcasting business. And the tweetstorms of bile and aggression directed against women in recent months have led to vociferous demands for the company to regulate what passes through its servers.
Which brings us to politics. One of the most striking aspects of the epoch-making Commons debate on Syria was the way many MPs cited the emailed opposition of their constituents to armed intervention as a reason for voting against the proposed action.Which brings us to politics. One of the most striking aspects of the epoch-making Commons debate on Syria was the way many MPs cited the emailed opposition of their constituents to armed intervention as a reason for voting against the proposed action.
In the United States, members of Congress told much the same story. It's impossible to know whether MPs and congressmen were using constituents' hostility as a way of legitimising their own, private, views, but their protestations gave a dramatic new twist to an old conundrum: are parliamentarians representatives (legislators who make up their own minds) or mere delegates (people who vote as instructed by their constituents)?In the United States, members of Congress told much the same story. It's impossible to know whether MPs and congressmen were using constituents' hostility as a way of legitimising their own, private, views, but their protestations gave a dramatic new twist to an old conundrum: are parliamentarians representatives (legislators who make up their own minds) or mere delegates (people who vote as instructed by their constituents)?
Edmund Burke famously raised the question in a speech to the electors of Bristol on 3 November 1774. "Government and legislation," he said, "are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination; and what sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion; in which one set of men deliberate, and another decide; and where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the arguments?"Edmund Burke famously raised the question in a speech to the electors of Bristol on 3 November 1774. "Government and legislation," he said, "are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination; and what sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion; in which one set of men deliberate, and another decide; and where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the arguments?"
In Burke's time, when Bristol was two days' ride from London, the idea that constituents might determine the votes of their MP in Westminster in anything resembling real time was moot. So deliberative democracy was the only option available.In Burke's time, when Bristol was two days' ride from London, the idea that constituents might determine the votes of their MP in Westminster in anything resembling real time was moot. So deliberative democracy was the only option available.
MPs' recent rationalisations of their votes suggest that some of our politicians have embarked down a slippery slope. Technologies such as Twitter, which offer real-time tracking of public opinion, do make Burke's nightmare realisable. Which means that a company that can regulate expressions of that opinion might be very powerful indeed. And that should make us nervous.MPs' recent rationalisations of their votes suggest that some of our politicians have embarked down a slippery slope. Technologies such as Twitter, which offer real-time tracking of public opinion, do make Burke's nightmare realisable. Which means that a company that can regulate expressions of that opinion might be very powerful indeed. And that should make us nervous.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.