The concept of the public sphere was first explained by Habermas, who emphasized that citizens in this neutral space between a private domain and a sphere of public authority were expected to behave “with freedom to express and publish their opinions – on matters of general interest”. Although the public sphere should remain neutral, Habermas argues that it is facing decline, especially with the improvement of the media. Many authors raise this concern and highlight different aspects of it. Therefore, this essay will focus on how new media influences the public sphere. By evaluating three articles, the critical review implies different positions on the impact of new media on the public sphere. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why violent video games should not be banned"?Get the original essayIn "The Virtual Sphere: Internet as a Public Sphere," Papacharissi argues that even if new technologies are easily accessible, "displace the political debate towards a virtual space excludes those who do not have access to this space. This means that normally every citizen should have the opportunity to participate in the public sphere, but in the virtual sphere this is not possible for everyone, because not everyone has access to the Internet. Therefore, this situation becomes similar to Habermas' proposition about the decline of the public sphere because of the bourgeois, given the fact that it was mainly white bourgeois men who participated in the discussions, while for example women were excluded. The similarity here is clear when Papacharissi points out that online technologies are accessible and used by a fairly limited number of people and that this availability of new media is comparable to Habermas' idea discussed above. In other words, this accessibility to the Internet "by a small fraction of the population contributes to an exclusive, elitist and far from ideal electronic public sphere", which suggests that it is not so opposed to the public sphere bourgeois public of previous centuries. . It is also stated that "new technologies facilitate broader, but not necessarily more diverse, participation in political debate since they are still only accessible to a small fraction of the population." However, some authors believe that “the Internet is an easily accessible medium with low barriers to entry”. However, Papacharissi's article was written 16 years ago, which means it is outdated and may not apply to the concept very well, as internet access has become much more available from nowadays, but not only Papacharissi, but also Kruse et al in “Social Media as a Public Sphere? Social Media Policy” agrees with the statement that for some people it is not so easy to use new technologies and the Internet: “Even if membership to social media sites is free , a device and/or an Internet subscription are too expensive for some. » . Although Kruse et al at one point indicate that open access to the Internet is essential to the development of better political discourse online. Accessibility to new technologies is not the only problem concerning authors. One of the reasons the Internet has a negative impact on the public sphere is that people do not speak out because of fear. Kruse et al. argue that sometimes users may be hesitant to honestly express their opinions about, for example, their political knowledge "for fear of online harassment and the potential effect this has ontheir employment or their relationships with family and friends.” This means that some people don't want to affect their bond with someone they care about, because sometimes showing their point of view can lead to conflict. Some individuals do not “self-censor” their opinions when they participate in a discussion anonymously. Papacharissi also agrees with this idea, saying that "online anonymity helps overcome identity boundaries and communicate more freely and openly, thus promoting a more informed exchange of ideas." Even if people have the option to participate in a discussion anonymously, not everyone is willing to try, even though "the Internet has the potential to expand the public sphere, at least in terms of the information made available." the disposition of the citizens”. Kruse's, Lisa M. et al “Social Media as a Public Sphere? Politics on Social Media” expands on Habermas’s idea of ​​hegemony in the public sphere. Habermas implies that in modern times the public sphere barely exists due to the importance of money and power within the mass media. Not only money, but also the opinions of citizens, supposedly more powerful, can prevent others from expressing themselves. Aside from that, “the media inadvertently defines which issues are newsworthy and deserve public attention.” Kruse et al argue that in this case, "civil discourse in search of truth is certainly not taking place" and that "social media does not revitalize the public sphere because the conditions required for a public sphere are absent from social media ". Thus, according to Kruse et al., it appears that there are many reasons why the public sphere in new media does not actually function as it should, and given that this article is recent, it can be assumed that the public sphere is still witnessing a decline and that is why this article is useful in understanding the impact of new media on the public sphere. Harper, in “The Big Data Public and Its Problems: Big Data and the Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere” agrees with the concept and states that people who fragment the public “are very happy to make normative judgments charged with power over who and what should be included in the conversation. This problem becomes essential when we talk about the impact of the media on the public sphere, when the public sphere, as indicated above, should be a neutral place where every citizen can express themselves. In his article, Harper points out that new media and big data are primarily used not to improve the public sphere, but to gather information about "personal interests, demographic information and purchasing behavior" and to track " media consumption. When this is done, it is easier to structure people and ensure that different messages reach different people, and this is due to "the ability to target (and tailor) media messages based on our values and pre-existing beliefs”. However, this fragmentation, according to Papacharissi, has a negative aspect, as she asserts that "as the virtual mass subdivides into smaller and smaller discussion groups, the ideal of a public sphere that connects many people in line escapes us.” Terje and Goldfarb also write that the structuring of publics implements an unstable discourse platform and reduces the unity of individuals in the public sphere. Harper also talks about the fragmentation of audiences created by Big Data and argues that it "has ushered in a new structural transformation of the sphere.