![Sample our Language & Literature journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5941/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Language-Literature.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
After being criticized for promoting misinformation in the 2016 US presidential election, Facebook announced a “privacy-focused vision of social media.” Purportedly to decrease misinformation on users’ newsfeeds, these technical and rhetorical reforms moved users away from public-facing areas of the site, funneling them into private groups. Significantly, these reforms created groups organized around opinions increasingly disconnected from strangers’ views. Consequently, these changes facilitated publicities that fostered QAnon conspiracies, militia group recruitment, and right-wing violence. To understand this dangerous radicalization, we make explicit that publics are dependent on the opinions—the doxa—that constitute them. In clarifying that publics are rooted in doxa, we reveal how sociotechnical assemblages—particularly private Facebook groups—are creating what we call adoxastic publics, or publics made up of adoxa: asocial and highly sheltered, improbable, and often disreputable opinions. Specifically, we explore how the affordances of Facebook’s infrastructure divorce participants from encountering strange doxa, the heart of publics, instead promoting discursive stagnation and violent orientations towards others. These adoxastic affordances align with and embolden the rhetorical practices of masculine white nationalism and other dangerous ideologies. We conclude by offering the possibility of endoxastic networks as a productive correction to dangerous and anti-democratic adoxastic social media.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr. Ben Harley, Dr. Trevor Meyer, Dr. Stacey Sowards and the reviewers for their invaluable support in improving this article. We would also like to thank all of those who gave feedback to an earlier version of this paper that was presented at the 2022 RSA conference.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Mark Zuckerberg, “A Privacy-Focused Vision for Social Networking,” Facebook, March 6, 2019. facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/a-privacy-focused-vision-for-social-networking/10156700570096634/.
2 Ryan Mac, “A Kenosha Militia Facebook Event Asking Attendees to Bring Weapons Was Reported 455 Times. Moderators Said It Didn’t Violate Any Rules,” BuzzFeed News, August 28, 2020. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/kenosha-militia-facebook-reported-455-times-moderators.
3 Many of the complaints came from users outside of the group. Mac, “Reported 455 Times.” This suggests that had the groups’ creator chosen tighter privacy settings, the event may never have come to Facebook’s attention.
4 Robert Asen and Daniel C. Brower, “Introduction,” in Counterpublics and the State, ed. Robert Asen and Daniel C. Brower (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2001), 4. See also: Jurgen Habermas. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere into a Category of Bourgeois Society, (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1991).
5 Catherine R. Squires, “Rethinking the Black Public Sphere: An Alternative Vocabulary for Multiple Public Spheres,” Communication Theory 12, no. 4 (2002): 449, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2002.tb00278.x.
6 Robert Asen, “Neoliberalism, the Public Sphere, and a Public Good,” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 103, no. 4 (2017): 329, https://doi.org/10.1080/00335630.2017.1360507.
7 Damien S, Pfister, Networked Media, Networked Rhetorics: Attention and Deliberation in the Early Blogosphere, (State College, PA: Penn State University Press, 2014), 47.
8 Asen, “Neoliberalism,” 341.
9 Pfister, Networked Media, 4.
10 danah boyd. (2010). “Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications,” in Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites, ed. Zizi Papacharissi (New York: Routledge, 2011), 39. While boyd develops this definition specifically towards networked publics, following Carter, we acknowledge that technology is deeply rooted in all rhetorical practice. Therefore, we find this expansion of boyd’s definition to all publics apt. Jonathan S. Carter, “Transindividuating Nodes: Rhetoric as the Architechnical Organizer of Networks,” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 49, no. 5 (2019): 550, https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2019.1671606.
11 Michal Warner, “Publics and Couterpublics (abbreviated version),” Quarterly Journal of Speech 88, no. 4 (2002): 413, https://doi.org/10.1080/00335630209384388.
12 Carolyn R. Miller and Dawn Shepard, “Questions for Genre Theory from the Blogosphere,” in Genres in the Internet: Issues in the Theory of Genre, ed. Janet Giltrow and Dieter Stien (Philadelphia: John Benjamin, 2009), 281.
13 Amber Davison and Angela C. Leone, “From Coercion to Community Building: Technological Affordances as Rhetorical Forms,” in Theorizing Digital Rhetoric, ed. Aaron Hess and Amber Davison (New York: Routledge, 2018), 88.
14 Carter, “Transindividuating,” 561.
15 Davison and Leone. “From Coercion,” 95.
16 For example, Warner includes “public opinion” in a class of contexts that are publics. Warner, “Publics,” 417.
17 When we speak of intersubjective forces, we are recognizing that rhetorical processes are always a negotiation between individual actors, social groups, and technical conditions—each of which shapes the production subjectivities rooted in particular doxa and publics.
18 Eric. A Havelock, Preface to Plato (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), 250.
19 Freya Thimsen, “The People Against Corporate Personhood: Doxa and Dissensual Democracy,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 101, no. 3 (2015): 491, https://doi.org/10.1080/00335630.2015.1055785.
20 Scott Sundvall, “Without a World: The Rhetorical Potential and “Dark Politics” of Object-Oriented Thought,” Philosophy & Rhetoric 51, no. 3 (2018): 228, https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.51.3.0217.
21 April Flakne, “‘No Longer and Not Yet’: From Doxa to Judgement,” Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal 21, no. 2 (1999): 162, https://doi.org/10.5840/gfpj19992127.
22 A. Freya Thimsen, “The Lessons of Community Rights and Ordinances for Democratic Philosophy,” Philosophy & Rhetoric 51, no. 3 (2018): 265, https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.51.3.0245.
23 Thimsen, “Lessons,” 265.
24 Barbara Cassin and Charles Baladier, “Doxa,” in The Dictionary of Unstranslatables, ed. Barbara Cassin, Emily Apter, Jaques Lezra, and Michael Wood (Princton: Princeton University Press, 2014), 229.
25 For more on adoxa, see: Caddie Alford, “Adoxa,” in A New Handbook of Rhetoric: Inverting the Classical Vocabulary, ed. Michele Kennerly (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2021).
26 While we acknowledge that publics are not discrete things, adoxastic publics rhetorically create an impression of totality. While the rhetorics we dissect may be more accurately described as modes of publicity, the stabilization and discrete notions implied by “publics” better account for the ways that participants experience adoxastic rhetorics on Facebook. Moreover, given their tendency to turn doxa into a totalizing mirror of personal correctness, adoxastic publics are decidedly not counter. Within the presumed universality of adoxa, there is no other valid opinion to be counter.
27 Aristotle, Topics, trans. Hugh Tredennick, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960), 1.10.104a.
28 See: Squires, “Rethinking;” Kyle R. Larson and George F. (Guy) McHendry Jr., “Parasitic Publics,” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 49, no. 5 (2019): 517–41, https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2019.1671986. We acknowledge that Squires theorized satellite and enclave publics as safe spaces for Black communities—often in the form of allowing space for the generation of alternative doxa to dominant publics. However, because these communities may circulate on the technical platforms that foster adoxastic affordances, even they are not immune from the dangerous pull towards adoxa.
29 We use the term Otherize and Others as a demonstration that adoxa render all persons who do not subscribe to them as not strangers, but incommensurate with the adoxastic public. This incommensurability of Others is fostered regardless of privilege or marginalization within other discursive structures. While deliberative theorization built around Habermas and Derrida gives us a range of ways to think of those excluded from the collective subjectivity, from strangers, to outsiders, to enemies, we believe “Otherness”— built around the dehumanization of Othering—most accurately reflects the pull of doxa. For a concise summary of the relationship between Othering and dehumanization see: Sowan S. Park, “Who are these People?’: Anthropomorphism, Dehuminization, and the Question of the Other,” Arcadia 48, no. 1 (2013): 10–11, https://doi.org/10.1515/arcadia-2013-0007.
30 Casey Ryan Kelly, Apocalypse Man: The Death Drive and the Rhetoric of White Masculine Victimhood, (Columbus: The Ohio State University Press, 2020), 77. These features closely align our research with what Larson and McHendry identify as parasitic publics. However, because we believe that adoxastic publicity can refigure any type of public we avoid focusing on this single mode of publicity. See: Larson and McHendry “Parasitic.”
31 “Most Popular Social Networks Worldwide as Of October 2021, Ranked by Number of Active Users,” Statista, January 7, 2022. https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/. We view Facebook as a technical platform that affords particular modes of discourse. However, recognizing that technical conditions cannot be separated from other rhetorical conditions, we also present the discourse of Facebook officials, programmers, and participants, as part of the structure of the normative use of this platform. See Carter, “Transindividuating,” for more on the interrelatedness of these different forces.
32 Amy Mitchell, Mark Jurkowitz, J. Baxter Oliphant, and Elisa Shearer, “Americans Who Mainly Get Their News on Social Media Are Less Engaged, Less Knowledgeable,” Pew Research Center, July 30, 2020. https://www.journalism.org/2020/07/30/americans-who-mainly-get-their-news-on-social-media-are-less-engaged-less-knowledgeable/; Elisa Shearer and Jeffrey Gottfried, “News Use Across Social Media Platforms 2017,” Pew Research Center, September 7, 2017. https://marketingland.com/pew-research-center-says-45-americans-get-news-facebook-228001.
33 Ari Levy Salvador Rodriguez, and Megan Graham, “Why Political Campaigns Are Flooding Facebook with Ad Dollars,” CNBC, October 8, 2020. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/08/trump-biden-pacs-spend-big-on-facebook-as-election-nears.html.
34 Levy, Rodriquez, and Graham, “Flooding Facebook.”
35 Will Oremus, “Facebook’s New Philosophy,” Slate, November 3, 2017. https://slate.com/technology/2017/11/could-emphasizing-time-well-spent-fix-facebooks-russia-problem.html.
36 Ryan Cooper, “Facebook is Setting Fire to America,” The Week, February 17, 2021. https://theweek.com/articles/935148/facebook-setting-fire-america?fbclid=IwAR0I_o0Mc6MkI5PMPKlKHVgfea3GMeTRl0PtZjYXvzADkqUDOg7FdC4T3ak.
37 Levy, Rodriquez, and Graham, “Flooding Facebook.”
38 Stranger sociability is but one facet of the development of robust publics. However, as Pfister notes, the willingness to engage strangers engenders the “non-hegemonic commonness necessary for collective action in a democracy.” Damien Smith Pfister, “Technoliberal Rhetoric, Civic Attention, And Common Sensation in Sergey Brin’s ‘Why Google Glass?’,” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 105 no. 2 (2019): 195, https://doi.org/10.1080/00335630.2019.1595103196. Simply put, stranger sociality is what makes publics democratic. Moreover, viewing the stranger as human is necessary to move social exchange beyond the violent identarian silos that underly more illiberal modes of social arrangement. Kelly, Apocalypse, 162. Given this, and the fact that the adoxastic affordances of Facebook seem most explicitly designed to make the stranger invisible and disposable, we focus our analysis on the role of strangers in publicity.
39 Brent Kitchens, Steven L. Johnson, and Peter Gray, “Understanding Echo Chambers and Filter Bubbles: The Impact of Social Media on Diversification and Partisan Shifts in News Consumption,” MIS Quarterly 44, no. 4 (2020): 1619, https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2020/16371l.
40 Kitchens, Johnson, and Gray, “Understanding Echo Chambers,” 1638.
41 “Facebook Fires Employee Who Shared Proof of Right-Wing Favoritism,” KPIX News, August 7, 2020. https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/08/07/reports-facebook-fires-employee-who-shared-proof-of-right-wing-favoritism/#.X0PHH6Gblmu.facebook.
42 John Whitehouse, “Facebook has Repeatedly Caved to Bogus Right-wing Pressure,” Media Matters, July 7, 2020. https://www.mediamatters.org/black-lives-matter/facebook-has-repeatedly-caved-bogus-right-wing-pressure.
43 Craig Silverman and Ryan Mac, “Facebook Cut Traffic to Leading Liberal Pages Just Before the Election,” BuzzFeed News, November 3, 2020. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/facebook-cut-traffic-liberal-pages-before-election.
44 Whitehouse, “Repeatedly Caved.”
45 Kevin Roose, “What if Facebook is the Real ‘Silent Majority’?” New York Times, August 27, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/technology/what-if-facebook-is-the-real-silent-majority.html.
46 Matt Binder, “Zuckerberg Feared Facebook's Conservative Users, So They Received Special Treatment,” Mashable, February 22, 2021. https://mashable.com/article/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-conservative-pages.
47 Brooke Alexander and Monica Anderson, “Social Media Use in 2021,” Pew Research Center, April 7, 2021. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/04/07/social-media-use-in-2021/.
48 Alison Durkee, “Democratic Senators Demand Facebook Answer for its White Supremacist Problem,” Forbes, June 30, 2020. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/06/30/senators-demand-facebook-answer-for-its-white-supremacist-problem/?sh=7e27548e28ac.
49 “Extremists Are Using Facebook to Organize for Civil War Amid Coronavirus,” Tech Transparency Project, April 22, 2020. https://www.techtransparencyproject.org/articles/extremists-are-using-facebook-to-organize-for-civil-war-amid-coronavirus.
50 Salvador Hernandez and Ryan Mac, “Even After the Plot to Kidnap Gov. Whitmer, Michigan Militant Groups Continue to Thrive on Facebook,” BuzzFeed News, October 9, 2020. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/salvadorhernandez/michigan-militant-pages-still-on-facebook?bfsource=relatedmanual.
51 Theodore Hamm, “Facebook Sued over Kenosha Killings,” The Intercept, September 23, 2020. https://theintercept.com/2020/09/23/facebook-sued-over-kenosha-killings/?utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=theintercept&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR0drRpYHC0Fmanijr1WO2CnekMPhaUUvJ8IiTeSUtBb_eb8HlklTn2nfxE.
52 Craig Timberg, Elizabeth Dwoskin and Reed Albergotti, “Inside Facebook, Jan 6 Violence Fueled Anger, Regret Over Missed Warning Signs,” Washington Post, October 22, 2021. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/22/jan-6-capitol-riot-facebook/.
53 Brandy Zadronzny, “‘Carol’s Journey’: What Facebook Knew About How It Radicalized Users,” NBC News, October 22, 2021. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/facebook-knew-radicalized-users-rcna3581.
54 Christopher Miller, “ Hundreds Of Far-Right Militias Are Still Organizing, Recruiting, And Promoting Violence On Facebook,” BuzzFeed News, March 24, 2021. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/christopherm51/far-right-militias-facebook-recruiting-report.
55 Zadronzny, “‘Carol’s Journey’.”
56 Zadronzny, “‘Carol’s Journey’.”
57 Em Steck, Nathan McDermott, and Christopher Hickey, “The Congressional Candidates Who Have Engaged with the QAnon Conspiracy Theory,” CNN, October 30, 2020. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/10/politics/qanon-cong-candidates/.
58 Ari Sen and Brandy Zadronzny, “QAnon Groups Have Millions of Members on Facebook, Documents Show,” NBC News, August 10, 2020. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/qanon-groups-have-millions-members-facebook-documents-show-n1236317.
59 Cooper, “Setting Fire.”
60 Alex Kantrowitz, “Facebook Removed the News Feed Algorithm in An Experiment. Then It Gave Up,” Big Technology, October 25, 2021. https://bigtechnology.substack.com/p/facebook-removed-the-news-feed-algorithm.
61 Whitehouse, “Repeatedly Caved.”
62 See: Pfister, Networked Rhetorics; Jennifer L. Borda and Bailey Marshall, “Creating a Space to #SayHerName: Rhetorical Stratification in the Networked Sphere,” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 106 no. 2 (2020), 133–55, https://doi.org/10.1080/00335630.2020.1744182.
63 Nina Jankowicz and Cindy Otis, “Facebook Groups Are Destroying America,” Wired, June 17, 2020. https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-groups-are-destroying-america/.
64 Importantly, some groups do, in fact, develop important community for participants and communities. Facebook groups have been instrumental in fundraising after disasters, organizing labor action, and providing support to individuals and communities facing mental health crisis. Craig Silverman, Jane Lytvynenko, Lam Thuy Vo, “How Facebook Groups Are Being Exploited to Spread Misinformation, Plan Harassment, And Radicalize People,” BuzzFeed News, March 19, 2018. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/how-facebook-groups-are-being-exploited-to-spread.
65 Zuckerberg, “Privacy-Focused.”
66 David Gilbert, “Here Are All the Facebook Papers Stories You Need to Read,” Vice News, October 26, 2021. https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvngev/here-are-all-the-facebook-papers-stories-you-need-to-read.
67 Gilbert, “Facebook Papers.”
68 Jankowicz and Otis, “Destroying America.”
69 Zadronzny, “‘Carol’s Journey’.”
70 Ryan Mac and Craig Silverman, “Facebook Has Been Showing Military Gear Ads Next to Insurrection Posts,” BuzzFeed News, January 13, 2021. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/facebook-profits-military-gear-ads-capitol-riot; Zadronzny, “‘Carol’s Journey’.”
71 Simon Shuster and Billy Perrigo, “Like, Share, Recruit: How a White-Supremacist Militia Uses Facebook to Radicalize and Train New Members,” Time, January 7, 2021, https://time.com/5926750/azov-far-right-movement-facebook/.
72 Sarah Perez, “Facebook Partially Documents Its Content Recommendation System,” Tech Crunch, August 31, 2020. https://techcrunch.com/2020/08/31/facebook-partially-documents-its-content-recommendation-system/.
73 This focus on engagement is a choice. Platforms like Reddit determine popularity through up vs downvote systems. This prioritizes collective opinion over shock value and radicalization. Kitchens, Johnson, and Gray, “Understanding Echo Chambers,” 1619.
74 Tech Transparency Project, “Organize Civil War.”
75 The reporters who found this post noted that it remained active the entire time they were working on their story. Hernandez and Mac, “Even After the Plot.”
76 Sam Biddle, “Facebook Allowed Advertisers to Target Users Interested In “White Genocide” — Even in Wake of Pittsburgh Massacre,” The Intercept, November 2, 2018. https://theintercept.com/2018/11/02/facebook-ads-white-supremacy-pittsburgh-shooting/.
77 The aforementioned test account did not join any of the recommended QAnon groups. Despite this, QAnon group content became a presence on the account’s newsfeed—despite the fact that many of the pages violated Facebook policy. Jankowicz and Otis, “Destroying America.”
78 Zadronzny, “‘Carol’s Journey’.”
79 Kevin Roose, Mike Isaac and Sheera Frenkel, “Facebook Struggles to Balance Civility and Growth,” New York Times, January 7, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/24/technology/facebook-election-misinformation.html.
80 Mac and Silverman, “Gear Ads.”
81 Mac and Silverman, “Gear Ads.”
82 Mac and Silverman, “Gear Ads.”
83 Zadronzny, “‘Carol’s Journey’.”
84 Sam Dean, “Facebook Decided Which Users Are Interested in Nazis — And Let Advertisers Target Them Directly,” Los Angeles Times, February 21, 2019. https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-facebook-nazi-metal-ads-20190221-story.html.
85 Jeremy B. Merrill, “Facebook Makes a Decision: Microtargeted, False Political Ads Are Fine,” Quartz, January 9, 2020. https://qz.com/1782316/facebook-says-microtargeting-and-false-political-ads-are-fine/.
86 Casey Newton, “How Facebook Rewards Polarizing Political Ads,” The Verge, October 11, 2017. https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/11/16449976/facebook-political-ads-trump-russia-election-news-feed.
87 Kelly, Apocalypse, 75.
88 Mac and Silverman, “Gear Ads.”
89 Ryan Mac and Craig Silverman, “Here’s how Facebook failed Kenosha,” BuzzFeed News, September 3, 2020. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/facebook-failed-kenosha.
90 The fact that 455 posts drew no response is particularly shocking since the next highest reported page that day received 18 complaints. Mac, “Reported 455 Times.”
91 Russell Brandom, “Facebook Chose not to Act on Militia Complaints before Kenosha Shooting,” The Verge, August 26, 2020. https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/26/21403004/facebook-kenosha-militia-groups-shooting-blm-protest.
92 Kelly, Apocalypse, 161–62.
93 Mac and Silverman, “Failed Kenosha.”
94 Tech Transparency Project, “Organize Civil War.”
95 Casey Ryan Kelly, “White Pain,” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 107 no. 2 (2021), 212, https://doi.org/10.1080/00335630.2021.1903537.
96 J, M. Berger, “Our Consensus Reality has Shattered,” The Atlantic, October 9, 2020. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/year-living-uncertainly/616648/.
97 Warner, “Publics,” 417.
98 Pfister, Networked Media, 193.
99 Asen, “Neoliberalism,” 329.
100 Kelly, Apocalypse, 94.
101 Jankowicz and Otis, “Destroying America.”
102 Larson and McHendry, “Parasitic,” 533.
103 Kevin Roose, “The Making of a YouTube Radical,” New York Times, June 8, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/08/technology/youtube-radical.html.
104 Zeynep Tufekci, “YouTube, the Great Radicalizer,” New York Times, March 10, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/opinion/sunday/youtube-politics-radical.html.
105 Roose, “YouTube Radical.”
106 Tony D. Sampson, A Sleepwalker’s Guide to Social Media (New York, NY: Polity Press, 2020), 15.
107 Tufekci, “The Great Radicalizer.”
108 Joseph Karbowski, “Complexity and Progression in Aristotle’s Treatment of Endoxa in the Topics,” Ancient Philosophy 35 no. 1 (2015), 78, https://doi.org/10.5840/ancientphil20153515.
109 Warner, “Publics,” 417.
110 Karbowski, “Complexity,” 93.
111 Aristotle, Topics, 1.1.100b21-23.
112 Pfister, “Technoliberal Rhetoric,” 195.
113 Pfister, “Technoliberal Rhetoric,” 196.
114 Asen, “Neoliberalism,” 342.
115 Kelly Cobiella, “Denmark De-Radicalization Program Aims to Reintegrate,” Not Condemn, NBC News, May 24, 2015. https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/denmark-de-radicalization-n355346.
116 Roese, “YouTube Radical.”
117 Matthew Rozsa, “Twitter Is Actually Doing A (Relatively) Good Job Limiting Right-Wing Misinformation, Study Finds,” Salon, October 27, 2021. https://www.salon.com/2021/10/27/twitter-is-actually-doing-a-relatively-good-job-limiting-right-wing-misinformation-study-finds/.
118 Kevin Roose, “Inside Facebook’s Data Wars,” New York Times, July 14, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/14/technology/facebook-data.html.
119 Jankowicz and Otis, “Destroying America.”
120 Warner, “Publics and Counterpublics,” 417.
121 Asen, “Neoliberalism,” 331.
122 Arnold Pacey, The Culture of Technology (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1983), 10.
123 Laura Stein, Speech Rights in America: The First Amendment, Democracy, and Media (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2006), 118.
124 Stein, Speech Rights, 30.
125 G. Thomas Goodnight, “The Personal, Technical, And Public Spheres of Argument: Speculative Inquiry Into the Art of Public Deliberation,” Argumentation and Advocacy, 48 (Spring, 2012), 199, https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2012.11821771.
126 Alford, “Adoxa,” 101.