Social Networking Services in Service of Democracy – Chosen Case Studies

The author undertook to define the role of the social networking services and their meaning for democracy, especially in those countries lacking democracy. At the beginning of this analysis the following questions were formulated: To what extent are the social networking media able to change and/or create democracy? What possibilities for the citizens do they offer? What characterizes a community created by the social networking services? How permanent and valuable is it in the context of the quest for democracy and its strengthening? Answering these questions shall allow for making conclusions precious particularly for those who would like to make use of social networking services in order to promote democratic values.


Introduction
The beginnings of democracy date back to 6th century B.C. and it first appeared in Greece.
The term "democracy" consists of two words: demos (people) and "kratein" (to rule), referring to "rule of the people". There are two ways of thinking about this notion. First of them applies to defining a political system of a country in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by all of them, while the other refers to the way in which the democratic system functions, based on the rules of freedom, equality, justice and development possibilities (Król, 1989: 5;Zwoliński, 2010). In the age of universal access to the informationdue to the Internetchanges in many areas have been noticed, concerning society, culture, and politics as well. Among others, people start to ask questions about the understanding of democracy in the era of the new media.
Therefore, the aim of this article is to try answering the questions: What is the value of the social networking services in the context of media and political systems? How do these services influence the politics and media? To what extent are the social networking services able to change and/or create democracy? What possibilities for the citizens do they offer?
What is their role in the political communication? How is democracy understood in the age of the Internet? What are the elements characterizing a community created and maintained by social networking services? In order to answer these questions, first the focus was put on defining the notion of social networking services, which is clear and unequivocal. Next, after analyzing the reference literature, the concept of network community was described, aiming at determining, whether one can really say about the community of the network and the community-forming role of the social networking services. Finally, the way of understanding democracy in the Internet was presented, followed by a reflection on the notion of freedom in the social network. Such an arrangement of the article chapters shall, according to the author, allow for proper evaluation of the social networking services significance in the context of creating and strengthening the democratic system, particularly in the countries struggling with communism or socialism, as well as those where freedom of speech and expression is limited in any way. media, benefiting as much as possible from their information and communication possibilities, whichin excessis obviously disadvantageous to the receiver and does not verve well his development. Nevertheless, the commercial profits are here enormous.
However, it is worth pointing out that the personalization of the media might also be understood as a process of cumulating data, regarding the way in which one uses the web, the result being Internet information (appearing particularly in the search engines) adequate to the user"s interests, which are created e.g. on the basis of his search history. As such, this is information on the user himself (his interests, views, expectations), as well as about his methods of using the Internet, which is not insignificant in the context of the national security, since a profile of a user of any nationality can be created very easily.

Social Networking Services -Space for a Community
Apart from playing an important role in the areas of information, communication, entertainment, education and upbringing, the social networking services also participate in the process of creating communities and societies. The term "community" denotes close relationships among people, which result from "the existence of certain commonly accepted focal point, e.g. generally accepted religion" (Mikołajewska, 1989: 11). According to F. Toennies, a community is basically characterized by blood, brother ship and neighborhood relationships, and people joining together according to their personality typesgetting thus involved into emotional relationshipsa community is about persons, as opposed to an organization, dominated by factual and rational connections (Sztompka, 2002). "Society", on the other hand, is a large and clearly distinguished form of living in a group, whose members are guided spontaneously by natural laws, creating thus cultural values, behavioral patterns and forms of activity. B. Szacka writes, that the basic circumstances for a community to develop is its existence for generations and, subsequently, having common norms and values, which make up the culture (Szacka, 2003: 184), while social group denotes "a set of people having a common characteristic or just accidentally existing in the same place or undertaking the same activity in the same time, or evenjust a number of people" (Kozłowska, 2006: 188-189).
Since the beginnings of the Internet and the mediated communication, the definition of the web community or virtual community has been discussed. First of all, some questions appear: can we say about socializing" (Graszewicz and Lewinski, 2011: 22).
The opinion above is supported by many researchers (Poleszczuk, 2010: 34). Their cautiousness towards the integrating function of the Internet influences as well the judgment concerning the role of the web in the area of democracy. Since we cannot say about an Internet community, it is difficult to prove the web to be a potential danger for the existence of real national community. According to the idea described above, the real community is more permanent, while the virtualmore ephemeral and global (beyond borders, one tradition and history), and as such extremely difficult to be described purely in the terms characterizing a real society or community.
However, there are researchers convinced about the existence of the web society or virtual society and they defend their stance. In order to describe the societies created in the web, M.
Klimowicz suggests using one of the following terms: "virtual communities", "web communities" and "Internet communities" (Klimowicz, 2008: 83). With regard to the social media they seem to be adequate and precise enough, because the phenomenon described thus is understood as a society created on the basis of global relationships in the virtual space (Stalder, 2006: 10-13).
In the context of democracy it is also worth taking into account the dangers connected with web communities. They result from comparing the Internet to "the Wild West, i.e. the general American pattern of conquering and managing the space. The no man"s land located "between" areas having owners is in many places desolated and becomes ruined. So the computer and Internet user is at the same time a navigator and an explorer of such places" (Sierocki and Sokołowski, 2011: 27;Olcon-Kubicka, 2008). This situation results in different dangers, particularly for the internal security of the countries, but also for the national culture and tradition.
However, there are advantages as well. The Internet (especially social networking services) might be a good instrument allowing for realizing various projects (also the international ones), organizing initiatives, which are righteous but not necessarily supported by e.g. local government. In the context of democratization of the web or participation of the social networking services in supporting democracy, one should ask the following questions: To what extent is this web-based civic participation authentic? Do the people using the web to popularize freedom understand and appreciate? How do their activities correspond with the basic principles of democracy, i.e. individual liberty, equality before the law and protection of ownership? Further on the author shall try to answer these questions.

Democracy in the Internet
Democracy is understood as a political system, in which basic human laws are respected and circumstances necessary for their implementation are provided (Piwowarski, 1993). In order to grasp its essence better, it is worth referring to the history.
In the first democratic territory ever, the "demos" meant the Athenians. Every citizen of Athens was a free man having a right to vote. In order to limit the number of the eligible voters, in 451 B.C. it was decided that an Athenian citizen is only a person born to Athenian mother and father both. The citizens could express their will through voting on all kinds of issues. The law was written down and kept in archives or carved in stone. Ignorance of the law did not excuse breaking it. The Greek democracy was of the so-called direct type. The name itself derives from two Greek words, demos (people) and creatos (to rule), which means direct rule of the people, direct participation of the citizens in the making public decisions, e.g. through referendum or plebiscite (indirect democracy allows for making public decisions or choices also against the will of the voters). Significant elements of the "first" democratic system were discussions of two types. First of them was a kind of speech directed to the people, while the othera political discussion led in front of the tribunal and concerning a particular act. Particularly strong element of the Athenian political system was the model of local democracy. Its secret was the civic consciousness of the absolute necessity of participating in public life as an expression of concern for the common good (Vidal-Naquet and Brisson, 2007: 13-47).
Due to the Internet one can talk about the direct democracy, hence the web space has been Above others, the new media affect very strongly their own sector, changing thus the media system (Jedrzejewski, 2009: 143). It was commented very aptly by B. Ociepka, who says that: "The large-scale use of the new technologies influences changes in media system and the receivers" behavior. But the legal systems concerning the media are not able to keep pace with these changes, which results in delayed introduction of regulations concerning functioning of the new media. The new technologies also force changes concerning the media ownership.
The best example is the satellite and cable TV broadcasting, which resulted in elimination of the barrier in the form of lack of free frequencies for all those who wanted to broadcast radio and TV programs" (Ociepka, 1999: 150). The new media also become the main source of the media convergence, which is a characteristic of the modern media market and a result of the diffusion of among others the information, telecommunication and media markets (Adamski, 2012: 150-195).
The new media also shape the politics (the way of exercising the power), but also they determine the participation of the citizens in making national key decisions or serve the defense of civic rights. Therefore, the idea of democracy in the Internet can be analyzed in three ways.
First of all, democracy in the Internet can be understood literally, as an electronic democracy.
This is another issue difficult to be defined, because of the high dynamics of the Internet and broadening of "the field of activity run by the institutions and subjects existing before" (Gulda, 2005: 116). However, one could conclude, that this term determines the influence of "the ICT on the political processes and the phenomenon of connecting the computer technology with the political processes" (Nowina Konopka, 2006: 83). Then it would mean a new form of political communicationusing new technologies to exercise power, i.e. "using the electronic webs for creating a more direct form of democracy" (Porębski, 2001: 47).
Electronic democracy understood in this way includes among others: online debates, eadministration, online voting.
In this context, the role of the electronic media was aptly described by J. Sobczak, according to whom (Sobczak, 2007: 336): above all, they function as "agents and initiators of the communication between political system institutions and the citizens",  -Karg, 2009: 212;Nowak, 2011;Jakubowicz, 2010;Hofmokl, 2009).
The question of democracy in the Internet can also be approached and interpreted form other perspectivenoting how powerfully does is the Internet influence the public opinion, and views of the society which shape democracy or determine the lack of it. Above all, the media described as the fourth estate fit into the protection of democratic system. Of course, this role is assigned primarily to the public media. However, it is quite different in practice. In the context of Polish public media, J. Jastrzębski notices that "There are growing fears of manipulation and misinformation, based on the awareness of the economic and political involvement of large media corporations. General suspicion of the media which define themselves as independent is intensified by the media commercialization, concentration and non-transparent ownership, as well as by the links with the big money. It is generally sensed that the media represent to a lesser extent the cognitive interest of the common man as well as needs of various social groups and society treated as a community united by group goals and aspirations. Alienation of the media in the developed countries and mature democracies is expressed by the visible decline of trust: people are inclined to believe in state administration rather than in the media. This means a deep crisis of the democratic media doctrine, assuming the media to be an institution that watches and controls the doings of the authorities, as well as organizes the public opinion. Such functions of the media as informing and commenting are in decay, giving up the place to pervasive entertainment" (Jastrzębski, 2011: 34;Magoska, 2009: 67-73).
Therefore, public media leave much to be desired. Their weakening influence on the community might be one of the reasons for the growing popularity of the social media, social networking services in particular. Here at least the citizen is able to express his view, having at the same time access to the information not necessarily appearing e.g. in the TV news.
The third approach to the idea of democracy in the Internet is related to the use of the webbased instruments for the purposes of social activity in aid of fight for democracy, such asabove allthe social networking services used by common citizens who do not exercise authority but are interested in the political and social situation of the nation.

The Definition and Understanding of the Freedom in the Social Networking Services
The attributes of democracy are freedom and sovereignty. It is worth discussing these notions in the context of the social networking services. There are numerous definitions of freedom.
For Descartes it was the source of human dignity, and, as such, the basis of "self-respect". In Hegel"s time a distinction of two types o freedom appeared: negative liberty ("freedom from something"from external restraint, like war, hunger, fear etc.) and positive liberty ("freedom to do something"), where the stress is on the possibility of making a choice and one"s right to something. But in case of both individual and collective freedom the truth appears as a task. And the first and basic step towards fulfilling it is receiving the truth, which according to St. Thomas Aquinasis rooted in the rational order (Maryniarczyk, 1997: 313).
Freedom approached in this way has a lot on common with the freedom related to a state.
Therefore, the sovereignty of a nation is nothing else but independent and therefore unimpeded exercising of the authority within a state"s territory. One can differentiate between the internal sovereignty (decisions and activities of the authorities and independent from internal relationships, organizations, institutions etc.) and external sovereignty (in dependence in the context of making decisions concerning a state behind its borders). In case of democracy, apart from the authorities the guarantor and the object of the sovereignty are also the people. Ma on decydujące znaczenie i możliwości w kreowaniu demokracji, a przede wszystkim w podtrzymywaniu jej w świadomości i organizacji politycznej i społecznej (Canovan, 2003: 7-70;Schmitt, 2000: 33-60;Maritain, 1993: 35-61).
were called to go take to the streets mostly through the social networking services. It was there where substantial debates went on for days and nights, organizational issues were discussed. This made the citizens feel strong and united (just like they felt in case of the protests against ACTA). the influence of the social movement is the result of the ability of concentrating the significant resources on just few problems, skipping at the same time the others" (Stalder, 2006: 218). Therefore the success of social movementsin the web or beyond itwould be based on the capability of associating around a concrete problem, in order to fight in unison for some rights. For the state authorities such an unanimous and determined voice seems to be very dangerous and more difficult to subdue, not even to mention manipulating it.
The social networking services are increasingly described and "the fifth estate" (Cooper, 2006;Ward, Wasserman, 2010: 282). The traditional media (TV, press) often are referred to as the "estate" and even more often as "the first estate". Such positioning of the media is not meaningless, for the democratic system in particular. According to the classical thought of K.
Popper "Democracy depends on screening the political authorities in a certain waythis is the basis of democracy. In a democratic system there must not be a single authority not subject to control. Nowadays, the television became an extremely powerful authorityperhaps the most powerful one of all of themalmost appearing to replace the voice of God.
And this process is going to continue if we go on allowing this authority for malpractices. In the democratic system, the television has been granted too much of power. None of the democracies shall survive if we do not stop this omnipotence (Popper, 1996: 50-51).
Contemporarily, these words refer mainly to the Internet, which "due to its capacity, speed and potential availability becomes a medium of great significance for the development of the direct forms of democracy and transnational levels of the public" (Ociepka, 1999: 162).
Therefore, it seems and urgent task to analyze the idea of democracy in the context of the Internet possibilities (particularly the web communities, integrating via the social networking services). P. Bielawski reminds that "the way in which the media function is not only a showcase of the democratic system, but also has a great influence on its content" (Bielawski, 2010: 24). According to W. Pisarek, when properly located within the democratic society, the mediaalso the new mediaallow us for comprehending the scheme of authorities. He also claims that the exercising of power should follow the scheme: a problemdecisionactioneffectsevaluation done by the media (Pisarek, 2007: 176). At present, however, such a scheme is rather rare. The media try to influence the receiver already on the decision-making level, usurping thus the right to serve as the "first power" (Jastrzębski, 2007: 29).