Digital platforms are the new public spaces, functioning as modern versions of public houses; however, they lack many of the foundational principles that defined public houses in twentieth-century America and elsewhere in the world. Public houses embodied freedom of entry, speech, and social presence-people could sit, read, eat, drink, and converse freely.
Entry was open to anyone who could afford even a minimal expense. Now, such public houses can be seen in the movies, only where people used to enter freely, gossiped, drank and enjoyed public gatherings. These spaces functioned as individual as well as collective trend builders by serving as the cultural exhibitions of one’s land and people, and ultimately homogenising culture and opinion as well. But all this happened with the opinion of the people without any intervention of the powerful authority. The authority intervened only in case of any misdoing at the public house. Another important model of public space existed in rural societies, particularly in village centres, where people gathered around a hubble-bubble, exchanged gossip, shared opinions, discussed social issues, and even resolved village disputes. In such rural public spaces, many friendships were formed by dissolving the enmities in an environment of love and fraternity. Consequently, these characteristics and the style of functioning of such public spaces, in the towns and villages, made them immensely popular and frequently visited public spaces.
In contrast, contemporary social media platforms are equally popular and widely accessed but lack freedom even at the level of entry. One cannot comment, react, or express an opinion without first possessing an email account, let alone enjoy unrestricted freedom of discussion. Privacy-once safeguarded by traditional post-office communication, even-is largely absent on social media.
Moreover, constant surveillance regarding who posts what transforms these platforms into mechanisms of public monitoring rather than arenas of free expression. This undermines the very purpose of public spaces. Existing only in digital form, these platforms lack physical presence and social immediacy. They may suit users accustomed to digital interaction, yet they fail to represent the lived realities of embodied human beings.
The current public spaces are more profit-earning platforms rather than platforms for the promotion of free opinion.
In the twenty-first century, these spaces have been assigned a new role: opinion formation. While they ostensibly exist for the expression of individual viewpoints, in the hands of powerful magnates and institutions, they have become tools of opinion-making. False and fabricated trends are initiated, followed by thousands, and eventually normalised through mass repetition. Consequently, artificial opinions acquire the status of hyperreality, shaping passive minds into accepting them as truth. The modern philosopher Noam Chomsky famously described this phenomenon as manufacturing consent. Through this process, the media disseminates propaganda that appears authentic at the mass level. When such narratives reach social media, they are repeated, amplified, and circulated at such speed and scale that belief is formed through sheer volume and visibility.
The capitalist further intervenes in this phenomenon, not only to get his own benefit but also to contribute to manufacturing opinion through his advertisements. He pays a huge amount of money for these advertisements, which are highly persuasive in nature. In return, social media sells its members to him. Profit is earned in both ways, but the genuineness of public opinion is compromised.
Moreover, many of the channels in social media have become monetised, and so the content is being uploaded by the users not as opinion but to attract views by hook or by crook, which again doubts the genuineness of opinion and more of a profit-mongering attitude. Thus, the current public spaces are more profit-earning platforms rather than the promotion of free opinion. This manipulation and manufacturing of the public is also tilted for a particular purpose or a person through the media brigades of the political parties and the powerful social magnates. This has led to trolling and ridiculing on a very vast level, and hence damaged the ethics of working as a healthy and positive institution.
Historically, public houses were introduced as part of the democratic process, enabling people to participate freely in social and political life. Social media initially inherited this democratic promise; however, participation within these digital spaces is now heavily conditioned. These conditionalities transform the process into a corporate mechanism in which individuals unknowingly labour not for their own benefit but for the profit of platform owners. The spirit of democracy also dies down when social media is manipulated by the powerful to their own advantage. There is no harm in convincing the people to vote for them, but it is a big danger to democracy that people may be forced to accept a particular opinion rather than expressing their own.
The fundamental purpose of social media should be to allow the public to express opinions freely and independently, thereby making these platforms genuinely democratic spaces where public sentiment can be studied to inform people-oriented policy shifts. If social media is to function as a true space for public expression, it must promote freedom alongside ethical guidance and a shared moral framework.
The writer is a professor of English at Government Emerson University, Multan. He can be reached at zeadogar@ hotmail.com and Tweets @Profzee