Researching myself in circles/Provocative Post

I am currently writing a research paper about physical vs. digital public spaces. As part of that research, I'm looking into the merits of each, what does one offer that the other does not? Which is more effective when it comes to contributing to public discourse? Questions that I am really unable to answer stemming from the fact that most of my research is somewhat superficial and have only spent the last month investigating this broad topic. All I can offer is my own opinion and experiences which is what will follow in this post.

I don't really feel as though I operate within the public sphere… be it in the physical or digital sense. I do not attend townhall meetings or interact with people at Starbucks (see previous post) and discuss the current socio-political state of USC, California, the US, the World... And I believe that this blog is a testament to my lack of active/effective participation in the digital sphere. Honestly, both require a great deal of effort, time, confidence and really, knowing the right people to make my voice heard. I have had a level of experience with both. In High School I used to debate topics of “national importance” (I put this in quotations because it was for a mock government program) where I actually would discuss these topics with my peers from a fairly diverse background. And again, this blog is my attempt at digital participation.
Although there are different manifestations of the public space, that is the digital and physical, I believe that the obstacles of accessibility and of being heard exist almost on equal levels in both manifestations. I have argued in a previous paper that the internet allowed for mass mobilization among latino immigrant groups in Los Angeles. Such an event is fact and was documented in a dissertation by a USC student. While the dissertation examined the way these groups utilized social media to gain access to the discussion of how they are treated, I’m not entirely convinced that such an achievement is entirely indebted to the Internet. Social movements similar to this have, of course, occurred in the past, to a relatively high level of success. However, I will contradict myself by saying that in this particular case, in which personal videos taken of a riot where collected via the Internet allowed this group to circumvent traditional media forms (the evening news) to present their point of view. Something most likely impossible 30 years earlier. At the same time, this movement depended on an activist group to initiate this change and take the necessary steps to begin this mobilization process.
This post seems to be going nowhere (a symptom of the point I’m at in my research) but what I’m trying to outline is that access is still a central issue to political participation whether it takes places in the digital or physical realm. The Internet is not intrinsically open to all who wish to use it nor does it automatically give the participant a loudspeaker to enter the dominant/hegemonic discourse. There is a level of expertise and standing required to amplify that voice (seen in the activists groups mobilization of the individuals who took videos and America’s Representational democracy.) All that I have been able to discern from my research…and my opinion on this matter is that the Internet is merely and alternative to the physical, offering certain technological advantages such as user generated video, but is largely subject to similar issue facing the physical public sphere, access and voice.