Public Intellectuals ant for democracy because it fosters the development of a common will and a collective identity among citi- zens, as well as the legitimacy and rationality of public decisions. Interviewer: Thank you for clarifying your positions. Now, let us turn to the main question of our discussion: How have internet technologies affected the public sphere, positively or negatively, and to what extent have they transformed its structure and function? Young: I think that internet technologies have had both positive and negative effects on the public sphere, and that they have transformed it in significant ways, but not necessarily in the ways that Habermas and his followers have assumed. On the positive side, internet technolo- gies have expanded the scope and diversity of the public sphere, by enabling more people to access and pro- duce information, to communicate across borders and boundaries, to form and join networks and movements, and to challenge and resist dominant discourses and power structures. On the negative side, internet tech- nologies have also fragmented and polarized the public sphere, by creating echo chambers and filter bubbles, by amplifying misinformation and manipulation, by erod- ing the quality and credibility of public discourse, and by undermining the norms and institutions of deliberative democracy. Habermas: I largely agree with Young’s assessment of the positive and negative effects of internet technolo- gies, but I disagree with her implication that they have fundamentally transformed the public sphere. I think that internet technologies have not created a new pub- lic sphere, but rather have modified and diversified the existing one, by adding new channels and platforms for public communication, by creating new opportunities and challenges for public participation, and by generat- 169