The extent to which digital cultures constitute a Public Sphere on social media varies depending on the platform used and the nature of interaction of the audience. The public sphere has been defined by Holub (1991) as “a realm in which individuals gather to participate in open discussions.” This concept has been widely studied and applied to different political, educational, communication and sociology sciences. This has helped in informing the data associated with online behaviour and interaction of diverse individuals across different digital cultures as they commune online, for a common purpose, that they believe in even when they are offline. The Public Sphere concept was originally introduced by Jürgen Habermas, a German philosopher and sociologist, in his 1962 book, ‘The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere.’ According to Habermas, the public sphere is a mainelement of modern societies. The theories informing what constitutes a public sphere have informed key texts especially as pertains to Social Media use and its rise to popularity over the past decade. The study of digital communities is a fairly new concept that has informed several levels of social-economic and political discourse. Rather than approaching this concept in isolation from the in-person physical communication platforms where ethnographic research is easily identifiable and collected, it is best to approach the public sphere as an identifiable virtual or imaginary community that is an extension of a physical one (Brodin, 2007). Thus, the Public Sphere has continuously evolved to accommodate the various views of individual thought as representative of the opinions of the collective group. It is necessary to state that when creating public opinion several factors are involved that ensure the well-functioning of the digital community. While these factors do represent the general interests of the digital community, they are ultimately the collective combination and synthesis of individual thought. Users of the internet have created digital profiles that they navigate continuously for various reasons as they seek to fit into a public sphere. This has led to a new shift in the digital culture of internet users who can be found in various ‘online tribes’ or ‘digital communities.’ Popular Social Media sites like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, TiKTok and others, are used to virtually communicate with all kinds of audiences. Within these digital communities, users communicate through sharing information in the form of posts that are text, images, designs, videos or animation. According to Cela (2015), “virtuality serves as an inducement mean for the users in the social network to be near the participators in the process of communication.” Depending on the available features of the platform, a more directed approach to engaging with digital citizens can be attained especially in the case of running online social campaigns. While particular social media online campaigns can achieve notable results on one platform, say Twitter, it is necessary to cross-post and engage users across multi-platforms like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube among others, with a similar message tailored for their specific needs. The benefits of using multi-user platforms with the same messaging allows for a wider reach through creative and personalized content. This creates a public sphere with communities that are loyal, informed and have the know-how of how to interact digitally. This relational aspect of communicating online creates a virtual environment that appears to bring remote users closer to one-another. Moreover, social media has become one of the primary means of communication and connection today. While these platforms have evolved to become more personal in the nature of connections than what was originally intended, they have a lot to offer in regard to building new interpersonal relationships. According to Riva (2016) “You can use social media in order to achieve two goals: social support and self-expression.” The responsibility to create a digital profile that portrays the persona of a user, determines the relationship or connection they are trying to develop online. There has been no better time than the pandemic season to see and experience the various ways people have built online relationships. It’s notable that technology can gather large numbers of people online through livestreaming and virtual communications. This alludes to the idea that computer-mediated communication in the absence of the physical and face-to-face interaction, is both beneficial and detrimental depending on the personality of a user. This means that for the outgoing extrovert, the in-person gathering is a great way to maintain relationships and create new friends while for the quieter introvert, the virtual gathering removes the quite limiting aspect of public in-person interactions. Consequently, “social channels can provide a fruitful opportunity to interact socially and improve interpersonal relationships but if used in an introverted way they can alienate the individual from any form of communication” (Riva, 2016). While online communities and interactions are remotely managed, we see an extension of the in-person interaction mimicked online. However, the most rewarding experiences and interactions between online users are those that are a combination of both in-person and online. This is because the web doesn’t have the ability to replace face-to-face dialogue, but it is able to support an idea’s elaboration (Thijssen, 2013). Thus, the elements of digital cultures that constitute public spheres are embedded in content that is shared and that the affects real-life situations of individuals. This is seen through the impact that social media online interactions have on the physical reality of its users when offline. This is the nature of a functioning digital community that has evolved into a public sphere.
