How platforms, algorithms and AI are affecting visibility in today’s public sphere.
he rise of the digital age has made it possible for almost anyone, anywhere, to share information with an audience in a matter of seconds. In today’s world, more people than ever can publish news, share footage and take part in public discussions, just with their phone. This has made citizen journalism a familiar part of social media.
But having a platform doesn’t guarantee visibility. While social media allows for many to post news related content, it is the algorithms that seem to increasingly decide which stories are seen or which are never discovered. This is because entertaining or bold content often gains more attention, meanwhile other voices struggle to have the same reach.
Online visibility matters because it’s not just about viral content; it directly shapes how public discussion takes place in the digital age. Public discussions are an integral part of our society as it allows people to talk about shared issues, hear opinions and perspectives and challenge those in power.
Citizen Journalism and the Public Sphere
This idea of a shared space for discussion comes from Jürgen Habermas and is often described as the public sphere [1]. Rather than a physical location, the public sphere is a shared space where the public can discuss and debate important issues. It is made up of journalists, professionals and regular citizens engaging with public issues. Habermas argued that for democracy to work, people need a public sphere where they can speak and be heard, and where important issues can be debated on equal terms rather than influenced by status or power.
In online spaces, citizen journalism has become one of the main ways public discussions now take place. Writing for The Circular, Ernie Beggs links citizen journalism directly to Habermas idea of public discussion, arguing that when people are able to share information online it can help keep public debate active.
“Alternative journalism online elicits an optimistic reappraisal of Habermas’ theory of the public sphere; a sphere where state and corporate authority is publically monitored through informed and critical discourse by citizens.” [2]
Citizen journalism gave the people a voice outside of traditional news outlets, offering new a way to widen discussion and give citizens a chance to take part in important arguments. Through social media and digital platforms, people can now share information, experiences and opinions alongside professional journalists and challenge those in power. This has allowed for much public debate to take place online[3].
As citizen journalism has grown, social media platforms have become central to how news is shared and consumed. In an article published for Irish Tech News, Oscar Michael states that social media has changed how journalism works by allowing news to travel faster than ever before. Stories can now be shared instantly, sometimes reaching audiences before traditional news outlets have reported on them. This has made journalism more open and interactive, with professionals and citizens all competing for attention within the same platforms. Michael also points out that journalism now exists within a constant flow of posts and opinions.
Person on Social Media. Source: Pexels
This has created a media environment where we are more connected than ever before. Media scholar, Stuart Allen has said:
“Nowadays we are living in a world that has become radically interconnected, interdependent and communicated in the formations and flows of the media.”[4]
Who Gets Seen Online?
However, while citizen journalism allows more people to contribute, visibility on social media is unpredictable and not all content reaches the same audience. Some posts can gain attention quickly, while others can remain unseen. This makes us question how public discussion actually circulates online and whether all voices can have the same opportunities to be heard.
For many people involved in citizen journalism, this uneven visibility can be frustrating and confusing. Two similar posts may receive very different levels of attention, with little indication as to why one circulates wider than the other. Without resources or reach, citizen journalists often rely on chance, timing or platform dynamics to gain visibility.
This affects not only who is heard but what kinds of stories are shared in the first place. Content that is quick, emotional or visually entertaining may be more likely to gain engagement, while slower more complex discussions struggle to compete for attention. This means the public sphere is not only defined by access, but also the conditions under where debates take place.
While more people than ever are able to contribute, the ability to reach wider audiences remains uneven, raising questions about how open and inclusive public discussion truly is. One of the main factors affecting content visibility on social media is how platforms use algorithms to organise and prioritise content. Algorithms exist because there is too much content online. No person could ever see all of it, so platforms use algorithms to sort through this content. Algorithms don’t tell people what to think, but they do influence what we see.
They decide which video appears first on your TikTok ‘for you’ page or which post you see first
when you open your Instagram. They can decide what stories go viral and which fade away and go unnoticed[5].
Woman receiving likes & comments. Source: Pexels
Algorithms, AI and Visibility
With so much information available all at once, algorithms play a key role in shaping what content gains attention and what quickly disappears. For citizen journalism, this means that simply posting content is not enough to guarantee that it will reach a wider audience. While anyone can upload content, whether it is seen often depends on how it performs within these algorithmic systems. It’s all about engagement metrics, like views, shares, likes, comments and a high follower count.
As a result, some citizen journalistic content gains significant attention, while other posts struggle to travel beyond small or local networks. An article published by Tech Policy Press highlights how this complicates the idea of the public sphere online, as visibility is often influenced by popularity rather than equal participation. If some posts are seen by thousands of people while others are barely seen at all, then not everyone has the chance to be part of wider discussions[6].
Algorithms are also becoming more complex as platforms increasingly rely on automation and artificial intelligence to manage the volume of content being shared, as discussed in an article published in The Loop. Decisions about what content is promoted, restricted or removed are often made automatically, with users given little insight into how those choices are made[7]. AI systems are not only used to recommend content, but also to flag, moderate or remove content that is seen as violating platform rules. This show us once again that decisions about visibility are automated and with limited human input.
For citizen journalists, this can add another layer of uncertainty as content can be boosted or removed without a clear explanation, making it difficult for users to understand why some posts reach wide audiences and others don’t. So, while automation can allow platforms to handle vast amounts of information efficiently, it reduces the transparency around visibility decisions.
But AI isn’t just being used to help sort through content. The introduction of GenAI tools, such as ChatGPT, seems to have taken the world by storm. In Ireland, recent figures from the Central Statistics Office (CSO) show that 42% of people surveyed had used some form of Generative AI (GenAI). These tools have allowed for human-like content to be produced, like images or videos. Because of this, it can be difficult for users to judge what information is reliable and it also adds a layer of uncertainty.
Another factor shaping the digital public sphere is the level of awareness that users have of how they systems are influencing what they see. While social media platforms are now a primary space for public discussion, many users may not fully understand how algorithms and automated system work. This lack of awareness can make it harder to question why certain content appears repeatedly, while other perspectives remain less visible.
When uncertainty about what is real and what isn’t takes over, it can change how people engage with public discussion, which can affect the overall credibility of the public sphere. If users are unsure whether content is reliable, they may become more cautious about sharing information or taking part in public debate. Over time this could potentially narrow public discussion, as many people would choose to rely on familiar, established sources, rather than engaging openly in a wider sense.
Trust and Public Debate in the Digital Age
Academic research has a lot highlighted these concerns. Mahony Chen notes that the increasing use of artificial intelligence in journalism has:
“raised growing concerns around credibility and manipulation within digital media environments.”[8]
In many cases, not all influence on public discussion online is intentional. Writing for Lawfare, analyst Angelo Toma points out that algorithmic systems can shape public debate in subtle ways, often without a clear goal, and as we know these systems can influence which topics gain a lot attention and which discussions remain largely unseen.
Social media on display with ‘fake news’ in hand Source: iStock
Because of this, difficult questions are raised about who is actually responsible, if anyone, for how public debate is shaped online. When discussions are influenced by systems operating at such a scale, it becomes difficult to identify where influence really begins or who should be held accountable for its effects. The challenge for the public sphere is not only about visibility and trust but also about having a system in place where power is distributed equally across platforms.
Citizen journalism continues to play an important role in public discussion by allowing more people to participate in debates that were once dominated by traditional media outlets. In many ways, we can see that it still reflects Habermas’ idea of a public sphere, where citizens can speak openly, hear one another and challenge those in power.
“The public sphere lives from the spontaneous contributions of citizens” – Jürgen Habermas
However, digital spaces where this discussion now takes place are increasingly being shaped by platforms, algorithms advanced by artificial intelligence.
While these systems help manage the scale of online content produced, they also influence which voices are heard most and which are easily overlooked.
As a result, participation alone is no longer enough to guarantee meaningful visibility within the public sphere.
The question then, is not whether citizen journalism is still being heard but whether we are hearing the right debates and if the conditions of this digital public sphere allow it to function openly and fairly as intended. As online debate continues to evolve, understanding how visibility, trust and influence are shaped will remain central to how public discussion takes place in the digital age.
[1] Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge Polity.
[2] View (2021). Habermas’ theory of the public sphere. [online] The Harney Scoop. Available at https://caoimheharney.com/2021/02/10/habermas-theory-of-the-public-sphere/?utm_source=chatgpt.com#_ftn1 [Accessed 9 Jan. 2026].
[3] Nah, S.,Luo, J., Gülşah Akçakir, Wu, X., Nam, G. and Kim, S. (2024). Revising citizen journalism scholarship in the Web Era (1994-2023): Past present, and prospect. Journalism. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849241247972.
[4] Allan, S. (quoted in Iribarren, L.) (2019). The impact of ‘citizen journalism’ on the public sphere. [online] Medium. Available at: https://medium.com/@LeopoldineIL/the-impact-of-citizen-journalism-on-the-public-sphere-c1a5586cdac9.
[5] Gandini, A., Keeling, S. and Reviglio, U. (2025). Conceptualising the ‘algorithmic public opinion’: Public opinion formation in the digital age. Dialogues on Digital Society. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/29768640251323147.
[6] A. Prodnik, J. (2025). Power asymmetries in the algorithmic formation of public opinion. Dialogues on Digital Society. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/29768640251385702.
[7] Dodds, T., Zamith, R. and Lewis, S.C. (2025). The AI turn in journalism: Disruption, adaptation, and democratic futures. Journalism. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849251343518.
[8] Mahony, S. and Chen, Q. (2024). Concerns about the role of artificial intelligence in journalism, and media manipulation. Journalism. 0(0). doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849241263293.