Skeptics of the Internet argue that deliberative democracy will suffer as the Internet becomes more widespread. They contend that the Internet will foster the decline of public interaction because more people will go online to communicate with family and friends rather than actually visit them. They also believe that the Net's ability to filter diverse ideas will result in group polarization (Ulen 2002). According to Sunstein, the Net

significantly lowers the costs to individuals of finding and gathering information on almost any topic; but this ease also creates a strong demand for methods of filtering this information... [which] may insulate more and more people from exposure to new ideas and to ideas that may question or conflict with their own. [Consequently] this increasing filtering may foster the phenomenon of group polarization, in which the ideas of those in a self-defined group drift toward the ideas of the more extreme among the group. (Ulen 2002, p. 1)

Sunstein claims that the Internet, which is intended to be a medium of communication and a forum for the exchange of ideas, can actually "diminish the scope of shared social experiences that serve to bind societies together" because of its potential to isolate and polarize individuals (Ulen 2002 p. 1). If Sunstein's argument holds up, this could have adverse effects on social capital (connections between individuals through social networks), norms and trust that facilitate coordination for mutual benefits.

Furthermore, cynics of the Net are not convinced that this technology will have the capability to construct "bridges" between different sorts individuals, as the supporters of the Internet advocate. They argue that the "faceless and anonymous nature of computer-mediated communication... [will instead] have a negative effect on an individual's level of social capital" (Harwood and Lay, 2001 p. 4). According to the skeptics, the Internet does not facilitate social capital because features such as e-mail only maintain pre-existing ties and do not create new ones (Ibid. p. 9). They maintain that off-line weak-tie associations, such as interacting with neighbours and participating in public activities, have greater "bridging" power than online communication, which only reinforce a common interests and not diverse points of view. Harwood and Lay therefore conclude that Internet discussions "do not provide the individual with the reciprocal nature necessary to foster bridges between weak-tie interactions. People are 'alone together' on-line, not really interacting with one another" because, according to them, virtual communication consist of many monologues rather than dialogues (2001, p. 17).

Although these skeptics make an interesting argument, it is not a convincing one. They advocate that one of the main set backs of the Net is that it can result in group polarization due to the ease of filtering information. The fact is that individuals who do surf the web regularly cannot fully isolate themselves from the outside world. They are still forced to interact with individuals outside the sphere of the Internet, whether it be through shopping, taking public transportation or the car to get gas. Every day events require some form of communication with others, where filtering cannot be effectively enforced (Ulen 2002, p. 6). According to Ulen, "the only instances of all-consuming, total experiences of that sort of which I am aware are slavery and concentration camps before and during World War II" (Ibid.). But even those "total institutions" developed some norms and institutions of the outside world (Ibid.). It is therefore virtually impossible to isolate oneself completely from all external influences.

There is also convincing evidence that Internet users are actually more tolerant of diverse viewpoints than non-users (The 2000 General Social Survey in Ulen 2002), because of their access to a myriad of information on the Web, exposing them to various perspectives. Although some individuals might join on-line groups that share similar interests, or utilize filters to block unwanted information, this does not prove that these individuals completely isolate themselves from opposing viewpoints. The fear of group polarization as a result of the Internet continues to be pure speculation, and is not supported by any conclusive empirical data. Pippa Norris has found that although "participating in online communities could be expected to reinforce like-minded beliefs, similar interests, and therefore ideological homogeneity among members (2002, p. 2),... the results show that overall contact with online groups was believed to serve both functions [bonding and bridging], but the experience was slightly stronger for reinforcing bonding..." (Ibid. p. 4). For example, an individual might join a cancer support group to find others with similar feelings and problems, but that does not mean that that person only uses the Net to connect with people who are like them. This same individual could also use the Web for 'surfing' to find out about other diseases, or join chat rooms to meet a potential mate. The Internet is a window to numerous opportunities, and it is very unlikely that users will only use the Net for a single purpose; the capabilities of the Web are endless and humans are intrinsically curious. Therefore, despite the fact that individuals might use the Internet to seek out other users with similar interests, this is not the sole purpose of the Web, and the majority of these same users will make an effort to actually broaden their interests and in effect "bridge" their social capital.

Numerous studies have been done in the recent past to test the impact of the Internet on socialization. A study completed by Kraut et al. in 2000 concluded that the Internet's main use was for communication. "Over 90% of people who use the Internet in a typical day in 2000, sent or received e-mail, far more than used any other online service" (Kraut et. Al, 2001, p. 2). This communication included contact with family, friends, neighbours, and social groups. Kraut is optimistic that the Internet with time will, "increase people's social involvement..., facilitate the formation of new relationships, social identity and commitment among otherwise isolated persons, participation in groups and organizations by distant or marginal members, and political mobilization" (Ibid.). This study concluded that the effects of the Internet on interpersonal communication and community involvement were negligible or positive.

Participants who used the Internet more had larger increases in the sizes of their local and distant social circles and their face-to-face interaction with friends and family increased. They also became more involved in community activities and felt greater trust in people... (Ibid. p. 8).

In conclusion, this research proved that the Internet has a positive correlation to social capital as defined by Putnam, as it increases people's social network and promotes communication.

Two of the most avid researches of the influence of the Internet on social capital are Keith Hampton and Barry Wellman. In a three-year study from 1997-2000 they compared "wired" residents to "non-wired" residents of "Netville" (a pseudonym for a wired neighbourhood in suburban Toronto). Unlike many previous studies, they analyzed the totality of people's relationships (in person, by phone, and on the Internet), not just online. This placed the Internet within the context of everyday life, rather than in isolation. The key finding of this study was "that living in a wired neighborhood with access to a high-speed local network encourages greater community involvement, expands and strengthens local relationships with neighbors and family, and helps maintain ties with friends and relatives living farther away" (ASA News, Aug. 11, 2000). The residents of this community participated more in social activities, including barbecues and picnics, and were generally more interested and informed of each others' lives. As well, the high-speed connection enabled members of the community to keep in touch with distant family and friends on a regular basis. Hampton and Wellman refer to this combination of global and local activities as "glocalization". They also reported that " the Internet can encourage the resurgence of the civic involvement that has been argued to be in decline in the western world" (Ibid.). The ASA News enumerates the findings of this study, but these are beyond the scope of this paper, the details however can be found on their Web site. According to this study therefore, the Internet augments social capital because it facilitates interaction and can be used as a tool to create new bridges while strengthening the already existing bonds.

The Internet has simply re-defined the meaning of a social community, which is no longer only found locally, but also in cyberspace where people can find each other through e-mail, bulletin boards (BBS), group distribution lists, role-playing games and Web chat rooms. According to Hampton and Wellman, a community is defined by "the sociable, supportive, and identity-giving interaction... not the local space in which they might take place" (1999, p. 2). Relationships extend beyond the realm of a neighbourhood and include a personal network of friends, relatives, and coworkers that can expand across the city or around the world (Ibid.). The "Netville" study suggests that "the Internet supports a variety of social ties, strong and weak, instrumental, emotional, social and affiliative. Relationships are rarely maintained through computer-mediated communication alone, but are sustained through a combination of online and offline interactions" (Ibid. p. 12). The Internet simply enables individuals to broaden their community and to maintain ties outside their own vicinity.

On-line interaction can build and foster relationships, sometimes more so than face-to-face communication. People use the Net to connect with individuals from all across the globe and all walks of life; something that is often impossible if not at the very least extremely difficult otherwise. The Internet has made the world a much smaller planet, facilitating communication across different time zones and continents. The Web allows me personally to keep in touch with my family and friends in various parts of the world, from North America to Asia, very cheaply and regularly. I would have lost touch with numerous individuals was it not for the advent of this technology. I could not possibly overstate its importance. It is not feasible to purchase a plane ticket on a weekly basis to allow for face-to face interaction, but it is possible to still keep in weekly contact via e-mail or chat. The Internet has also helped me to strengthen weak ties. There are individuals that I have met briefly in person, but after exchanging e-mail addresses the acquaintances evolved into true friendships, and now we make the effort to see one another despite the long distance. As Michael Strangelove wrote:

The Internet is not about technology, it is not about information, it is about communication - people talking with each other, people exchanging e-mail... Communication is the basis, the foundation, the radical ground and root upon which all community stands, grows, and thrives (In Putnum, 2000, p. 171).

I completely agree with Strangelove, because from my personal experience I have found that the Internet strengthens my social capital by facilitating communication with others, especially those with whom it would otherwise not be possible.

Overall the Internet has the ability to connect people cheaply, regardless of the distance. It is now even possible to attend funerals and weddings online, so distant relatives and friends who would otherwise miss the event can now participate. The Net allows people to be more actively involved in each other's lives; even if it is through a "virtual" world, this is still better than no interaction at all. According to Putnam, "computer-mediated communication allows wider, more efficient networks that strengthen our ties to the social world and increase our 'intellectual capital,' for information can be shared at virtually no cost" (2000). Whether it be through "virtual" gatherings, e-mail, or chat, the Internet is a communication medium.

The question many academics are asking, however, is: will this increased online communication displace face-to-face communication? I believe that just as the telephone has proven with time to complement face-to-face interaction, so will the Internet. I have based this conclusion on the findings of numerous studies as well as my own personal survey, where many respondents concluded that the Internet is simply a tool of communication, but cannot and will not actually replace more personal interaction that occurs with physical contact.

Another advantage of text communication via the Net is that it limits the possibility of discrimination, while promoting heterogeneity online. "The Internet strips away the standard visual and aural cues of social identity - including those of gender, race, age, and socioeconomic status... where 'no one knows that you are a dog on the Internet'" (Norris 2002, p. 3 - incl. Holmes 1997). This anonymity is especially significant for "marginalized populations who are otherwise isolated from cultural interactions outside of their group, such as single mothers working at home, gay men, or rural populations" (Ibid.). Virtual communities, therefore could actually be more egalitarian than real-life interactions, making cyberspace more democratic (Putnam 2000, p. 173). "Women, for example are less likely to be interrupted in cyberspace discussions" (Ibid.) than in face-to-face meetings. The invisibility of individuals in text-based communications inhibits pre-conceived prejudices, enabling the creation of heterogeneous ties and actually 'bridging' traditional social divisions. Heterogeneous local associations have been linked to increasing social capital, creating interpersonal trust, and strengthening community ties (Norris 2002), in the future this could also prove to be the case for such communities online. Therefore, the invisibility of individuals online is actually an advantage because this will facilitate establishment of heterogeneous communities online and consequently increase the overall social capital of the participants.