[kandu]

Most developed countries are democracies, and democracy means that governments should obey the will of the people. The exercise of democracy means aggregating social information, and this is so easily done now through the internet. However, the use of internet for exercising democratic rights seems very limited. Why it is so? Why people spend more time on Facebook than on a political social network where the opinions they share could have direct positive impacts on those aspects of their live that depends on government and legislation?

[gurkendoktor]

> Why people spend more time on Facebook than on a political social network

I would guess: Because time spent on Facebook is relaxing, whereas most internet discussions feel like a drunk fist-fight without winners. (Of course, that may be the nature of democracy itself.)

[lucasdailey]

Currently there are really only indirect ways to influence governments, and weak ones at that. Like I lay out in the article I think you really need a lot of pieces in place to make a political social network have enough political strength to foster mass adoption and substantial political relevance.

[snowwrestler]

Most developed countries are representative democracies, and the will of the people is expressed primarily in their choice of leaders through elections.

In the U.S. at least, the Internet plays a very large and growing role in elections. In fact I would argue that in the most recent election, the Internet scored a decisive win over TV ads--the most effective political tool for the past 40 years.

Once officials are in office, they can be petitioned (lobbied), and again the Internet plays a major role in how unions, associations, nonprofits, etc. organize their grassroots to do that.

Keep in mind that "Internet" means more than Web; in the case of politics, email is still king.