Because of unprecedented facilities new media provide for their users, cyber-utopianism has been a rampant view among many academicians. This optimism about the effects of the new media is not directed to a singly feature of the new media. In fact, as there is not a single agent affecting the human’s life, in this view the different aspects of life is perceived to be affected positively by what these new media give their users.

 Much is made of the democratizing effect of ICTs in e-government (Lor & Britz, 2007). Scolari (2009: 956-957) goes to the point in which he fearlessly claims “weblogs are founded on the free distribution of information. Wikis empower user modification and distribution of digital texts. Even if traditional broadcasting is still the core activity of media systems, the combination of open source philosophy and many-to-many distribution is introducing changes that are transforming the foundations of established mass communication production logic.”

Many feminist scholars appreciate the WWW and other new facilities as well. Sadie Plant (1996) offers perhaps the most prominent and optimistic cyberfeminist visions. Women, computers, virtual reality, and cyberspace, she argues, “are linked together in dispersed, distributed connections—the matrix, which, because of its inherent feminine character, will emerge as the new society that will destroy patriarchy” (Lagesen, 2008: 7).

Halpin (1999: 351) asserts “human rights organizations have been quick to adopt the Internet and it is having a great number of impacts upon their work, creating change, providing new means of campaigning and challenging abuses of human rights.” Chalaby (2000: 19) takes a historical view to say “the nascent book was involved in the struggle for religious freedom in the 15th and 16th centuries, the public press was engaged in the struggle for political freedom in the 17th and 18th centuries, and today’s new media are, in turn, used as vehicles for the advocacy and promotion of new rights.”

Pruijt (2002) focuses on the social capabilities of the networks and appreciates the new media because “Social capital is the spirit of the Internet and also the direction in which its equalizing potentials can be found. It results in an internal drive to chip away at the digital divide. This is an explanation for the Internet’s unprecedented worldwide growth rate. Getting connected means getting access to a stock of social capital. The value of this stock multiplies (exponentially) with the number of participants. At the same time, the ethical formula of the Internet requires participating organizations to help other organizations connect” (p. 113).

Many political scientists, media researchers and other scholars, as well as political activists, believe that this new medium has the potential to fundamentally change societal communication and that, in a nutshell, internet communication makes a better public sphere than have the old mass media These hopes draw heavily on the participatory model’s understanding of ‘good’ public debates (Gerhards & Schafer, 2010: 145). Therefore, proponents of cyberspace promise that online discourse will increase political participation and pave the way for a democratic utopia. According to them, the alleged decline of the public sphere lamented by academics, politicos, and several members of the public will be halted by the democratizing effects of the internet and its surrounding technologies (Papacharissi, 2002). Therefore, celebratory rhetoric on the advantages of the internet as a public sphere focuses on the fact that it affords a place for personal expression (Jones, 1997). Others suggest that the Internet engages citizens in everything “from challenging dominant discourse to cyberdissent and, therefore, allows individuals to fully engage on a broad range of social and political issues” (Rohlinger & Brown, 2009: 133).