After reading the text, I would define a “digital public” as a sphere in which individuals come together to discuss, identify, examine, and possibly even debate problems that are occurring in society on the Internet rather than doing so face-to-face. When individuals are online, they can feel as though they’re a part of the public spheres in lots of ways. For example, they can join networks and/or social media sights that connect them with others from across the globe, like Tumblr. On Tumblr, they can post freely, submitting blog posts about ideas, situations, crises, and so on. It’s possible for individuals to reply and to reblog these posts, which creates more interacting publicly.
However, there are cases in which people participate online without wanting to a be part of the public or public sphere. A good example, I think, is when people make a Facebook account. Generally individuals make a Facebook account to interact with others but only a limited amount and certain type of people. They choose who they want to interact with by friending certain people and accepting requests from particular people. Also, they select settings that restrict what other people see on their profile, even the individuals they’re friends with. For instance, you can hide your birthday to the public and your friends too, make it so that the public cannot click on any of your photos (including your profile picture), and more. Profiles can be made completely private, limiting who sees what on your profile.
Reading this text has helped me believe it is important to differentiate the “digital public” from the “digital community.” From my understanding, a digital community can be limited to certain people or groups, which relates to the idea of private or public Facebook profile. On the other hand, a digital public encompasses all the digital communities because it is the process and idea of digitally discussing/debating/sharing the information within the public sphere.