Hösl, Maximilian
A icle — Published Ve sion
Seman ics o he in e ne : a poli ical his o y
In e ne His o ies
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
WZB Be lin Social Science Cen e
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Hösl, Maximilian (2019) : Seman ics o he in e ne : a poli ical his o y, In e ne
His o ies, ISSN 2470-1483, Taylo & F ancis, London, Vol. 3, Iss. 3-4, pp. 275-292,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/24701475.2019.1656921
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/203261
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
Seman ics o he in e ne : a poli ical his o y
Maximilian H€
osl
WZB Be lin Social Science Cen e , Be lin, Ge many
ABSTRACT
The his o y o he In e ne has been na a ed many imes.
Howe e , poli ical his o ies o he In e ne wi h a non-US-cen ic
ocus a e s ill an uncha ed esea ch a ea. This pape con ibu es
o closing ha esea ch gap. I econs uc s he In e ne ’s his o y
in Ge many h ough he lens o seman ic changes in p ess co e -
age on poli ics. In ou in es iga ion, we sough o analyse seman-
ic change as a poli ical his o y by d awing on insigh s
conce ning he ela ionship be ween seman ic change and poli -
ical con lic om he pe spec i e o discou se heo y and heo e -
ical e lec ions on poli icisa ion. The s udy ollows ou in ui ion
ha seman ic s uggles o he pas lea e aces in wo d con ex s.
Con e sely, i unco e s seman ic change by ollowing he aces
o seman ic s uggles in hese con ex s. In line wi h his a ionale,
we conduc ed a ‘blended eading’o wo d con ex s ha elied on
a quan i a i ely assis ed quali a i e ex analysis. The s udy inds
ha he In e ne has long been unde s ood p edominan ly as a
ool o poli ics in he poli ical public. In he la e 2000s, i s pe -
cep ion as a highly poli icised objec o go e nance also became
dominan . While he In e ne was always associa ed wi h a
medium and a public sphe e, i s cha ac e isa ion changed om
‘web 1.0’ o a ‘web o co po a ions’.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Recei ed 7 Janua y 2019
Re ised 8 Augus 2019
Accep ed 9 Augus 2019
KEYWORDS
Poli ical his o y; seman ic
change; In e ne ; discou se;
In e ne policy;
digi alisa ion
1. The impo ance o na ional in e ne his o ies
The sound o a modem is s ange. When I g ew up in he 1990s, his sound was one
o he i s hings I associa ed wi h connec ing o he In e ne . Howe e , his pe sonal
acous ic associa ion om my adolescence does no i he no ions mos people ha e
in mind when hey hink o he In e ne oday, such as communica ing wi h iends
on Facebook, sea ching o hings using Google o o de ing p oduc s om Amazon. I,
oo, had nea ly o go en abou his modem sound once so inex icably linked o he
In e ne . I is no only echnology ha changes o e ime – he associa ions be ween
he echnologies we use and ou ideas, p ac ices and pe cep ions o i change, oo. In
o he wo ds, he meaning o echnology changes.
CONTACT Maximilian H€
osl [email p o ec ed] Reichpie schu e 50, D-10785 Be lin.
Supplemen al da a o his a icle is a ailable online a h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/24701475.2019.1656921.
ß2019 The Au ho (s). Published by In o ma UK Limi ed, ading as Taylo & F ancis G oup.
This is an Open Access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion License (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/
licenses/by/4.0/), which pe mi s un es ic ed use, dis ibu ion, and ep oduc ion in any medium, p o ided he o iginal wo k is
p ope ly ci ed.
INTERNET HISTORIES
2019, VOL. 3, NOS. 3–4, 275–292
h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/24701475.2019.1656921
The e is ha dly any sec o o socie y in which hese changes a e mo e ob ious han
in he poli ical ealm. I is wi hin his ealm ha socie ies nego ia e he dis ibu ion o
echnology- ela ed oppo uni ies and isks and espond o hese pe cep ions by c a -
ing public policies. In con o e sies o e In e ne policy, he In e ne has o en been
discussed in e ms o echnology o social space and issues such as child po nog aphy
and su eillance. Ye he his o y o a ibu ing meaning o he In e ne wi hin he pol-
i ical ealm has a ely been he subjec o in es iga ion.
The his o y o he In e ne has been old nume ous imes. Schola s emphasise, o
ins ance, he sociocul u al in luences on he In e ne ’s design and usage (Abba e, 2000),
con ingen his o ical cons ella ions (Cla k, 2016), he In e ne ’s e olu ion o a gene al
pu pose echnology (Naugh on, 2016), he his o y o In e ne - ela ed laws and policies
(Lessig, 2006; Wu, 2011) and no ma i e change ega ding he In e ne (Schulze 2018).
Howe e , as T 
egue (2017) shows, he In e ne ’s poli ical his o y is s ill an uncha ed
esea ch a ea, mos no ably hose pa s o i s his o y ha a e no US-cen ed.
To help close his esea ch gap, we dedica e ou sel es o he case o Ge many. The
s udy ocuses on he econs uc ion o a his o y o meaning a ibu ions o he
In e ne in he poli ical public. Unde s anding his de elopmen is impo an , because
he seman ic changes o a e m a e ins uc i e o poli ical his o y (Koselleck 2004);
his ela ionship is ou s a ing poin .
We hen u n o discou se heo y and concep s o poli icisa ion o de elop a heo e -
ically g ounded idea o wha a poli ical his o y om a seman ic pe spec i e can be.
Nex , we pull oge he hese heo e ical e lec ions and use hem o explain ou quan i-
a i ely assis ed quali a i e analysis. A he cen e o his app oach is a diach onic com-
pa ison o wo d con ex s o ack seman ic changes o he e m ’In e ne ’. Following he
p esen a ion o majo pe iods o change, we u n o he summa y o ou indings and
hei in e p e a ion and discussion in he ligh o exis ing esea ch. On a mo e gene al
le el, he analysis shows a shi om he no ion o ‘web 1.0’ owa ds he no ion o a
‘web o co po a ions’in he poli ical public. Mo e speci ically, we can see a change om
he In e ne being mainly unde s ood as a medium qua poli ical ool o i being inc eas-
ingly unde s ood as a medium qua ool and objec o go e nance.
2. Seman ic change as poli ical his o y
A he hea o his s udy is Koselleck’s(2004, pp. 75–92) insigh ha he change o a
e m’s meaning can be an indica o o social and poli ical ci cums ances. He s esses
he ela ionship be ween seman ic s uggles and poli ical con lic . Thus, s uggles o e
he meaning o he e m ‘In e ne ’can in o m i s poli ical his o y. In o de o econ-
s uc his his o y, he e m in ques ion mus be ela ed o empi ical indings and
ela ed e ms o a gi en pe iod (Koselleck, 2004, p. 75). We u he explo e how
seman ic change can be unde s ood as poli ical his o y by linking a undamen al p op-
e y o meaning wi h ideas om discou se analysis and esea ch on poli icisa ion.
Meaning is ela ional (DiMaggio, Nag, & Blei, 2013, pp. 586–587; To ing 2005,p.
14.). In o he wo ds, he meaning o phenomena, such as signs, objec s, e en s o indi-
iduals, depends on hei con ex ; hey can only be unde s ood in ela ion o o he
phenomena in i s se ing. As he meaning o a e m ha signi ies a phenomenon
276 M. H€
oSL
e ol es om i s usage in language (Wi gens ein, 1953, PI 43), i depends on he con-
ex in which i is used. P o iding con ex is hen an ac o in e p e a ion.
Con ex , howe e , is no an objec i e en i y. Fo ins ance, ac o s may consciously o
unconsciously in e p e phenomena in a way ha sui s hei in e es s o wo ld iews
(see ‘ aming’, Snow & Ben o d, 1998). As he e a e no objec i e con ex s, ac o s o en
engage in seman ic s uggles, ha is, s uggles o e he ‘ alid’con ex ualisa ion o
phenomena. This is e iden , o example, in deba es on gun con ol: is he possession
o guns a h ea o he communi y o a cons i u ional ci il libe y?
Howe e , hese seman ic s uggles do no occu in ‘blank space’. In hese s uggles, ac o s
d aw on discou ses o hei in e p e a ions, o ins ance he secu i y discou se. Discou ses
can be unde s ood as sys ems o s a emen s ha a e ( e)p oduced by p ac ices such
as speaking, w i ing o isualising, he eby a ibu ing meaning o phenomena (see Diaz-
Bone e al., 2007;Haje ,1995;To ing2005,p.14).Theexampleo guncon olisagood
case in poin : gun owne ship can be in e p e ed om a secu i y and eedom pe spec i e.
Seman ic s uggles a e hus no me ely si ua ional s uggles o e he con ex o
phenomena. They a e ‘ba les’in he s uggle among discou ses o dominance. The
dominance o discou ses becomes e iden when he wo ld iew hey imply becomes
commonly accep ed, o i ac o s canno a oid e e ing o hem o be hea d o ecog-
nised socially (Haje , 1995, pp. 60–72, To ing 2005, p. 15). We in e p e a discou se as
a dominan sou ce o meaning a ibu ion whene e ha discou se domina es a phe-
nomenon’s con ex . Some imes, ac o s e en pe cei e one con ex as ‘ ixed, na u al o
essen ial’(Haje , 1995, p. 272, To ing 2005, p. 15).
Howe e , ac o s may poli icise phenomena. They d aw on al e na i e discou ses
and challenge ‘na u al’in e p e a ions o phenomena. This is a o m o poli icisa ion,
as ac o s discu si ely p oduce con ingency (Haunss & Ho mann, 2015; Palonen, 2003).
By making he phenomenon a ma e o seman ic s uggles, hey c ea e unce ain y
and di e si y ega ding i s in e p e a ion; hey c ea e a ce ain openness as o which
in e p e a ions will p e ail. Thus, an al e na i e discou se may o may no gain domin-
ance o e a phenomenon’s con ex . Seman ic change may o may no occu , depend-
ing on he ou come o seman ic s uggles.
Since hese s uggles may occu a di e en le els, i is use ul o conside a sphe e-based
model o poli icisa ion. Hay (2007, p. 79) dis inguishes a non-poli ical ‘sphe e o necessi ies’
om a poli ical sphe e o ‘con ingency and delibe a ion’. In he sphe e o necessi y, phe-
nomena appea o be na u al o as de e mined by a e. Pe cep ions hus appea as i unde
he dominance o a discou se (see ‘ ixed, na u al o essen ial’Haje 1995,p.272).
In con as , in he poli ical sphe e, a ious al e na i e in e p e a ions may be a
s ake. Howe e , seman ic s uggles may occu in p i a e spaces, in public o in he
exclusi e sphe e o poli ical decision-making. Thus, poli icisa ion may also occu when
ac o s ans e phenomena o m he p i a e sphe e o he public sphe e o he go -
e nmen al sphe e (Hay, 2007). As we a e in e es ed in seman ic s uggles in poli ical
publics, we ocus on he in e sec ion o he public sphe e and he go e nmen al
sphe e. In mode n democ acies, hese a e o a la ge ex en media ed publics, ha is,
media shape and d i e he ci cula ion o compe ing discou ses and meaning.
1
Consequen ly, one way o esea ch he poli ical his o y o he In e ne is o ocus
on seman ic s uggles o e he e m ‘In e ne ’in media-media ed poli ical publics,
INTERNET HISTORIES 277
whe e s uggles a e sou ces o seman ic change, elying on compe ing discou ses o
de ining he con ex o social and physical phenomena, such as he discou ses o eco-
nomics, secu i y and eedom.
3. P e ious wo k
Exis ing esea ch sugges s a ious in e p e a ions and discou ses ha may be in ol ed
in seman ic s uggles o e he e m ‘In e ne ’.Fi s , a ious no ions o he In e ne
may be obse ed. Poli ics and policy discou se may compe e o a en ion, ha is, he
In e ne may be seen as a ‘ ool o poli ics’o an ‘objec o go e nance’(Sch€
unemann,
2012). O he in e p e a ions o he In e ne may e e o i s concep ion as an
‘in as uc u e’,a‘public sphe e’,a‘medium’o a ‘cul u e’(Jø gensen 2012, pp.
79–158). Second, speci ic discou ses may s i e o dominance. In he US, Schulze
(2018) sees cybe u opianism compe ing wi h cybe ealism. The Ge man case sug-
ges s s uggles among discou ses o secu i y, economy and eedom. R€
ossle (2001)
ound ha , in he 1990s, news pe iodicals conside ed he In e ne an economic oppo -
uni y, empowe ing he indi idual. In he 2000s, membe s o he execu i e b anch pe -
cei ed he In e ne as a secu i y h ea (Schulze, 2016). By 2011, he main con lic
conce ning In e ne policy, as co e ed by he media, was abou in e nal na ional
secu i y and he p o ec ion o ci izens’p i acy om s a e in e e ence (L€
oblich &
Ka ppinen, 2014). Howe e , hese indings on he Ge man case only spo ligh a spe-
ci ic decade o a pa icula yea , bu hey do no p o ide a his o ical pe spec i e. In
con as , we ollow a diach onic compa a i e app oach ha includes bo h he policy
and poli ics dimensions o he In e ne .
4. F om heo y o da a o analysis
The ocus on seman ic s uggles sugges s changing wo d con ex s as a uni o ana-
lysis. A e u he ou lining his a ionale, we desc ibe he selec ion and pa i ioning
o he ex co pus used o he empi ical analysis. Finally, we explain a blended ead-
ing app oach o co pus explo a ion. Since we can only b ie ly desc ibe he s eps
aken, we e e o he isualisa ion o he wo k low in he online appendix o his
pape o a quick bu de ailed o e iew.
2
4.1. Wo d con ex s as clues o seman ic s uggles
In acco dance wi h ou heo e ical conside a ions, we ega d seman ic change as shi s
in wo d con ex s, whe e con ex is ope a ionalised as wo ds occu ing nea a a ge
e m in a gi en ex (Ju a sky & Ma in 2019, pp. 106-125). As explained be o e, he
In e ne has been subjec o ongoing seman ic s uggles. His o ical s uggles lea e
aces in wo d con ex s in a ious ypes o ex , o example in news a icles.
Con e sely, ou esea ch s a egy iden i ies his o ical de elopmen s and seman ic
s uggles by ollowing he aces obse able wi hin he wo d con ex s o he e m
‘In e ne ’in ex ual da a o e ime.
278 M. H€
oSL

4.2. Poli ical publics: ope a ionalisa ion and da a
Since he public sphe e is o a la ge ex en media-media ed, we ely on media da a.
Unlike social media da a, news a icles a e sui able o ou in es iga ion because hey
a e a ailable o e long pe iods o ime. Howe e , news co e age canno ep esen he
en i e public opinion ega ding he In e ne ; a e all, he e is he pa liamen a y public
o social media publics. Ne e heless, i ‘p o ides clues as o wha eli es a e hinking
and doing’and i ‘bo h e lec s and ep esen s one s eam o in luence in he o ma-
ion o eli e and public opinion’(DiMaggio e al., 2013, pp. 573–574). The e o e, analy-
sing p ess co e age is one way o obse e s uggles o e meaning among eli es, and
i indica es de elopmen s in he b oade public.
The sphe e-based model o poli icisa ion sugges s ocusing on a poli ical public. To
ob ain a p oxy o such a sphe e, we limi ed he Ge man Re e ence Co pus (DeReKo)
o epo ing on poli ics in in luen ial Ge man na ional pe iodicals (De Spiegel,Die Zei ,
S€
uddeu sche Zei ung,die ageszei ung). We elied on he opical classi ica ions o docu-
men s as p o ided by he co pus me ada a. Using his classi ica ion, we il e ed he
co pus o include news on poli ics only. In addi ion, a sea ch que y o he e m
‘In e ne ’(including wo d compounds) u he educed he co pus. A e il e ing, he
co pus encompassed 26,158 a icles co e ing he yea s 1995 o 2016.
3
4.3. The blended eading o wo d con ex s
Ou inqui y oscilla es be ween quan i a i e and quali a i e ex analysis. S ulpe and
Lemke (2016) e e o his app oach as ‘blended eading’. As a i s s ep, we used
quan i a i e ools o explo e he il e ed co pus and o de ec pa e ns. I is a p oced-
u e ha Mo e i (2000) calls ‘dis an eading’in con as o ‘close eading’( eading
ex s in dep h). In a second s ep, we used hese pa e ns o guide he close eading.
The documen -le el analysis, in u n, in o ms he in e p e a ion o he quan i a i e-
le el pa e ns.
This app oach p o ides a means o sys ema ically explo ing and analysing la ge
ex co po a. This add esses he p oblem ha diach onic compa a i e discou se ana-
lysis o en in ol es la ge amoun s o ex (Hamann & Sucke 2018). In addi ion, he
quali a i ely plausibilised quan i a i e indings p o ide indica ions o domin-
an pa e ns.
We s a ed wi h a equency analysis o he e m ‘In e ne ’in he ex co pus o
iden i y pe iods o a en ion. As he co pus is limi ed o co e age on poli ics, his dis-
ibu ion indica es media and poli ical a en ion de o ed o In e ne opics. We hen
pa i ioned he co pus in o subse s in acco dance wi h he iden i ied pe iods. Nex , we
analysed each o hese pe iods o co-occu ence p o iles o he e m ‘In e ne ’. A co-
occu ence p o ile is a anking o wo ds co-occu ing wi h he e m ‘In e ne ’(co-
occu en s) based on he log-likelihood a io o s a is ical signi icance. The window
size o he wo d-associa ion calcula ion was ixed a 10 wo ds a ound he a ge
wo d.
4
The ad an age o his app oach is ha he compa ison o hese p o iles e eals
con ex change o e he iden i ied pe iods.
The wo ds in he p o iles a e aces guiding he quali a i e analysis. These aces
a e ollowed a documen le el, whe e we examine hem as key wo ds in con ex
INTERNET HISTORIES 279
(KWIC), ha is, we look a ac ual ins ances o wo d co-occu ences (Manning &
Sch€
u ze, 1999, p. 31). Theo e ical concep s and in e p e a ions iden i ied by he exis -
ing li e a u e suppo he KWIC analysis. They also help o selec a icles o close ead-
ing. Finally, hey a e use ul o unco e ing dominan and subo dina e pa e ns,
especially ega ding wha we canno obse e in he quan i a i e cons ella ions.
5. A poli ical his o y o he in e ne
In his sec ion, we p esen he indings o he equency and co-occu ence analyses
and hen p esen h ee pe iods o he In e ne ’s poli ical his o y. We i alicise co-occu -
en s o ‘In e ne ’in b acke s, which we can link di ec ly o ia documen -le el analysis
o indings. This does no mean ha all a icles con aining a speci ic co-occu ence a e
solely ela ed o he in e p e a ion s essed in his pape , bu he da a does allow o
such an in e p e a ion. I should also be no ed ha in he ollowing sec ions we ocus
on an a ea o discu si e p oduc ion among poli ical and media eli es. This a ea is no
cong uen wi h discu si e p oduc ion wi hin Ge man socie y a la ge. Howe e , i does
p o ide insigh in majo discu si e shi s.
5.1. Quan i a i e pa e ns: poli ical a en ion o he in e ne and changing
wo d con ex s
Ou analysis o he equency dis ibu ion o ‘In e ne ’in he ex co pus and he
appea ance o wo ds in he co-occu ence p o iles sugges s h ee majo pe iods:
5
(1) a
pe iod o ini ial ise in he poli ical public’s a en ion o he In e ne (up o he yea
2000) and successi e decline, in which mino changes o he wo d con ex o ‘In e ne ’
occu (1995–2003) –37% o he wo ds changed in he op 30 anks o he co-occu -
ence p o iles; (2) a pe iod o eco e ing a en ion, su passing he a e age usage o
he e m ‘In e ne ’in 2006, ma ked by majo con ex ual changes –53% o he wo ds
changed in he op 30 ankings, compa ed o he p e ious pe iod; when compa ed o
he subsequen pe iod he igu e is only sligh ly smalle a 50%; (3) a pe iod o s eep
ise in a en ion om 2007 o 2011, ollowed by a successi e down u n up o 2016. In
his las pe iod, we obse e only mino con ex ual changes: 27% o wo ds changed in
he op 30 ankings. I we compa e he co-occu ence p o iles o he i s and las
pe iods, 73% o 76% o he wo ds changed, espec i ely. Consequen ly, we ind majo
con ex ual changes be ween hese pe iods.
The a ia ions in public a en ion and con ex ual change can be in e p e ed as pe i-
ods o poli icisa ion and seman ic change. We examine his inding mo e closely by
zooming in on he pe iods. The ollowing sec ions s a wi h he dominan iew o he
In e ne ; hey mo e on o i s poli ics and hen i s policy dimension.
5.2. The in e ne as a medium o poli ics (1995–2003)
In he i s pe iod, a poli ics discou se domina ed he con ex o he In e ne . I was
associa ed wi h websi es and compu e s. While many ac o s became awa e o egula-
o y issues ega ding he In e ne , he con o e sies o e hese issues did no ha e
280 M. H€
oSL
much in luence on he wo d con ex o ‘In e ne ’. This began o change in he ea ly
2000s, when su eillance became a mo e salien issue.
6
We ind ha jou nalis s ela ed he In e ne o he no ion o a medium and a public
sphe e. In he 1990s, jou nalis s desc ibed he In e ne p ima ily as a new, global
medium wi h a ne wo k cha ac e [Medium, global, wel wei , Kommunika ion, Ne z]. I is
depic ed as a i ual online space o websi es [online, Websei e, Homepage, i uell].
Use s accessed his space wi h compu e s and ‘su ed’ o e ie e in o ma ion
[Compu e ,su en, In o ma ion]. This cha ac e isa ion o he In e ne s ayed much he
same in he ea ly 2000s, bu i began o become associa ed mo e wi h da a and p ac-
ices such as publishing and dissemina ing in o ma ion [Da um, e €
o en lich, e -
b ei en]. These cha ac e isa ions a e eminiscen o wha O’Reilly (2005) labelled ‘web
1.0’. Jou nalis s e e ed o o he no ions o he In e ne – o example, ela ing i o
in as uc u e o cul u e –bu he co-occu ence p o iles show ha hey did so less
salien ly (Rosen hal, 2000). In e ne in as uc u e, such as da a ansmission p o ocols,
was a mo e salien opic in he go e nmen al sphe e o he 1980s (We le, 1999); his
sugges s ha by he 1990s, i s in as uc u al cha ac e was al eady mo e o less aken
o g an ed. Al hough jou nalis s e e ed o academics and hei s essing he sel -
egula o y cul u e o he In e ne communi y ( az, 1996), explici ly associa ing he
In e ne wi h a communi y had no ye become a ma e o impo ance o he p ess.
The analysis sugges s ha he In e ne was pe cei ed as a new medium o poli ics
in he b oade poli ical public. Poli icians and he go e nmen began o use i o pol-
i ical pu poses [Pa ei, i uell, Homepage, Websi e, S oibe , e €
o en lichen]. In he 1990s,
he use o he In e ne in US poli ics was also a s ong associa ion, especially ega d-
ing he publica ion o an in es iga i e epo [S a , Clin on]. Some poli icians began o
use he In e ne o in e nal pa y communica ion, o communica ion wi h ci izens
and o elec ion campaigning. Jou nalis s compa ed hese e o s (De Spiegel, 1996).
The in e p e a ion o he In e ne om a poli ics pe spec i e con inued o be salien
in he ea ly 2000s. By con as , o he possible in e p e a ions – o ins ance, he
In e ne as a ool o p o es o democ a ic pa icipa ion –did no ha e a simila
impac (De Spiegel, 2000; Sch€
a e , 1999).
Since many pe cei ed he In e ne as a new medium o poli ics, policy discou ses
only had a mino in luence on he wo d con ex o ‘In e ne ’. None heless, jou nalis s
did co e con o e sies ha ini ially e ol ed a ound ques ions o whe he he
In e ne could be egula ed a all due o i s ansna ional na u e, and how i should
be legally de ined. Fede al and s a e poli icians in Ge many s uggled o e his de in-
i ion and, consequen ly, o e ju isdic ional esponsibili y (Da ns €
ad , & M€
ulle on
Blumenc on, 1996; Esslinge , 1996). The In e ne hus en e ed he poli ical public as an
objec o go e nance.
F om ea ly on, con o e sies had a isen o e illegal con en (e.g. child po nog aphy,
poli ically ex emis con en ) and su eillance, bu only he o me le aces in wo d
con ex s o he e m ‘In e ne ’in he 1990s [ ech s].
7
Al hough he p ess did ecognise
he con lic be ween da a p o ec ion and su eillance measu es in he 1990s – o
ins ance, ega ding a p o ision o elecommunica ion su eillance and c yp og aphy –
his con lic only became mo e s ongly linked o he In e ne in he a e ma h o he
e o is a acks o Sep embe 11, 2001 in New Yo k Ci y (9/11) [Da um]. The deba es
INTERNET HISTORIES 281
s essed a key con lic unde lying many In e ne issues ela ing o discou ses o secu -
i y and eedom. In he mid-1990s, a dispu e be ween wo minis ies was emblema ic
o his con lic . Whe eas he Minis e o he In e io demanded ‘de ence measu es’ o
add ess he In e ne ’s‘massi e isk po en ial’(De Spiegel, 1996), he Minis e o
Jus ice pe cei ed he In e ne as a space o eedom ha should be subjec o pe -
sonal esponsibili y (Da ns €
ad , & M€
ulle on Blumenc on, 1996). A concep ion o he
In e ne as a space o chaos ( equi ing o de ) was pi ed agains i s concep ion as a
space o (endange ed) eedom. This key an agonism e-eme ged in succes-
si e pe iods.
5.3. The in e ne as a medium o e o is agi a ion (2004–2006)
In he second pe iod, he e o ism discou se shaped he meaning o ‘In e ne ’. The
In e ne became mo e associa ed wi h sel -publishing p ac ices and ideo con en .
While policy con o e sies a ec ed he seman ics o ‘In e ne ’, i s no ion as an objec
o go e nance was s ill ela i ely subo dina e.
The co-occu ence p o ile shows ha jou nalis s con inued o cha ac e ise he
In e ne as ‘web 1.0’, al hough by now sel -publishing and ideo con en had become
highly associa ed wi h ‘In e ne ’[Video, bloggen]. This obse a ion indica es a change
in pe cep ion owa ds unde s anding he In e ne as ‘web 2.0’(O’Reilly, 2005). Again,
his cha ac e isa ion shows ha he In e ne was s ill p ima ily conside ed a medium
and a public sphe e and ha i was less associa ed wi h o he no ions.
Wi h he e o ism discou se domina ing he co-occu ence p o ile, he In e ne was
o en seen o be a medium o Islamic ex emis s. This con ex ualisa ion was al eady
es ablished in he ea ly 2000s [Al], bu only la e did i become dominan . A e he
mili a y in e en ion in I aq (2003) by a US-led ‘coali ion o he willing’, a pe iod o
ins abili y ollowed in ha coun y [I ak]. Te o a acks ollowed in Mad id (2004) and
London (2005). These e en s ein o ced he epo ing on e o ism. The e o e, he
wo d con ex ep esen s he con lic be ween Wes e n democ acies and Islamic
ex emism. Te o is g oups such as al-Qaeda dis ibu ed ideos o execu ions, s a e-
men s and p onouncemen s ia he In e ne [Al, Mussab, I ak, ia, e €
o en lichen, e -
b ei en, ku sie en, Video]. Thus jou nalis s indi ec ly in e p e ed he In e ne as a ool
o Islamic-ex emis agi a ion –indi ec ly because his in e p e a ion was a by-p oduc
o hei co e age o e o ism and no a p oduc o epo ing on con o e sies o e
ex emis s’In e ne usage. Bu hese seconda y meaning a ibu ions supe seded
many salien associa ions o p e ious pe iods; al hough indi ec , hey p o ided a sup-
po i e en i onmen o ac o s d awing on he secu i y discou se o meaning making.
Rela i e o he no ion o he In e ne as ool o poli ics, he co-occu ence p o ile
sugges s ha i s no ion as an objec o go e nance s ill had no gained mo e ac ion.
Ne e heless, jou nalis s ea ed issues o s a e su eillance mo e salien ly, while ques-
ionable con en appa en ly emained o hei ada . Con o e sies o e su eillance
e ol ed a ound policies on he subna ional, na ional and EU le els [Tele on, online,
Compu e ]. On he subna ional le el, he Ge man Cons i u ional Cou e oked a new
policing ac ha would ha e legalised p e en i e su eillance. The cou saw he ul-
ing as a ma e o inding he ‘ igh balance be ween secu i y and pe sonal eedom’
282 M. H€
oSL
ins i u ionalised in Ge many: p i acy is a no m de i ed om Ge man Basic Law
(G undgese z); da a p o ec ion o ices we e es ablished as ea ly as he 1970s. Thi d, he
pe iod in which he secu i y discou se in e p e a ion o he In e ne became se iously
challenged (2007–2011) is linked o a compa a i ely s ong and ecognised ci il soci-
e y consis ing o long-es ablished ac o s and newe ones in he ea ly and mid-2000s
as well as he empo a y success o he Pi a e Pa y, pa ly acili a ed by he Ge man
elec o al sys em. Fou h, he s ong public ou c y ollowing he Snowden e ela ions is
also case-speci ic and ela ed o he wo pa icula i ies jus men ioned. Howe e , con-
clusions ega ding na ional pa icula i ies need o be subs an ia ed u he by com-
pa a i e analyses o na ional poli ical his o ies o he In e ne .
6. Conclusion
In esponse o T 
egue ’s(2017) conclusion ha non-US-cen ic poli ical his o ies o he
In e ne a e s ill an uncha ed esea ch a ea, his pape aimed o con ibu e o his
ield by analysing he poli ical his o y o he In e ne h ough he lens o seman ic
change in he Ge man poli ical public.
The s udy buil on Koselleck’s insigh s on he ela ionship be ween seman ic
change and poli ical ci cums ances o inqui e in o he poli ical his o y o he In e ne .
I concep ualised his poli ical his o y as a his o y o seman ic s uggles in he poli ical
public sphe e by d awing on discou se heo y and heo e ical e lec ions on poli icisa-
ion. This heo e ical lens sugges ed conduc ing a blended eading o wo d con ex s
o ‘In e ne ’in he p ess co e age on poli ics. This speci ic lens and me hod allowed
us o obse e con ex ual changes o e 26 yea s and o link hem o his o ical de elop-
men s. In doing so, we could add a diach onic pe spec i e o he exis ing esea ch on
he in e p e a ion o he In e ne in he Ge man public sphe e. We also we e able o
link he seman ic changes o ‘In e ne ’ o changes in i s discu si e en i onmen .
As a esul , we ound he discou ses o economy, secu i y and eedom o be a y-
ing in weigh o e ime. Al hough jou nalis s p edominan ly associa ed he In e ne
wi h a medium o poli ics, economic discou se was mo e p onounced in he 1990s;
a e 9/11, he emphasis shi ed o he secu i y and eedom side o he iad wi h an
emphasis on secu i y. F om 2007 o 2011, he secu i y discou se became se iously
challenged; he pe cep ion o he In e ne as an objec o go e nance became domin-
an a he same ime. The an agonism be ween secu i y and eedom con inued o be
in luen ial while he impo ance o he e m ‘In e ne ’dec eased. Ins ead, we see a ise
in he no ion o a ‘web o co po a ions’ ans o ming ‘classic’In e ne policy issues o
add ess online pla o ms. And since 2011, he concep o ‘digi alisa ion’has expe i-
enced a enaissance in he economic pe spec i e on digi al issues.
While pas associa ions be ween he sound o a modem and connec ing o he
In e ne elici nos algia, he ise o he no ion o a ‘web o co po a ions’and digi alisa-
ion ha e mo e a - eaching implica ions. The shi we obse e ega ding he dominan
seman ics o he In e ne and i s discu si e en i onmen limi s he ocus o how we
unde s and he In e ne by d awing a en ion away om al e na i e isions. I limi s
ou capaci y o heo ise ou digi al socie ies in mul i ace ed ways and, acco dingly, he
capaci y o shape ou digi al u u e.
INTERNET HISTORIES 289

No es
1. See appendix, sec ion 1.
2. We used he web applica ion Cosmas II o ou analysis (Belica, 1995). Heye e al. (2017)
inspi ed ou esea ch s a egy; see appendix o de ails on he me hodical p ocedu e
and choices.
3. See appendix o de ails on he selec ion o he da a ype.
4. See appendix, sec ion 6, o de ails on he co-occu ence analysis.
5. See appendix, sec ions 4, 5 and 6, o co esponding ables.
6. Rep ession by au ho i a ian egimes had signi ican in luence in each pe iod examined
[china, chines, Zensu ]; howe e , i was beyond he scope o his pape o include
ha opic.
7. Ea ly deba es conce ned le -wing ma e ial hos ed by he p o ide XS4ALL.
8. Fo ins ance, he Ge man Fede al Cou o Jus ice’s‘au o comple e uling’o 2013 and he
Eu opean Cou o Jus ice’s‘ igh o be o go en uling’o 2014 and he ‘sa e ha bou
uling’o 2015.
9. See appendix, sec ion 7, o some e idence o a mo e gene al shi in he public agenda.
10. See also appendix, sec ion 7, o some e idence o he g owing ele ance o he e m
‘digi alisa ion’ ela i e o ‘In e ne ’.
Acknowledgmen
I would like o hank he membe s o he esea ch g oup ‘Poli ics o Digi alisa ion’a he WZB
Be lin Social Science Cen e o hei ad ice and suppo . I also would like o hank he wo
anonymous e iewe s o hei aluable sugges ions and commen s.
Disclosu e s a emen
No po en ial con lic o in e es was epo ed by he au ho s.
Funding de ails
None
No es on con ibu o
Maximilian H€
osl is a membe o he esea ch g oup “Poli ics o Digi aliza ion”a he WZB Be lin
Social Science Cen e . His main esea ch in e es s a e discou ses o digi alisa ion and o ganisa-
ional change in public sec o o ganisa ions.
Re e ences
Abba e, J. (2000). In en ing he In e ne (3 d ed.). Camb idge, MA.: MIT P ess.
Amann, M., & Rosenbach, M. (2015). Sep embe 19). Los, legen wi Feue . De Spiegel, 39, 39.
Belica, C. (1995). S a is ische Kolloka ionsanalyse und Clus e ing. Ko puslinguis ische
Analyseme hode. Mannheim: Ins i u F€
u Deu sche Sp ache.
Be nau, V. (2012). Feb ua y 1). Sie machen, was sie wollen. S€
uddeu sche Zei ung, p. 20.
Beu h, P. (2018). June 20). Eu opa en ke n das In e ne . Spiegel Online. Re ie ed om h p://
www.spiegel.de
Cla k, D. D. (2016). The Con ingen In e ne . Daedalus,145(1), 9–17. doi:10.1162/DAED_a_00361
290 M. H€
oSL
Da ns €
ad , T., & M€
ulle on Blumenc on, M. (1996). Ma ch 11). De Na ionals aa is €
ube hol . De
Spiegel, 11, 102–104.
Da ns €
ad , T., Ho nig, F., M€
ulle , M. U., & Rosenbach, M. (2009). Augus 10). eihei @unendlich.
wel . De Spiegel,33,68–81.
De Spiegel (1996). May 20). In e ne : En e d €
ucken. De Spiegel, 21, 40.
De Spiegel (2000). May 29). Gese z pe Ne z, 22, 20.
Diaz-Bone, R., B€
uh mann, A. D., Gu i
e ez Rod 
ıguez, E., Schneide , W., Kendall, G., & Ti ado, F.
(2007). The Field o Foucaul ian Discou se Analysis: S uc u es, De elopmen s and
Pe spec i es. Fo um: Quali a i e Social Resea ch,8(2) Re ie ed om h p://www.quali a i e-
esea ch.ne /index.php/ qs/a icle/ iew/234/517
DiMaggio, P., Nag, M., & Blei, D. (2013). Exploi ing a ini ies be ween opic modeling and he
sociological pe spec i e on cul u e: Applica ion o newspape co e age o U.S. go e nmen
a s unding. Poe ics,41(6), 570–606. doi:10.1016/j.poe ic.2013.08.004
Downs, A. (1972). Up and Down wi h Ecology- he Issue-A en ion Cycle. Public In e es ,28, 32.
El-Gawha y, K. (2010). June 30). Polizeigewal in
€
Agyp en: Jensei s de o en Linie. az, 11.
Esslinge , D. (1996). Janua y 27). Die langweilige F age, was Rund unk is . S€
uddeu sche Zei ung,
p. 20.
Haje , M. A. (1995). The poli ics o en i onmen al discou se: Ecological mode niza ion and he policy
p ocess. Ox o d, UK: Cla endon P ess.
Hamann, J., & Sucke , L. (2018). Tempo ali y in Discou se: Me hodological Challenges and a
Sugges ion o a Quan i ied Quali a i e App oach. Fo um: Quali a i e Social Resea ch,19(2)
Re ie ed om h p://dx.doi.o g/10.17169/ qs-19.2.2954
Haunss, S., & Ho mann, J. (2015). En s ehung on Poli ik elde n –Bedingungen eine Anomalie.
De Mode ne S aa –Zei sch i F€
u Public Policy, Rech Und Managemen ,8(1), 29–49. doi:10.
3224/dms. 8i1.19109
Hay, C. (2007). Why we ha e poli ics. Camb idge, MA: Poli y P ess.
Heye , G., Kan e , C., Niekle , A., & Wiedemann, G. (2017). Modeling he dynamics o domain
speci ic e minology in diach onic co po a. Re ie ed om h p://a xi .o g/abs/1707.03255
Hin z, A., & Dencik, L. (2016). The poli ics o su eillance policy: UK egula o y dynamics a e
Snowden. In e ne Policy Re iew,5(3) doi:10.14763/2016.3.424
Ho mann, J., & Kniep, R. (2018). Ap il). Die Pop-Ka ie e de deu schen Ne zpoli ik: Eine
E olgsgeschich e? e: Publica, Be lin. Re ie ed om h ps://18. e-publica.com/en/session/pop-
ka ie e-deu schen-ne zpoli ik-e olgsgeschich e
H€
osl, M., & Reibe g, A. (2016). Ne zpoli ik in s a u nascendi: Eine Ann€
ahe ung an Wegma ken de
Poli ik eldgenese. In M. Lemke & G. Wiedemann (Eds.), Tex Mining in den
Sozialwissenscha en: G undlagen und Anwendungen zwischen quali a i e und quan i a i e
Disku sanalyse (pp. 315–342). Wiesbaden: Sp inge VS.
Hu e , R. (2016). Sep embe 1). Occupy Cybe space!. az, p. 12.
Jø gensen, R. F. (2012). F aming he ne : How discou se shapes law and cul u e (Doc o al disse a-
ion). Roskilde Uni e si e , Copenhagen.
Ju a sky, D., & Ma in, J. H. (2019). Speech and Language P ocessing (3 d ed. D a ). Re ie ed
om h ps://web.s an o d.edu/ju a sky/slp3/
Ka p , D. (2018). Oc obe 10). When, Exac ly, Did Poli ics Become a Tech S o y? Wi ed, Re ie ed
om h ps://www.wi ed.com
Ke sche , H., & K€
appne , J. (2005). July 28). Ka ls uhe sch €
ank Tele on€
ube wachung ein.
S€
uddeu sche Zei ung,p.1.
Klings , M., & Pham, K. (2010). Decembe 9). Ins Ne z gegangen; Mach und Wahn: De Kamp
zwischen den USA und Julian Assange. Die Zei ,50,4.
Koselleck, R. (2004). Fu u es Pas : On he Seman ics o His o ical Time. New Yo k, NY: Columbia
Uni e si y P ess.
Lessig, L. (2006). Code: And O he Laws o Cybe space, Ve sion 2.0. New Yo k, NY: Basic Books.
L€
oblich, M., & Ka ppinen, K. (2014). Guiding P inciples o In e ne Policy: A Compa ison o
Media Co e age in Fou Wes e n Coun ies. The In o ma ion Socie y,30(1), 45–59. doi:10.1080/
01972243.2013.855688
INTERNET HISTORIES 291
Manning, C., & Sch€
u ze, H. (1999). Founda ions o S a is ical Na u al Language P ocessing.
Camb idge, MA: MIT P ess.
Mo e i, F. (2000). Conjec u es on wo ld li e a u e. New Le Re iew,1,54–68.
Naugh on, J. (2016). The e olu ion o he In e ne : F om mili a y expe imen o Gene al Pu pose
Technology. Jou nal o Cybe Policy,1(1), 5–28. doi:10.1080/23738871.2016.1157619
O’Reilly, T. (2005). Wha Is Web 2.0. Re ie ed om h ps://www.o eilly.com/pub/a/web2/a chi e/
wha -is-web-20.h ml
Palonen, K. (2003). Fou Times o Poli ics: Policy, Poli y, Poli icking, and Poli iciza ion.
Al e na i es: Global, Local, Poli ical,28(2), 171–186. doi:10.1177/030437540302800202
P an l, H. (2013). June 18). Wa nung o dem ,,
€
Ube wachungs-Alb aum. S€
uddeu sche Zei ung,
p. 5.
Ra h, C. (2009). June 6). Koali ion will l€
oschen und spe en. az,p.2.
Rosenbach, M., & Schmund , H. (2009). Au s and de Ne zb€
u ge . De Spiegel, 32, 26-28.
Rosen hal, D. (2000). No embe 3). S ei um Domain-Namen. S€
uddeu sche Zei ung, p. 16.
R€
ossle , P. (2001). Be ween Online Hea en and Cybe hell. New Media & Socie y,3(1), 49–66. doi:
10.1177/14614440122225985
Sch€
a e , U. (1999). Decembe 6). Schla los in Sea le. De Spiegel,49, 186–189.
Scholz, S. (2004). In e ne -Poli ik in Deu schland: Vom My hos de Un egulie ba kei .M
€
uns e : Li .
Schulze, M. (2016). (Un)siche hei hin e dem Bildschi m: Die Ve siche hei lichung des In e ne s.
In S. Fische & C. Masala (Eds.), Inne e Siche hei nach 9/11: Siche hei sbed ohungen und (imme )
neue Siche hei smaßnahmen? (pp. 165–185). Wiesbaden: Sp inge Fachmedien.
Schulze, M. (2018). F om Cybe -U opia o Cybe -Wa . No ma i e Change in Cybe space.(Doc o al
disse a ion, Uni e si y o Jena, Ge many). Re ie ed om h ps://www.db- hue ingen.de/
ecei e/db _mods_00035107
Sch€
unemann, W. J. (2012). E-Go e nmen und Ne zpoli ik –eine konzep ionelle Ein €
uh ung. In
W. J. Sch€
unemann & S. Weile (Eds.), E-Go e nmen und Ne zpoli ik im eu op€
aischen Ve gleich
(pp. 9–38). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Snow, D. A., & Ben o d, R. D. (1998). Ideology, F ame Resonance and Pa icipan Mobiliza ion.
In e na ional Social Mo emen Resea ch,1(1), 197–217.
S eige , S., Sch€
unemann, W. J., & Dimm o h, K. (2017). Ou age wi hou Consequences? Pos -
Snowden Discou ses and Go e nmen al P ac ice in Ge many. Media and Communica ion,5(1),
7–16. doi:10.17645/mac. 5i1.814
S ulpe, A., & Lemke, M. (2016). Blended Reading: Theo e ische und p ak ische Dimensionen de
Analyse on Tex und soziale Wi klichkei im Zei al e de Digi alisie ung. In M. Lemke & G.
Wiedemann (Eds.), Tex Mining in den Sozialwissenscha en: G undlagen und Anwendungen
zwischen quali a i e und quan i a i e Disku sanalyse (pp. 17–61). Wiesbaden: Sp inge VS.
To ing, J. (2005). Discou se Theo y: Achie emen s, A gumen s, and Challenges. In D. R. Howa h
& J. To ing (Eds.), Discou se Theo y in Eu opean Poli ics. Iden i y, Policy and Go e nance (pp.
1–32). London: Palg a e Macmillan.
T 
egue , F. (2017). Gaps and bumps in he poli ical his o y o he in e ne . In e ne Policy Re iew,
6(4) doi:10.14763/2017.4.714
Von Roh , M. (2011). Janua y 31). Die Re olu ion, die keine wa . De Spiegel,5, 136–139.
We ing, H. (2010). May 20). Google an die Leine. Die Zei ,21,1.
We le, R. (1999). The Impac o In o ma ion Ne wo ks on he S uc u e o Poli ical Sys ems.
Re ie ed om h p://ci esee x.is .psu.edu/ iewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.461.9645& ep= ep1&
ype=pd
Wi gens ein, L. (1953). Philosophical In es iga ions. (T ansla ed by Anscombe, G.E.M.). Ox o d:
Blackwell.
Wu, T. (2011). The mas e swi ch: The ise and all o in o ma ion empi es. New Yo k, NY: Vin age
Books.
292 M. H€
oSL