**1. Introduction**

Modern society depends on open and fair debates to shape democracy. For a debate to be successful, it is essential that different viewpoints can be addressed and discussed. This requires fairness and trust. Traditional locations for debates are Town Halls, TV Debates and Universities. Debates guide public policy and serve to increase the legitimacy of measures since they have originated from citizens or are supported by citizen groups [1]. Debates often consist of a group of citizens with a large amount of information, which then deliberate on public policy directions, intending to reach consensus towards specific recommendations [2]. Naturally, citizen groups have been identified as a promising effort to promote deliberative democracy [3]. Research predominantly focuses on such debates and how the participants are transformed through the experience.

"[…] in the long term, deliberative civic engagement efforts could transform not only their participants but also the larger public. Those participating in, engaged with, or captivated by such actions should report stable (or rising) public trust levels and signs of reduced civic neglect" [4].

"[…] in the long term, deliberative civic engagement efforts could transform not only their participants but also the larger public. Those participating in, engaged with, or captivated by such efforts should report stable (or rising) levels of public trust and signs of reduced civic neglect" [5–7].

In other words, public debates can be considered a remedy to political distrust. Studies focused on how such debates can promote social learning [8], change the participant's preferences [9]. Such debates are often seen as the most advanced method to institutionalise deliberative democracy [10].

Currently, a general agreement has been reached that small circle debate, also defined as mini-publics, is one component of deliberative democracy [11–13]. The possibility of utilising the emerging information and communication technologies for new ways of citizen participation since network technologies allow for ease of access to civic involvement in politics [14, 15]. Additional benefits have been identified in terms of democratic discussions among people [16, 17], such as eliminating physical and social barriers that have a restrictive impact on offline mini-publics [18]. Even Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy pointed out that discussions nowadays do not happen in streets and parks and instead happen via electronic media. Therefore, he reiterated the publics ability to participate in discussions would change due to changes in communication technologies [19]. Thus, one of the main challenges is how to 'translate' the traditional public forum into a more modern technological environment. Yet, at the same time, preserve the most important ideals of public forums such as insurance that speakers have access to a broad audience, equal time of speaking and that the public has a shared exposure to diverse views and opinions.

Recent events about the global COVID-19 pandemic have proven that in the presence of a worldwide mass lockdown of society for a considerable period, a scalable online deliberative platform would become increasingly more critical for the preservation of democracy and for decision making, which affects both local and global diverse communities and interests. Yet, most research and initiatives on online deliberative publics do not contemplate the effects new media concepts, such as Social Media and online forums, have on how and where debates are conducted. It can be argued that both online and offline deliberation can lead to further polarisation [19]. Specifically, with the advent of Social Media Platforms, the overall debating landscape has resulted in a complex global plethora of constantly changing media interactions affecting the individual citizen. New media experiences that are user-driven new phenomena have emerged, known as Filter Bubbles [20] and Echo Chambers [21]. Both phenomena create a distorted view of the overall reality in which the debate is held. This became very clear during the last US elections in which the primarily east coast based liberal press debated a for them sure candidate, Hillary Clinton, hence creating an Echo Chamber. The debate was biased entirely towards the opinion of the liberal news outlets creating a distorted view of the overall US picture [22]. This phenomenon is propelled by Filter Bubbles, in which content of interest is prioritised, leaving out the range of friends that are of a different opinion [23]. The overall challenge is a constant misunderstanding or artificial bias within online spaces that facilitate debate. On the flip side, however, it is not easy to scale a physical discussion and organise it in a transparent, inclusive and fair manner. About fairness, the concept of bias plays a vital key and is often misunderstood. Biases within debates are inherently necessary because it represents the opinion or value system of the debating parties. However, it is essential for a debate that these biases are known to everyone.

#### *A Theoretical Concept to Increase the Trustworthiness of Online and Offline… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98442*

A further challenge in modern digital or physical debates is Fake News. This topic has played a significant role in the last US election and has become known as the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Fake News's core is beyond simply posting or circulating false news, but the danger lies more in the nuance of its influence. In the form of ads, news articles can subtly influence members of society to vote for a different party and have become known as the Cambridge Analytica scandal [24]. Therefore, it can be argued that Fake News is endangering an open and honest democratic process due to the lack of reflection and debate around the opinions of the members of a democratic society.

Furthermore, it can be argued that the emergence of Deep Fake, which uses high-end AI technology to create a falsified video, which is close to impossible for a human to identify as false. It will lead to even more distrust in media in general and further weaken the public's trust in the modern media landscape [25]. Similarly, behavioural and attention economics in the digital context shape media content, creating shorter and addictive content rather than a deep and reflective one that requires more time.

This publication introduces the HELIOSPHERE concept to introduce a participant focused, fair, sustainable and technologically advanced debating concept to empower a transparent, inclusive and honest debate. It is about inclusiveness by facilitating a hybridisation of the online and offline, digital and physical, real and virtual. HELIOSPHERE, therefore, forms a conceptual and theoretical base for modern debates that empowered by modern media technology without weakening the core of the discussion: honest, respectful and trustworthy communication between citizens. At its core, HELIOSPHERE empowers online, and offline debates with sophisticated Machine Learning analytics that results in a media value chain that supports the moderation of a discussion to ensure the debate is transparent, inclusive and fair. A pertinent point in the current environment is the ability of HELIOSPHERE to be functional and help citizens during massive societal lock-downs due to its online nature and ability to include people even in the most stringent social distancing environments.
