To “publish” in the web is a delusion. A blog is about as public as a widespread porno magazine subscription. Everybody can read the content at home, on the writing desk, but there is no collective testimony whatsoever. When we speak of the public in reference to the internet we confuse public with accessible.
While a printed newspaper is a thing, and therefore it claims to be an object of collective testimony, the words that appear and disappear on the screen are not a thing, and therefore they are not public in the same way as we have gotten used to this term since the idea of the public appeared in the middle of the 18th century. If somebody speaks in public, it seems to be even more elusive than words on a screen, which are at least reliably repeatable. But the person who speaks in public stands with his whole integrity and with the reliability of any legal person for what he utters. The person, the concept of integrity, is stronger and more of an “object” than the bodyless words in a pool of digital information that can easily be manipulated.
But most of all i think it is the mixture of privacy, publicity and publishing taking place in the little tools that display the web’s content, that causes a weaker character of being “public”. A computer most of the time is a private tool as well as a professional one, but not a public tool.
But didn’t you read the xy-blog? the existence of any blog could be invented in that very moment. I will send you the link… Nobody knows, whether i have found a specific site and know the content, or not. It’s different to say: But didn’t you read the newspapers? The internet is a private tool, which you can use or not, but it doesn’t define what is public and what is not.