This paper aims to evaluate whether features of the public sphere are present in the activities of Iranian Twitter users. To achieve this objective, the paper provides a synthesis of computational social sciences, network analysis, and Habermas’s approach to the public sphere. The data comes from all Iranian users, including those who are actively engaged in political issues on Twitter. This method of data collection focuses on the computational aspects of the users. Added information on how they conducted networking and facilitated public opinion, which resulted in increased user interaction, would complete the data-gathering process to align with the theoretical claims. It also indicates that Twitter was a platform on which Iranian users fulfilled the requirements of the public sphere. Some of the findings indicate that there were 48,076 users connected with 25,534,713 edges, and together, they formed three communities. While one of the communities focused solely on social issues, the other two engaged in a rival political challenge. It seems that this situation exemplified the main characteristic of the public sphere, namely, the freedom to express political views and the formation of diverse communities with competing ideas.

IntroductionIn every society, there are norms that its members are obliged to follow. These norms include a wide range of religious, moral, social, and legal. All these norms have their special enforcement guarantee: religious norms, afterlife guarantees, moral norms, conscientious enforcement guarantees, social norms, and social isolation guarantees. in the meantime, the legal norm is a norm that the government must establish and apply to citizens. The legal norm should not be identified with the content, but with the form, so that from this point of view, it provides a formal criterion that regulates the mentioned matter. Among these, there are norms related to the public sphere and they are opposite to the norms of the private sphere. The field of study of this article is the "norm of the public domain" created by the government and applied in the mentioned domain. The guarantee of its implementation also belongs to that domain.Materials and MethodsThe important question that this article tries to answer by using the descriptive-analytical method is whether the norm of the public sphere is different from other legal norms. And what are the characteristics of this norm that distinguish it from other legal norms? What is the government's role in this? The legal norm is defined in the legal order and at the macro level in the legal system, and it is the legal system that gives validity to it, it is this "validity" that gives meaning to the legal norm. Validity of the legal norm is necessary but not sufficient, which means that it must be effective and efficient, and a difference must be made between this effect (micro level) and efficiency (macro level of the legal system). Legal order, as a set of norms, forms the center of the legal system, and along with it, processes and structures are also foreseen in this system. These processes and structures are distinguished by the validity of the functions: the processes and structures are facilitators for the functions of the private sphere and are only regulatory in the cases related to the public order, while these processes and structures are completely regulatory in the case of the functions of the public sphere, and facilitation, in this case, Subordinates do not make sense.Results and DiscussionThe norms of the public sphere are two groups: the first group, which is more important, are the standards that guarantee the rights and freedoms of citizens against the political power or the government, and the second group is the affairs related to the government in a general sense. A group of public sphere norms regulate the public sphere related to the government, and another group guarantees the legal situation of citizens in public and private spheres. In the public sphere, ensuring the legal situation of citizens becomes important when it is defined in front of the public power, which means that the public power can tamper with this legal situation with the pretext of public interests.At the same time, the norms of the public sphere are different from those of the private sphere in various ways, such as nature, form, practices, and guarantees of implementation. From the point of view of nature, the difference in the legal situation resulting from these norms, and the point of view of their application, the distinction between mandatory and interpretive or supplementary norms is important. In addition, the person, as the subject, affects the content of the norms of the private sphere and their direction, while the content of the norms of the public sphere is completely objective and the public interest directs it. On the other hand, the obligation and, as a result, the guarantee of the implementation of the norms of the public sphere are different from the norms of the private sphere in various aspects, and the government has an exclusive role in determining this obligation and guaranteeing its implementation. In this category, the government must pay full attention to the distinct logic of these two areas, and if this difference is ignored, the norms will be ineffective and inefficient.ConclusionThe government has an exclusive position in the two aspects of creating legal norms and applying the guarantees related to them. Judicial authorities are very important in verifying the violation of norms and confirming performance guarantees and their determination and amount, both in the private sphere and in the public sphere. Monitoring the application of norms is also generally related to the public sphere and has no meaning in the private sphere except in cases of violation of norms related to public interests.