Miscommunication and Web 2.0

Stalder focuses mainly on the issue of cooperation between what he deems the front and back ends. The front end consists of the consumers, often painted as the heroic party, and the back end the producers. There is a fairly basic assumption among many researchers and analysts that all of the problems that arise between these two parties can be boiled down to miscommunication and uncooperative action.

This idea holds a very strange mix of technological determinism and personal choice in it. On one hand a person may suggest that it is the mechanism (technology) that has prohibited the free exercise of communication, while another would say it is the persons not effectively using the technology causing the communication breakdown. Seeing as I am not a technological determinist I very much side with the latter. In fact if I were to make an assumption from my own subjective perception of the world, I would say that people often use technology manipulatively to disrupt the conversation. Just like when companies pose as unassociated, anonymous users, it is dishonestly wielding the technology, not the technology itself that cause the communication breakdown.

Perhaps my favorite passage from the reading is when Stalder writes: “…in the realm of the digital, sharing means multiplying, rather than dividing.” (pg. 243) I’ve never truly considered this aspect that differentiates the material world from the digital world. In an essence, there is no physical sacrifice in the sharing act, and therefore it is much easier and much more widely done in the digital sphere. This idea, though basic maybe, was particularly revelatory, and will no doubt shape how I analyze these interactions in the future.

I would like to end by commending Stalder. He consistently exceeds at in his article is detailing all of the shifts brought upon by the rise of Web 2.0 in neutral terms. He understands that while desire and choices do affect the overall outcome, it is mainly regressive to attempt to categorize one as inherently superior. All are simply tools. But  what do you think? If miscommunication is truly the issue, will increased understanding lead to a more amicable relationship between the producers and consumers? Or will greed and personal biases ultimately prevent true communication to flourish?

you, me, the government, etc.

In his deconstruction of, as quoted verbatim from its title, the role of new media for the democratization process in the Arab World, Marks Sabadello targets the literal understanding of the the terms that precede “Revolution” in those bold square quotes. They are, as Sabadello notes, “catchy-sounding terms”, and “[suggest] a strong role of the respective Internet services”. But what these technologies have done are allow for new ways of strong dissenting voices to communicate with other minds, for platforms and for people to people contact across vast distances. While this might strengthen the revolution and bring more people into it, it by no means started the revolution. 

What “Twitter” and “Facebook Revolution” insinuate is a gross oversimplification of the ignorance or resolve of the nation’s people, and an exaggeration of the necessity of the West’s invention in inciting movement, or the power in which these “weapons” might overcome authoritarian regimes, as specifically assumed to the more recent phase in New Media. The old adage involving a squeaky wheel is applicable: word-of-mouth and the West’s involvement in generating memes (cross-pollinating internet productivity, where activism meets slacktivism) lend significant credence to the smaller ratio of the population that are actually taking to social media sites to lend their voice. 

Sabadello provides a report by the United States Institute for Peace on “New Media in Contentious Politics” that outlines several levels of new media influence that can be distinguished:

• Individual Transformation: New media can affect politics via the effects they have on individuals, their competencies and their political views, e.g. new participants can be recruited to a movement. 

• Intergroup Relations: New media can promote or undermine the bonding of group members to one another, and the bridging of members of different groups.

• Collective Action: New media can be used to initiate and organize collective action, such as marches or demonstrations. 

• Regime Policies: New media can help established regimes to maintain their power in various ways, such as through censorship or counter-propaganda. 

• External Attention: Information about a movement such as its ideologies and goals can be published to a wide audience, both domestically and internationally. This can happen in the form of manifestos, statements, demands, images or videos on web sites or social networking services. As a consequence, political sympathy or hostility from outside actors can be mobilized. 

All of which does suggest an increase in social movement and recruitment, while also outlining the kinds of political action that pushed forth #jan25, wherein Twitter (and Facebook) users took to gather mass protests on January 25, 2011, gathering more than 80,000 clicks and more, considering the West’s interest into the news. Which leads back to the biggest issue when discussing the revolution-- any revolution-- simply by the means in which people take action. What caused the revolution? Not Twitter, nor Facebook. These terms are not applied to the revolution flippantly, but the understanding of their connection (and weight) suggest so. These new modes of media will always be subject to their government, as they were during the Arab Spring and before it. 

“Twitter” nor “Facebook” are not experiencing a revolution; they are being manipulated to suit another one, but they themselves are subject to government interference, and little political movement on their own part. A mere handful of people (large in number, but small potatoes in theory) took to circumventing restrictions to call forth to their neighbors, and we heard it around the world. It says something about our ability to hear it, to study it, and for people to have a voice, a rebellious one; but it says nothing of their struggle, or why they are taking action now. We* just now have the means to tune in**.

*you, me, the government, Egyptians, Chinese, etc.

**get tuned out, per government’s request

Citizen Journalism

For all the ways that new media and technology have converged to enrich our lives, none are more important than the new citizen documentation and journalism. While this may be hotly debated by some, I hope to illustrate through several key points why this is such an important facet of the modern media landscape.

Primarily, the importance of citizen journalism ensures not only that previously ignored issues will be delivered to the world, but with more and more individuals documenting the same issues and incidences from different angles a greater degree of truth can be surmised. More concisely, individuals documenting reality simultaneously offers new perspectives while undermining the seemingly “objective” viewpoint that the mass media corporations display. Citizen journalism provides a safe guard, and encourages a mindset that constantly questions the information given. Too often the recorded “actualities” in the news are mistaken for fact, regardless of context or the possibility of malfeasance.

 

The other important factor is found in Habermas’ description of the Public Sphere, notably defined by “a political space where publics come together to engage the state in mutual discourse over issues of political legitimacy and common concern.”  It is the “mutual” that is so important, because the new public sphere offers a more equal footing between the established electorate and the governed people than any previous societal model. This discourse is greatly indebted to the citizen journalism. It constantly reasserts its own necessity by consistently reigning in those in power who abuse said power.

As a result, the media corporations are now in a similar position to the populace: a constant shifting between the defensive and offensive positions. The truth that the media outlets can no longer ignore is that there will always be a person, group, of agency that can regulate them from the outside with contrary information should said organization decide to not abide the “moral” conduct established in the public sphere. It’s a bit like sweet revenge, and probably speaks to the lack of sympathy directed at organizations that so long carried themselves as vicious guard dogs with little regard for those they provided information to. The competition and watchful eye of a plugged in populace now ensures that they will in turn perform more rigorous self regulation as a means to maintain credibility.

Most importantly though, the new citizen journalism is better for everyone on an individual and group basis, so long as they abide by the codes of conduct set in place by their perspective cultures. If one carries themselves ethically, there is no real threat posed by the citizen journalism save for questions of personal privacy. Those who actively circumvent the law of land are at a greater risk for exposure, the anonymous documenting mob waiting to reveal their indiscretion to the judgment of the masses. However there are some complications that could arise. Does the possibility of constant surveillance by your peers instill paranoia? Does your ability to document events give you a sense of power, or does it pale in comparison to the control exhibited by the larger media corporations? Lemme know.

dose online journalism represent the essence of web 2.0?

I think that civic engagement and sort of citizen participation in journalism online represents the root of how Web 2.0 changes our society. Obviously aspects of online culture like remix, privacy and identity shape the way we perform on and experience web 2.0, but I think that this weeks topics are really a culmination of all the ways we use the web today.

I would say that citizen journalism and activism in pretty much the essence of participatory culture. I can't necessarily prove it, but I personally feel that journalism (that is the way we record and report on things happening around us) is the main way that people share themselves and todays online society allows pretty much everyone to share what they think is important and for the online community to decide if it is.

In the the study of citizen journalism read for class journalism was acknowledged more or less as people filming what is going on around them but I think that it probably goes a little bit further than that. Whether it be twitter, a blog, your facebook, reddit, youtube these are all outlets where we can be (to some degree) journalists, (while its not exactly the same i like this article for discussing how publishes can incorporate citizen journalism)

Previously mainstream culture has pretty much been at the disposal of major news outlets which in many ways allowed a select few to decided what was important. I think that one of the most drastic changes between now and a pre-internet era is that that dynamic has shifted. No instead of a media outlet choosing what is trending on twitter, it actually a community of citizens on their cell phones deciding what information we should care about.  

The idea that anyone who experiences, witnesses or understands something happening in the world is able to share it with others and that that information is nearly as accessible as the home page of CNN I think is the essence of what Web 2.0 means to society.

I also think the international aspect of citizen journalism online goes to show just how reaching this part of online society is. We live in a place where there is trust between mainstream media and the public, but other parts of the world are a lot different. Consider Syria and Egypt where oppressive governments control media. The internet allows people who wouldn’t normally be able to communicate their experiences to do so, like these Syrian Bloggers .

I think it would be ignorant to really dub one aspect of online culture as the most important, but when you really look at the way elements of online society fall together I think these kinds of information sharing/ citizen journalism is the result that you get.  In terms of how important it actually is? I think it is essential to empowering the general public and to the accuracy of information . Being able to share experiences isn't just about participating, it allows the people who read it to understand the world around them.

How Do You Regulate Expression?

Is it possible to put a boundary on expression, opinion or creativity?

In a Harvard Law paper entitled “Four Phases ofInternet Regulation,” John Palfrey discusses the different stages of online rules and censorships since the birth of the so-called ‘cyberspace’.

 Palfrey breaks down Internet regulation into four distinct stages:

This first phase is characterized as the Open Internet, where cyberspace was considered to be an entity separate from the real world, and thus exempt from the laws of the real world. However, when problems from offline space began trickling into the online environment, it made governments realize the need for control.

States started to think that activities and expression on the Internet should be blocked, managed and filtered in order to prohibit users from accessing certain information. Thus, bringing us into phase 2, otherwise known as Access Denied. During this time, filtering occurred on a national level, and different countries would block a wide variety of content – dealing with anything from social, to religious to political information. While some countries would use this to drastically prohibit users from accessing certain things, some censored in a more positive light (like the democratic countries who utilized censorship to block child pornography).

But with the advancements in technology, governments couldn’t keep up. Web filtering became inconsistent with the innovations of mobile devices and social networking, especially when it comes to the regulation of free speech.

The third phase of Internet regulation is referred to as Access Controlled. This stage acknowledges a hybrid world of interrelated online and offline lives, and accepts the fact that one can directly affect the other. To impose regulations, some states inflict registration, licensing, and identity requirements to control what users do online. Through this use of surveillance, those publishing know that they are being watched.

This brings us to the last and present phase, Access Contested. Cyberspace is currently seen as less of a separate space and more as a fundamental part of our lives. Online activity continues to increasingly be a part of everyday lives, and there is starting to be more pushback against some of these controls and restrictions. Citizens are becoming more and more resistant to Internet limitations.

Presently, Internet regulations have the capability of being opposed and backfiring. In an article from the International Media Conference, constitutional law professor Kyungsin Park stated that government policies have the capability of harming innocent users. The problem comes from the abuse of the law that requires users on heavily trafficked portals to register their personal identification data before they can post anything. However, those who post illegal content intentionally will simply submit somebody else’s identity. This type of verification inhibits the flow of ideas and innovation from users.

Palfrey leaves us with this question:

“Instead of asking whether the Internet can be regulated, the question should be whether  it will be regulated in precisely the same way, or more extensively, than the offline world…”

One side of the argument states that regulation of the Internet is counterintuitive of our human rights to free speech. We aren't prohibited from saying what we think in our offline lives, so should the same barriers extend to online activity? Monitoring what people say and when they say it directly infringes on the first amendment. The online world offers a gateway for people to express ideas and opinions freely and openly, in countless shapes and forms. However, on the flip side are arguments about national security, invasion of privacy, and criminal activity, which are also plausible. 

What is your answer to Palfrey's question? Should speech and expression be regulated the same way online as it is offline?

Social Media Pressure

Knowing your audience is something I have always been aware of growing up in the performing arts world. That being said, I agree with the authors Marwick and Boyd’s article, “I tweet honestly, I twee Passionately” and the discussion of the unknown audience social media has created. 

Like most new beginnings in life such as going on a first date, job interview, first time playing a new sport, society always tries to hide their flaws. Social media has made it easier for people to put out their “perfect” versions of themselves on the web for friends and family to see.  Now, from what I have observed watching friends and family on the web people seem to think twice before posting an opinion on a political statement because of the fear of being ridiculed by their fellow social network community. In my opinion such a common fear as an individual not posting there believes or moral values on the web because they do not want to offend or be made fun of, takes away that individuals voice and right of expression. I am not saying that this form of self-censorship is a bad thing; some people need to think before some questionable posts. However, I do see a trend from social media acceptance correlating with the need for instant acceptance in the outside world. As a result of this trend I have seen people disregarding subjects that were once very important to them all because of how they think their audience will perceive them.

Then again the user does get to choose who is allowed to follow them, well at least the social media platform facebook allows friendship requests. Although, for such media sites like twitter, it does cause a problem for the user especially if they have celebrity statues and have to be extremely careful with what they decide to post to the public. Take Jimmy Fallon for example. He has a huge twitter following, well at least in my opinion he does, anyway because he has such a big following with such a diverse group it can be very difficult for him to say what exactly is on his mind. Which is why he uses twitter as free advertisement for his show Late Night with Jimmy Fallon.

Even though you know your friends and family on social media you never know who else can be viewing your post. So, my question is since social media has allowed people to show what they believe is a perfect version of themselves, can this trend cause problems for society in the future when the need to speak against an important issue arises? 

Politically Correct Tweets

Although I am new to Twitter, I can relate to and understand Marwick and Boyd’s discussion of audience in the social media realm. I have used Facebook since 2007 and my idea of who “my audience” is, has changed drastically since then.
    I would argue that everyone using social media, whether it is Twitter or Facebook, tries to put their “best self forward”. We post our likes and dislikes, our favorite bands and movies, all in order to give off a certain image of ourselves.  (See #25) We decide against posting about controversial ideas because we don’t want to upset certain groups or people who follow us. I know that I think about my audience on Facebook, without even realizing it sometimes. Is this post going to upset my aunt Jan? I know my friends at work will think this meme is hilarious...These are some thoughts that might cross my mind before posting something.  Marwick and Boyd believe that “Self-censorship can be a useful technique in the face of an imagined audience that includes, parents, employers, and significant others.”  What you choose to post online is partly decided by the people you allow to follow you. What are you comfortable with them reading or seeing? “Social media participants are far more concerned with parents or employers viewing their Twitter stream than a complete stranger.”
    But we also know that when we post something, it has the capability of being seen by more than just your “friends” or “followers”, but we still do it. There isn’t any stage fright when it comes to expressing yourself in front of all these people because you can’t see them. You can only see your imagined audience, which includes your 654 friends, and probably more specifically the ones you interact with online the most.  
    Jodi Dean says the “ideology of publicity is valuing whatever grabs the publics attention”. Although I cant speak for celebrities on Twitter, I know that sometimes I post statuses/articles/videos on Facebook, already knowing exactly which people on my friends list will have something to say on the subject matter. I am strategically posting to a specific part of my imagined audience; Instant gratification in the form of a notification or retweet. While I don’t personally understand the hype of Twitter, the person with 100,000 friends would probably use this kind of strategic posting in order to gain and keep as many followers as possible.
    So, are people exposing the “real me” on Twitter and Facebook? Or are they posting the ideal version of themselves, who are politically correct and strive to make their audience happy...