General Thinking ...
I hope I’m not sounding too repetitive but as it was mentioned in the lecture again about how techno and social determinism affect how freedom is perceived on the net. Habermas would argue that civil society has advanced through to new media in that society itself articulates new principles etc, “it’s the production and exchange” (Sparknotes) therefore the public are producing and developing technology to fulfill their own new media needs. There is also the argument of direct democracy where the audience/public/users all make a direct effort and role in the production of what is entailed in the newest of media, and to stop businesses trying to “make everything (as) controllable as mass media.” (Lecture page 3)
A question – Internet anarchists – is this supporting techno-determinism because it can be seen that there is not a hierarchy (so to speak) within society influencing and shaping technology? The freedom the internet provides shapes society.
As a counter point though, the internet to some extent mirrors society, because you have the freedom to write what you like, but there are still regulations and rules, just like the existent ones in ‘meatspace.’ Also, another point made in the lecture is that the status quo of society is maintained and on the internet because the majority of websites are in fact all in English, therefore giving British and American dominance reflecting the hegemony of society – “seeming natural to the vast majority of the empire.” (Lecture page 6)
Additionally, within reference to this weeks lecture and copyright, companies within the internet use copyright as a means of control. Copyright allows to a certain extent what can be published on the internet. This mirrors how other types of media are controlled by a dominant source influencing what the public are exposed to.
I hope this makes sense!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
yes it does! Refering to your point about most sites being written in English, this just highlights the unequal access that the internet has (Lax, lecture notes page 6). Although many Internet sites are trying to create freedom of speech and universalised democracy, how can this be done fairly when there is still a hierarchial power at force (in terms of language used) from America and England? Then again if it seems 'natural' to a vast majority, should we just keep it that way?
ReplyDeleteEven though it is natural for the vast majority, this hegemony creates a decreased amount of freedom and control for the minorities when they use the internet. If we were to keep it this way I think it is defeating the object of the internets freedom because of the capitalist influence.
ReplyDeleteYou might like to know that most people who speak/read English are not native speakers. English is the global language (partly because of American Capitalism & the Internet) but also because of British Imperialism.
ReplyDeleteSo, the Inet increases a pre-existing tendency. The big problem (maybe) is that English has within it certain assumptions about what relationships can be named, what constitutes sense, etc. (this is known as the Sapir Whorf hypothesis). These assumptions may undermine traditonal cultural assumptions and alienate people from their traditional relationships -with others, the state, religion, even selfhood. So some would argue that it's a big deal