Some have argued the utopian idea that the democratizing structure and social effect of the internet can solve much of our political and social ills by giving everyone a voice and helping to improve transparency, communication, and political efficacy. Many point to the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street as examples of what the internet can do. One of the leading proponents of this is Clay Shirky, one of your authors for this week's reading. You can take a look at how he argues that if governments would act more like the internet it would be better for everyone here:
But there are many who suggest those who think the internet will democratize governments and societies are simply naive. Evgeny Morozov, another of your authors this week, is one of the leading critics. You can take a look at some critiques of the democratizing net here:
So what do you think? Is the internet an inherently democratizing force that can help give more people a voice and open up our political process OR is it simply a new tool used by the same old powerful groups to dominate the conversations in new and more sophisticated ways?
Given the youth of the interent I have to disagree with the second video. Yes the internet is an oligarchy because you only have a few main websites. However, as the internet continues to evolve we will have more competition on the internet. For example, it took Google, Youtube, and Facebook years to become popular before they were "name brands" at home. I think that the internet is a new tool used by the same old powerful groups to dominate the conversations in new and more sophisticated ways.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Christina's point here, it takes time for sites to gain popularity, The Huffington Post did not become a sensation overnight, Arianna Huffington just maximized her network to spread the word about her blog. People have the ability to do the same thing, however some just do not stick with it, as the second video said. A good blog will gain notoriety and eventually they become part of the accepted "mainstream" this does not take away from the independent nature of the blog or website, instead it allows for the perceived mainstream or elite to become much more expansive. For instance, take the sports blog Deadspin.com, a few years ago it was viewed with much disdain by a great portion of the mainstream sports media, however today it has gained a great deal of positive publicity because of the fact that it is unafraid to break stories that other major news networks sit on because they feel it could be detrimental to their image. In this case they have stuck they have made calculated risks because they knew a quality product would lead to increased respect.
DeleteAlong with Christina, I also have to disagree with the second video. To me, it felt like some of the speakers in the video were suggesting that we implement a more sophisticated sort of governing structure to regulate the Internet so as to prevent these oligarchies within the system. If this is the case, I definitely do not agree with such an idea. I particularly liked what Clay Shirky had to say in his TED talk. I thought that the philosophy behind Linux and Git and all of the other open software development programs he talked about (I’m definitely not a tech person so some of it went over my head) was really interesting – I like the idea of a web that can be altered by “many-for-many.” Although this can in some cases lead to chaos, I think we’re still largely in the experimentation phase of web development. If the Internet is going to be around for as long as we think it is, I don’t think it’s even remotely close to what it might look like in twenty years from now.
ReplyDeleteI’m going to be an optimist here and agree, more or less, with the notion that the Internet is an inherently democratizing force (in the United States, at least… China is a completely different story). The websites that seem to be the most powerful, or at least the ones that we utilize most and the ones that get the most traffic, are only that powerful because of our own actions. No one forced Facebook on us, no one decided one day that Google would become our most popular search engine. These sites are popular because they function well, but if someone wants to go use MySpace or Bing or whatever, more power to them, they’re perfectly able to do so. I don’t think the fact that a few sites dominate the Internet necessarily means that only certain people/organizations and their opinions are able to control the conversation. People will read what they want to read, and that’s never going to change. They can easily access whatever type of information on a subject they’re interested in on the Internet. A virtually unlimited number of opinions are out there, all we have to do is look. I don’t think the current design of information flow on the Internet is preventing minority opinions from being heard in any way.
I’ve said it before, but I really think that the Internet will eventually be the gateway for a more open political process. With the Internet, we’re able to see who gave which politician how much money, we’re able to research current legislation, and we can get in touch with our representatives (or their staff), among other things. It’s a process, and if the Internet is here for the long haul, we’ll get there someday.
Posted for Tony:
ReplyDeleteSimply put, I believe that the internet, like any other media breakthrough, is nothing more than another arena for those with the most money and influence to dominate. The internet provides a unique opportunity, namely that anyone can "create" any form of media they want. The lay people are no longer just consumers, they have the ability to be producers. Don't be fooled, I haven't forgotten my original statement. Any social revolution can only happen if those governing society have somehow lost control of the medium they've produced.
As the second video portrays, we only truly utilize a select few sites daily, we depend on the same beaten paths for news, shopping, entertainment, and search (the majority of which are either owned by the same entity, Google and Youtube, or are owned by an actual brick-and-mortar conglomerate like GE). Since we have granted them, albeit not necessarily willingly, with as much power as we already have they will increasingly dictate the future of the internet. If you aren't on the first page of Google you might as well not even be on the internet, if you are a file-sharing service chances are good that if you become problematic enough you'll be shut-down, and if you are a news site chances are good your traffic will be dictated by 1) your presence in the "real-world" and 2) your pull on other sites (dictated by your monetary pull for the most part).
While the internet has given people unprecedented access to their government, one must also be wary of misinformation, which seems all too prevalent on the web. Those in power will resist anything that springs up to challenge the current status-quo. That doesn't have to be a governmental authority, and frequently (in America) they aren't the most powerful anyway. Is America any freer than China? Perhaps in the freedom to say what you please; however, I seriously doubt that we are any freer in what we consume. In China it's the government and in America it's the corporation that sifts, filters, and censors the information that ultimately reaches us, the internet hasn't changed that, and thus the internet isn't anything more than any of the media revolutions that have already happened.
-Tony Mattingly
To begin I like how Tony describes the internet as an "arena." It is indeed the center for money and influence to dominate. Although anyone can even have a blog, as did the 9 year old girl referenced in the first video. When you have a large audience, that's when the social revolutions can take place.
ReplyDeleteI don't necessarily believe the internet is or is not democratic I more so believe that the internet opens our eyes to places on a global scale that are not as democratic as the environment we live in. I would ideally like to believe that our awareness of the lack of democracy in some places and with sources like the internet in due time there will be an increase in democracy on a global scale, but that is our of our control.
As my classmates suggest the second video neglects to take into account how long google and facebook were around before they were so highly used and I would also be an optimist to say democracy would have a similar affect in due time, because as a class mate mentioned the internet does open our eyes to the politics process.
While I do not wholly disagree that the internet is a democratizing force, giving more individuals the ability to participate in an open forum, I am not fully certain it is completely void of the same powerful groups that dominate the usual conversations through this new medium.
ReplyDeletePerhaps, if I was asked this question a couple weeks ago, I would agree that the internet has the power to democratize governments through transparency and the ability of the people to connect on issues and take a stance. Such movements as the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street must accredit some of their success to the internet, but I feel that these movements are the exception- not the rule. The more I learn about the structure of the internet, the more I begin to doubt its neutral stance. Bringing up the reading by Tim Wu, mega giants like Apple and Google continue to battle over the theological terms of internet usage by the people. Regardless of the victor, we will not fully understand the implication of internet freedom until a stable form of “internet government” is put in place. The history of the internet proves that it is much less democratic than it once was; the internet now resembles more of a private building than a public space. Who’s to stay it will stop at its current position? Like Evgeny Morozov, I believe a lot of powerful groups will come to dominate political conversations in the internet world as the people give power to them.
However, I'm not willing to abandon the idea of the internet as a democratizing tool. I believe that it has the power to change the landscape of many political arenas due to the fact that it is able to break down so many barriers that once vexed activists. Yet, the internet is a tool, not the remedy to any political ailments in a nation. I feel that sometimes people forget that and get lost in the hype of a new technology.
The internet is a democratizing force that can help give more people a voice and open up our political process because it gives ordinary individuals the tools necessary to articulate their opinions, whether it be through blogging or commenting on news stories. I agree with Clay Shirky’s claim that when more ideas come into circulation, then this leads to more disagreement. This claim indicates that the internet is a democratizing force because I am free to voice my opinion, even if it goes against a powerful person or group. Granted, this powerful person or group can censor me by deleting my comment or post; however, they have no authority over me because I can immediately post a blog about my experience with this group and gain a fan base.
ReplyDeleteThe second video indicates that the internet is not a democratizing tool because it is used by powerful groups to dominate the conversation in new, sophisticated ways. One interesting point brought up in the video was that the internet lacks regulation; therefore, companies with more resources are loudest. This video questions why more companies are not competing with YouTube, Google, and Facebook. I agree with Lauren, Google and these other sites became popular over several years and more competition will arise in the future. In my opinion, Google already has some competition with other search engines such as Bing, Yahoo, etc. While some of these search engines may not be as effective as Google, they still exist. As a result, if someone is morally opposed to Google, then they can find alternate means of gaining information.
I measure democracy by my right to express my ideas freely, not by how much money I or other corporations earn. I understand that corporations make tons of money on the internet; however, I am not talented in terms of inventing and coding internet software; therefore, I ultimately do not care that some sites are worth billions of dollars. My main concerns are that I can freely use the internet and voice my opinions. No one has the right to censor me on the internet, yet. Tony makes a valid point that ultimately, Google sifts information that reaches the consumer. Despite Google’s power, I still have the freedom to access different sites, but I need to know their URL’s.
I believe it's both. While the Internet is a democratizing force that allows more people to voice their opinions and concerns and open up about our political process, it is also a new tool that is used by older more powerful groups to dominate conversations in both new and sophisticated ways. While the "openness" of the internet allows us to be free in expressing our thoughts and ideas about politics, society, and whatever else we wish to share with the world, we would not be able to do this without the old powerful groups, who continue to constantly better themselves with time. These old powerful groups are what allow us or help us to research and develop our ideas and thoughts that we share with the world. In a sense both of these tend to go hand in hand in one way or another.
ReplyDeleteI would tend to think that the internet is just a tool controlled mainly by the powerful elite, at least in the sense of business and a free market. If someone has a problem with that then they should ask themselves why companies like Google, Amazon, and Facebook are so popular. This is why I think the notion of the second video saying that because of the lack of regulations to the internet, the companies with the the most resources can impose their authority onto everyone else. It is because people visit websites like Google everyday that they are so popular and are synonymous with the internet. There are competitors to Amazon, Google, and Facebook, the thing is those competitors just aren't as popular or have many resources as the big ones. But that doesn't mean that can't change. Websites like Google, Amazon, and Facebook started out small and our now huge internet companies.
ReplyDeleteI think the internet is a democratizing voice but with severe limits on its ability for sharing. Most people forget that they are still reliant on the physical structure that allows the internet to function. Ones access to the internet is through the internet providers, and these groups along with the governments that support them could impose restrictions on its use. Even in the current free environment where anyone can access any part of the internet, freedom is entirely based on knowledge. The greatest most relevant information can be stored on the internet and if you don’t know of its existence it will elude you. There is a lot of talk in the general media about the power that hundreds of thousands of people accessing information can bring forth, yet what cause they throw themselves behind is not always the best or most important. The internet is reliant to heavily on the biases that are pre-established in the system. A competitor with the most innovative and powerful new web browser could be entirely overlooked by the general public if the inventor is not capable of starting an internet movement. This democracy and freedom that is so expounded upon by the general public is limited in the fickle nature of the public itself.
ReplyDeleteI don't necessarily think these two videos are opposite of each other; I don't see one as black and the other as white. I think the fact that the internet is open it allows for certain sites/networks/search engines to better themselves, feed off of one another, and do something better that their predecessor didn't do. For example, the second video talks about how Facebook has no competition. Maybe that's because Facebook got something that MySpace didn't and that's why Facebook became so popular. I remember when I had a MySpace (oh God) and my mom was freaking out; it didn't look "safe" --appearance in itself is a huge factor in this -Facebook looks clean, you don't clutter your page with a your favorite song, an ugly background, and stupid animated "bling." And who knows, maybe there is someone out there developing something even better than Facebook, filling in the gaps that Facebook hasn't yet done.
ReplyDeleteAt least in the US you have somewhat, or we are raised to believe that we have a voice. Our generation uses the internet for various reasons, but most of us are almost always logged onto social media sites and most of us share news on our pages. In this country, money is power, but internet and resources like Facebook give virtual nobodies a voice. I have a voice on Facebook. I don't have money to make my own site, start my own business, hire lawyers to fight on behalf of friends who were incarcerated after 9/11, but I can post something on Facebook, hoping that someone who is more powerful, has access to the right people and can essentially do more than I can, sees whatever I've posted and acts. I remember one of my friends whose family escaped war-torn Syria over winter break posting a status asking if anyone knew an immigration lawyer who could prevent her family from getting deported the same day they landed in Chicago. She had 600+ Facebook friends -she isn't that social, so I know she's not really "friends" with all of them, and 4 people she rarely speaks to but is friends with via Facebook responded and helped fight for her family to stay here.
Socially, the internet is a moving force, and like many of you have said, it will only get bigger and better.
People are a democratizing force and the internet is just one of many tools used by people in that fight. People long before the internet struggled for and won democracy. The internet can make organizing easier, delivering a message more relevant and disseminate information more quickly but it is just a tool.
ReplyDeleteAs to the later half of the provocation I think the internet is the equalizer of playing fields. I used to work on political campaigns and one thing was a universal constant Republicans had money and Democrats had people. With the sophistication of campaigning and using the internet yes money is still important but it allows people to spread information virally without cash. You just need enough people care about your message to get traction. There are and have been plenty of failed attempts at creating a movement with lots of money and old power players behind them.
I find myself torn when speaking about the Internet. I see both positives and negatives to it just as I can see how it can be viewed as both a new tool that the elite maximize on and an outlet allowing more people to get involved. The Internet needs both people to participate and people to act as leaders. Having these “megabrands” such as Google, Facebook, Amazon and YouTube lead the way does not mean they are the only resources or controlling factors in the industry. These powerful groups lead the industry yes, use their power to reach their publics, yes, but what would they be without their users? Nothing. The Internet is built on its users, opening up, expressing themselves and using their voices.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with my fellow classmates that Internet is a democratizing voice for most people but it’s not a true democracy. We have witnessed events like Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street as examples of what the Internet can do for political reform. We need to learn how these examples can help governments around the world act more like the internet and if that would be better for everyone. Clay Shirky, one of our authors for this week's reading states that, “Collective action is where a group acts whole, even more complex that collaborative production, but here again new tool give life to new forms of action. This in turns challenges the existing intuitions, by eroding the institutional monopoly on a large-scale coordination”(p. 143). I interpreted the term to mean that when people get together based on the actions of others like governments bring people closer together.
ReplyDeleteAs for the ultimate question; Is the internet an inherently democratizing force that can help give more people a voice and open up our political process OR is it simply a new tool used by the same old powerful groups to dominate the conversations in new and more sophisticated ways? I would have to say the Internet could be both. First the Internet is a great force to get peoples voices heard this was seen largely in Arab Spring with people taking a stand about what they felt there government was doing wrong. It also has helped many smaller organizations make their voices heard and bring their central issues into the political agenda in Washington. At the same time the Internet is relatively a new tool and we still don’t the entire positive and negatives. Today the Internet is dominated my the same old powerful groups but that is because we as users are using there service which in turn helps them from imposing there thoughts on us.
The second video does not sell the idea to me that resources = gravity on the Internet. The video is suggesting that the megasites - Google, Amazon, EBay, FaceBook - have more say over the Internet because they have more resources than other smaller blogs, such as how the Huffington Post started. The Huffington Post is a demonstration of the opposite; it started as a small blog and is now a huge entity on the Internet. There is no limitation of space on the Internet; just because the megasites take up so much space, it does not mean that there is no more room for others to arise.
ReplyDeleteI would definitely have to agree with you. While there are clearly some giants on the internet who have a large amount of resources and are able to "shout louder than others" it does not discount the other voices. As you said the internet has no limitation on its space. There can be any number of small blogs or organizations scattered throughout the internet who have the ability to take a stance on a certain issue which cannot be taken away from them. When an issue is presented in society which is highly debated it is these smaller groups who get their voice out explaining their position and the reasoning behind it. These ideas then lend to the aggregation of knowledge about a subject through these groups voice. This makes it clear to myself that there is the ability for smaller blogs to grow in the infinite space of the internet which is meant to be a tool of connection. The many, who may not have the same pull as a megasite, are a collection of voices that can create a movement.
DeleteI really agree with the quote Clay Shikry presents in the TED talk by Nicholas Negroponte that says “I have never seen people miss the scale of what’s going on as badly as they are doing it now."
ReplyDeleteThis point is highlighted, bolded, and underlined by the second video. The video completely misses the point and in my opinion, misguides the discussion. They say there is no competition but this is false. Remember Friendster? Remember Myspace? Facebook came out as a competitor and won not because they had more money or more resources, but because people chose them. That is democracy. Where several choices are available, and the people choose one. We are free to use whichever social media site or search engine we choose.
I also disagree with the argument stating that the unregulated status of the internet allows only those with the money or resources to dominate. Google started out with a mediocre amount of money, but has since grown and it is very possible that anyone looking to compete against Google could create their own search engine for relatively cheap (albeit not free - but accessible to a vast majority of people). And for those of you who really want to argue this one, the future shines bright for easier competition with the attempts at de-centralizing the internet and making everyone’s computer a server as well as a receiver of information(but that’s a whole other argument).
Shikry however, sees the potential in the internet. In fact, this "potential energy" of the internet has already converted itself into "kinetic energy" in such instances as we read about in the readings, or the very relevant Arab Spring. Yet people continue to drastically underestimate the potential of internet to improve democracy- even within the United States.
In Australia there is apolitical party called Senator Online in which there are no specified policies. Whenever a bill is proposed, it is published online for everyone to vote on. If there is a majority vote on the poll, the senate votes that way. The idea isn’t revolutionary. Online polls have always been utilized, but why have they not been more fully integrated into the political system? As Shikry points out in the video, our government rarely asks our opinion on issues that we must agree to such as our taxes or healthcare. The ease of access and large scale use of the internet seems to be the best solution to this problem.
Thus the internet itself is a democracy in which people choose what is best for them without anything having been regulated or censored and it is a very useful tool for democratizing society as well, if the people choose to realize its potential as such and use it in a way that fufills this potential.