Sunday 30 November 2014

Artefact


… research into Internet-democracy practices would want to explore the democratic possibilities afforded by the technical aspects of the medium, user motivations and intentions, and the social structuring of online communications and identities.

 

Dahlberg. L (2004) Internet Research Tracings

 

 

Bell (1973) technology is a central organizing factor in social transformation

 

Quoted in Dahlberg, above

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11208382/Inside-Kobane-Isil-militants-release-shocking-images-of-destruction.html


The above link illustrates the way in which terrorists & others can quickly spread propaganda worldwide.

 

 

 



 
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-16212447



The above link is a synopsis of the Arab spring, illustrating how the early optimism faded. A 2014 update would presumably be gloomier.





There was, at the beginning of the Arab Spring, in 2011, much worldwide speculation as to the role of mobile technology and social media in the political uprisings. Such speculation was particularly rife with regard to the anti-government protests in Egypt, which the Mubarak regime ultimately failed to overcome.

There was a certain amount of euphoria associated with many early news reports concerning the Arab spring. To quote Rebecca Johnston (core reading, week 2 re. internet metaphors) there was a feeling that ‘the Internet empowers political activism, giving voice and power to oppressed people. Wall (2007) discussed ways this communication technology can change social movements and allow political outsiders to challenge insiders.’ This is, it would seem, the utopian vision.

Given the failure of the Arab Spring to gain traction and establish widespread democracy in the Arab world, it might also be useful to consider Johnston’s alternative dystopian option: ‘If the Internet is destruction metaphor becomes the predominant schema for reflecting on online experiences, how might this impact the future of the Internet? Could this metaphor encourage censorship and oppression online?’

The question of surveillance of e-mails & social media by governments has indeed become a hot topic, as has the use of social media & electronic communication by terrorist organizations. The British Prime Minister recently (during PMQs in the Commons, November 27th 2014) called for social media providers to do more to police messages sent by their users & to pass on any suspicious material to the security services. This is certainly a serious matter for all concerned with preventing the spread of terrorism. The problem is now whether it is possible, or even legal, for social media providers to comply, even if they so desired.

To quote Janet Daley, in the Daily Telegraph, 27/11/2014: the US Constitution ‘specifically forbids “unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause” – although the revelations of Edward Snowden seem to suggest that the US security services are playing fast and loose with this Constitutional protection’.

Daley points to a further problem. ‘It takes a human mind to analyze the context and the intention: the difference between an academic essay that discusses jihad and the notion of Islamic martyrdom, and an actual declaration of a terror attack. So the computer can only trigger what must be an examination from a sentient being who must then inspect the private content’.

Her conclusion is interesting in terms of the course readings: ‘… there must be a realization that radicalization and plans to act on its vicious programme take place inside people’s heads. To stop every possibility of them occurring would involve getting open access to the inside of everyone’s thoughts. Even attempting to do this is something free societies have generally abhorred. If we undermine one of the most basic principles of personal freedom, what sort of life is it that we will be protecting?’


The impact of social media in a broader social/political context is tackled by Matthew Parris in The Spectator, 29.11.2014. He asks whether we are heading to a new barbarism, citing the case of Emily Thornberry who was forced from political office in the UK after a storm of social media criticism of fairly innocuous remarks she posted during a parliamentary bye-election in Rochester.

No comments:

Post a Comment