Monday, February 22, 2010
Technology and Free Speech?
I was really interested in Bolster's and Grusin's discussion of how "new media, particularly the internet, will bring about a new kind of democracy." (74) While they acknowledge that this is an idea held by "enthusiasts," many theorists also take this idea of technology becoming a means of authorization and democratization. Bolster and Grusin use Howard Rheingold, who states: [computer mediated communication]... challenges the existing political hierarchy's monopoly on powerful media communications and perhaps thus revitalize citizen-based democracy" (74). Yet, I wonder if the internet offers only a mock-freedom? Yes I can make a blog, and a twitter, and I can voice my opinions and political viewpoints on pre-constructed internet forums. Sure I can put up pictures and video clips, but in the end there is always someone at the end of the cord who can close my accounts or remove any inappropriate content; so where is the power? In China the government has controlled the content available on Google; my Google is not the same as theirs. Which comes to a basic question of access: who has access to say what goes on the internet; and in the end it isn’t average Joe, or even an above-average smart person. However, I definitely appreciate the potential implication that the internet allows for some room for free speech, but I’m not too sure if it can lead to a “citizen-based democracy” because the same people who have access and intellect enough to speak opinions and be active in a political (online) forum are the same people who would have had access and intellect enough to participate in politics without internet access. So free speech? No, not necessarily; but what is made available is the chance to become active and opinionated, and isn’t that how all revolutions start?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
HI Elise,
ReplyDeleteMaybe there was hope a decade ago when this book was written, but today, I really don't see how anyone could possibly believe that the internet will somehow automatically challenge the "hierarchy's monopoly on powerful communications systems." At this point these "communications systems" are completely controlled by the existing hegemony and there is nothing you or I can do about it. Before the media blitz by this power structure, the majority of Americans were all for health care reform... and after the media blitz they were totally against it. It is no coincidence that upon it's death, insurance companies raised their rates -- some by 40% -- JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN. The media killed health-care reform, and it's only going to get worse, now that five judges gave corporations the right to spend as much as they want on political advertisement and call it "freedom of speech." If and when the internet did actually begin to result in any kind of threat to the hegemony in the U.S., they would simply do what they're doing in China... limit our access...