Week 4 entry

With the introduction and adoption of new communication technologies the question reoccurs whether the Government controls the media or the media control the government. Shirky (2011) takes the optimistic view that social media gives society, through improved communicative freedom, an opportunity to extend the boundaries of the public sphere and include a broader variety citizens into political debate. I certainly agree with this point – social media in its essence is designed to introduce people with common interests in a virtual space where discussion and debate can occur in the public eye. This does to some extent empower citizens under authoritarian governments, as Shirky (2011) cites, giving them better organisation and influence in uprisings or demonstrations. As such, it should be the role of libertarian governments to maintain citizens’ right to communicative freedom.

This does however raise the next question of morality in regards to freedom of speech online. Hamelink (2006, 119) uses examples of moral issues relating to Internet freedom such as candid, unauthorised photography, cyber-bullying and software piracy. In other media and in offline society, there are laws and recognised guidelines that define what is appropriate however in such a large, constantly changing space as the world-wide-web, it is neither possible nor practical to enforce laws without inhibiting an individual’s right to speech. It should then be the responsibility of the user to decide what content is and isn’t appropriate for their own use and managing serious Internet crime such as child pornography and fraud should be the focus of government regulation as per local law.

References:

Hamelink, C. (2006). The Ethics of the Internet: Can we cope with Lies and Deceit on the Net? In Ideologies of the Internet, K. Sarikakis & Daya Thussu, pp. 115-130. New Jersey: Hampton Press.

Shirky, C. (2011). The Political Power of Social Media: Technology, the Public Sphere, and Political Change in Foreign Affairs. Volume 90, Issue 1;  pg. 28, 15 pgs

Playlist is Character? (Week 3 Blog)

Playlist is character - Levy (2006, pp.23) proposes this concept that has been assumed knowledge amongst social groups since the iPod first conquered the realm of portable music. It certainly can’t be denied that an individual’s choice of music does offer a degree of reflection on their personality, however I disagree with the notion that the music on your iPod is “not just what you like – It’s who you are,” as Levy (2006, 26) suggests. Rather, I would put forward that an individual’s playlist is a selection of music, which somebody else wrote, performed and recorded, for the enjoyment and interpretation of consumers. By Levy’s rationale, if a stranger looked at my playlist without meeting me first, they would be able to draw the conclusion that I was an urban hipster, probably wearing skinny jeans and thick-rimmed glasses, an assumption that couldn’t be further from the truth. That said, an individual’s iPod playlist does offer a reflection on their personality because certain types of music apply different levels appeal to certain types of people, however what someone listens to on the train to work doesn’t come close to being definitive of their character.

Reference:

Levy, S. 2006. The perfect thing: how the ipod shuffles commerce, culture and coolness. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.