Web technology has the capacity for re-establishing the public sphere, giving the global public the possibility to freely and equally debate various issues. This new technology, including social networks, can provide a thriving forum for democracy through the new choice, plurality and freedom of speech. This social media was vital in the recent Syrian uprising, however some people still do not see this new social media in a utopian light, and do not believe this rechnology really strengthens the public sphere.
During the Syrian uprising, camerphones and other media tools were used during protests to offer a first hand, ground level view of the unrest, including angry people chanting outside a government buildings. Photos and videos of these protests could then be uploaded, shared and spread fast to other viewers. By recording the protests, the raw footage could be shared with those unaware due to censorship of protests by the government, whom did not want news of the protests broadcasted across Syria for fear of copycat behaviour. The internet was used as an outlet to share this suppressed information. Skype was also used to avoid monitored phonelines, again avoiding the surveillance of the repressive state. However censorship was continually used to counteract these breaches for example they shut down the internet across most of the country one day to stop Syrians from viewing videos of protesting, on websites such as Facebook. The speed of distribution through the web however did weaken censorship and the state's power, as it was practically impossible to hide evidence of the protests while everyone was getting hold of it so fast online. This citizen journalism conveys Gauntlett's idea that citizens now have similar powers to the traditional media 'Gods' in terms of their ability to decide what they publish and how it is interpreted.
The internet could again be seen as dangerous in this situation however, as people recording videos and uploading them could be tracked through the powers of the internet. Despite this clear risk, people still used the social media as a tool of freedom to express views and divulge information. Out of these issues arises the debate over whether the internet is more dangerous than it is democratic, as although it can be used for the aforementioned good causes, people with a dystopian view of the web would argue that it can be used as a dangerous tool, and also a superb tool for government surveillance. One example of the internet being exploited for deviance is the story of a man in Scotland posing as a gay Muslim girl on a blog before revealing his identity when the blog came to light. This shows how easy it is to create and distribute false information or profiles via the web. Although this particular case could be seen as some form of peace activism, it does show a danger of the web in the way that we can be fed lies through blogs or sites such as Wikipedia which anyone can edit. Although it shows democracy it also shows the web is misused often and these democratic tools present in web 2.0 can be taken advantage of. This weakens the public sphere as the reality and legitimacy of people and debates comes into question when the online medium is used.
Contrary to this negative aspect, there are also cases of citizen journalists disproving the legitimacy of the traditional media. For example; the Ian Tomlinson case, where the aforementioned man died during protests in London. The police and the media reported that attempts to revive the man were stopped by protesters pelting medics with bottles. However, one American citizen captured footage on his handheld device which proved that Tomlinson was in fact attacked (seemingly unprovoked) by the riot officers, which lead to his fatal injury. Therefore, from a utopian standpoint, this suggests that the internet and the coinciding democratic input from citizens, does strengthen the public sphere in our society.
Before the internet the public sphere could be seen as weak, as Habermas noted, because there was no forum which everyone could use for discussion. Opinions were formed based on what was fed to the people on television and what people discussed in small groups. The internet however has offered access to different realms of belief, and opinions which would not be heard as widely without web 2.0. This online discussion element therefore strengthens the public sphere despite coming with its downsides such as the issue of false identity. As the web continues to develop it is likely to become flooded with a wider range of views, values and issues than ever; and one wonders whether legislation will be enforced to censor or restrict access to who can publish what on this world spectrum. The case of Ryan Giggs' super injunction being broken by around 70,000 Twitter users, exemplifies the power the web gives people to expose whatever they want, completely uncensored. Putting the web on a leash could demolish the strength it has added to the public sphere through its new democracy, however putting no limitations on it could lead to the web's power becoming out of control.
No comments:
Post a Comment