Week 6- Weblogs and Society

I was really interested in the essay written by Andrew O’Baoill.  I think that he brought to light some very obviously-unobvious facts and opinions about the effect of bloggers on the public.  Now, there are many positives about being involved in a public, online debate.  In the eyes of the internet community, all bloggers are equal and no controversial topics are too taboo for discussion.  If you present yourself as an eloquent and rational debater, your blog may be tagged for regular viewing.  O’Baoill indicates that anyone with minimal technological skills, some free time and some financial funding has the potential of being a big-time blogger (O’Baoill, para. 3).  The most challenging part is researching and reading all sides to an argument to put together a formidable plan or discussion with valuable evidence.  The unfortunately side effect of this all is that the divide between people active and inactive in politics will grow substantially.    O’Baoill identified that “24% of American’s have direct or indirect experience with the internet…Internet population is younger, wealthier and more educated than the offline population” (O’Baoill, Para. 7).  Some people eve chose to become professional bloggers, which sounds ludicrous to me, but if you can make a living off of starting insightful discussions, then more power to you.  I think that oftentimes bloggers hope to raise money to do it full-time but can’t make enough to make ends meet.  

I was speaking to one my students a few weeks ago and he said that he had a random piece of information for me; that Helen Keller did LSD.  My co-worker and I were confused on what he was talking about, but he was adamant that he had read it on the internet so it had to be true.  Well, it took him a half hour to find what he was talking about… (this picture was his proof)

We had to have a nice long conversation with him about how to tell if things are fake or not on the internet.  Good or bad, LSD was around/invented while Helen Keller was alive, but we couldn’t find anything saying that she actually did it.  Just that she made a joke about it, maybe…if she even did.  O’Baoill touched on this when he said, “The importance placed by many weblogs on breaking news not only leads to greater risks of false information being published but, given the layout of weblogs, can foreshorten debates” (O’Baoill, Para. 14).  We see it all too often, people getting into heated debates online, and since many people are argumentative by nature things get out of hand.  Arguments explode and things get messy.  In paragraph 21 O’Baoill mentioned that a plus side of blogging is that it is a way for oppressed cultures and individuals to expose the conditions that they are living in.  People in Iraq and Syria have been posting things about their totalitarian regimes for years, until censorships have been placed on their internet access.  It still happens, but it is more difficult and dangerous for them to post.  

Sometimes we don't think about all of the wonderful opportunities we have, and how lucky we are to just have access to the vast amount of knowledge that is available on the internet.  I think that we take it for granted at times, and thinking about the people who are using it to express their personal concerns and tragedies (domestic or foreign)  is inspirational. 

 Refrences:

  O'Baoill, A. Weblogs and the Public Sphere . Retrieved from http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/weblogs_and_the_public_sphere.html

Week 3: Politics

I chose to reflect on Chapter 3 Politics: Deliberation, Mobilization, and Networked Practices of Agitation.  I specifically chose this chapter because I was interested in seeing how they percieved the future of politics.  I know what you're thinking, "Yuck, Politics?!" Trust me, I thought the same thing.  But the sad truth is, being familiar with politics helps us to better understand why things are the way they are, how they got that way, and what we can do about it!  The good side to any democracy is that the people (however small) have a voice.  If you want change, take strides to become a politician and an agent of change!  It is possible.  What irks me is when people get their political knowledge from a single source (i.e. the news) and think that they are political savants.  At the moment out political system is quite corrupt ( I am sure most people agree!) and mostly ruled by while, older men.  It is my wish that technology influence politics in a way that can level the playing field and make it more accessible and understandable for the everyday citizen.

The first topics brought up is the "electronic town hall" where people can speak directly with a representative(p.77). I think this sounds like a great idea; if the elected officials respond.  But, I have the feeling that they would very rarely or not at all.  The example of the public sphere that was posted was in order to determine what to do about the 9/11 site was interesting.  Eight Hundred Americans were asked and through "structured, guided discussion and deliberation, participants contributed their positions to decision makers" (p.79).  I think that this was a very honorable and compassionate way to include many people in the decision making process.

The only thing that truly concerned me was the alarming amount of times that the chapter described the internet as 'convivial.'  I am not going to lie, I didn't even know what that word meant.  But I don't think that I should take up nearly 19 pages on explaining how 'friendly' ( I looked it up! )the internet is. I think that anonymity of some sites can create a 'friendly' and guilt free atmosphere but I don't think that I would use the adjective 'friendly' to describe the whole internet.  Sure it is low-cost (in general p.81) and  collaborative but it is difficult to control or censor.  Now, I don't say this to sound like the Chinese Government. I think that some parts of the internet should be managed.  I am a firm believer that there should be some responsibility on managing those horrible comments or bullying remarks that are posted on various sites by teens.    Maybe if someone types derogatory or inappropriate language it should be censored, and deleted.  I understand that this may violate freedom of speech; but I think that people have the freedom to be jerks in their homes, but more than they should in public places like the grocery store.... or the internet!

Forgive me, I know that there are flaws in my argument, but consider the other side of the story too. Children (under 18) don't have the same freedoms as adults. While under the responsibility of their parents, they must abide by their rules and the rules schools.  Their freedoms are limited already... but in the end it may save a life.





Varnelis, K.(Ed.).(2008). Networked Publics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.