Hyperlink Essay: The Online Public Sphere

The rise of the Internet has constituted a new type of public sphere that differs from a traditional one. I will demonstrate the benefits of the Internet as a public sphere including its advanced participatory culture, abilities to distribute widespread democratic discussions, and its accessibility. Henry Jenkins uses his blog, “Confessions of an Aca-fan,” a form of citizen media, to discuss participatory democracy and participatory culture. In one of his posts he illustrates that we often think of democracy in relation to major breakthroughs for citizens such as signing the Declaration of Independence (Mar 5, 2007). We generally only think of the Internet as a platform for entertainment, however the benefits of the Internet and participatory democracy directly affect the public sphere on an intellectual level. The Internet allows the public to thrive through enhanced connectivity. In "Publics and Counterpublics" Michael Warner demonstrates that a pubic can be self-organized, a relation among strangers, personal and impersonal in terms of public speech, constituted though mere attention, and it is the social space created by the reflexive circulation of discourse (413-420). The Internet meets these criteria however it allows for a public to work on a worldwide scale that is accessible at any time. Nathaniel Poor refers to the relationship of the Internet and public spheres as an “online public sphere” (par. 3). Poor analyses Slashdot and demonstrates how it establishes itself as a public sphere. Anyone in the world can use Slashdot at anytime, and yet it is one public sphere. The Internet provides information to the public in a widespread and overly accessible way that may not of reached as many citizens if it were just posted in the newspaper or a book in the library and this leads for a more knowledgeable democracy in a public sphere. In "Blogging Outloud: Shifts in Public Voice" Danah Boyd expresses the power of the internet by comparing librarians and the Internet in terms of holding the power in providing information to the public. Boyd also believes that “information is power,” therefore the capabilities that the Internet has to provide information favors and contributes to the power of democracy (par. 8). In Mathew Ingram’s article he points out that social media, such as Twitter, can now break news in similar ways traditional media outlets do. In another one of his works, Ingram refers to news as a process because it works its way through many media sources and determines what is fact (par. 1). Twitter is a platform for an online public sphere because news can be spread to and from citizens, without framing or inserted ideologies to create a bias for the government. In, "Weblogs: a history and perspective" Rebecca Blood expresses the ability of weblogs, a form of citizen media, and their ability to transform citizens from being an audience to a public and consumers to creators (par. 30).  The public sphere is about creating and sharing ideas as a public in a democracy and the Internet allows us to do so on a worldwide scale. 

Copygift? Yes Please!

 

Copyright has ingrained itself into many aspects of our lives and without it there would exist a much more free society, however a much more chaotic one as well - to say the least! Copyright is that thing that says, “this work is owned by someone or something, you cannot use this work and call it your own or change it to suit your needs better (without permission of course)” - what a drag!

Mackenzie Wark in his article "Copyright, Copyleft, Copygift" discusses the concept of “copygift” and I for one agree with his opinion. What is copygift you ask? It is an aspect of the social movement, it is the process of asking someone for the right to use their work, and not just to use it, but also to change, build off of it, and build into it as one pleases. The simple act of asking and receiving permission to use a work is a social relation and in Wark’s opinion this is the meat and gravy of the social movement.

I’m not saying I believe in plagiarism and neither is Wark. However the key here is the social relations that can be built through asking to use one’s work. So yes, copyright is necessary, but the process of using something that you did not originally produce should be much easier and more accessible. In my opinion nothing is ever really original, everything builds off of something else and that is how the world goes around! Through building off of other’s thoughts and ideas our world can grow and thrive.

Innovation and creativity are not always based off of original ideas but rather an extension of a prior idea. The action of asking for the right to use an idea or work and receiving the permission to do with it as one pleases is a copygift.

This brings me to question, what is an author? Can someone only be classified as an author if they created something completely original? NO! If that were the case half of the authors out there today would be phonies! An author in my opinion is the creator of something new, but it can be based off of other preexisting ideas.  Michel Foucault demonstrates the relationship between text and author in "What is an Author" and questions what would happen if authors were not linked to their text. In my opinion innovation could prosper if this happened because we would not be as restricted to plagiarism and copyright. However I then struggle with the notion that an author should be credited from something they create.

Greg Bulmash in "Should Copyright be Abolished" also discusses issues surrounding copyright and authorship. He points out that we should not dismiss copyright completely, however it does need some reworking. I agree, I mean if I created a work I would want my name attached to it for the recognition and I would want to be asked if my piece could be used and changed, wouldn’t you?

Copyright does not have to be a bad thing; rather it should be modified so that works are more accessible to become “copygifts” and yet still remain in connection to the original author.

What do you think?

Sayonara from the author of this blog and another participating citizen of media,

Elyse

Shhh... We're Talking About Gossip!

The word “gossip” to me is like dropping the f-bomb. Gossip is something that happens everyday, all day, and we just can’t escape it. It used to be that gossip travelled around your office or town, but now, thanks to the Internet, it is a viral entity.

The Internet allows for online gossip in all forms. Gossip through social media is probably the most apparent source on the Internet. With the rise of the public sphere online, gossip can thrive to its upmost potential. This potential includes the spread of gossip on an international scale in seconds. If someone desires to spread a rumor all they have to do is type it into Twitter or another source, and BAM the gossip starts to spread on an unlimited boundless rampage that can make it from Canada to China at an overwhelming speed. Twitter, Facebook, and blogs, to name a few are both a great and wretched source of gossip.

I personally use Twitter as my main source of obtaining gossip. If I hear a rumor going around I use Twitter to both read the gossip Twitter feeds and to go on the particular source’s Twitter to see what they have to say about clearing up any rumors. For example when the big explosive gossip came out that Beyoncé lip-synced at Obama’s Inauguration (Oh-my! What a sin! Insert rolling eyes here), I first saw all of the gossip on twitter and immediately I went to Beyoncé's Twitter to see if she said anything about it.

The funny thing about gossip is that it is 50/50 true or false (gossip is not always a rumor!) I think that is why most of us thrive on it, because there is a possibility that it could be very true but then a mystery that it may be false and we must hunt for the truth. Of course gossip existed before the Internet but it was less easily accessible before online use. Before the Internet we could chose to go out and buy a magazine and buy into the gossip. Now gossip is free and viral, choosing to buy into gossip is not the case anymore, but rather the moment we open up a browser that enables us to interface with the world wide web, which for most of us this happens many times a day, we are bombarded with gossip.

Mathew Ingram in If you think Twitter doesn't break news you're living in a dream world describes news as a process because it goes through many media outlets and the mainstream news outlets have now expanded to social media platforms such as Twitter. Even if the source is not “credible” that doesn’t matter to many people anymore, because gossip that is spread through social media spreads like wildfire and if more than one Twitter feed is saying it, it must be true, right?

If you choose to be on social media, gossip is inevitable!

Cheers from another participating citizen of media,

Elyse