Sara Kwasny
Sociology 022 – In the Facebook Age – Spring 2010 – Dhiraj Murthy

All three readings this week discussed Habermas’ understanding of the “public sphere”.

According to Dahlberg, a public sphere is “a space free of state and corporate interests where private individuals can come together as a ‘public’ and rationally deliberate, ‘as if equals’ (bracketing out of inequalities), upon issues of common concern” (Dahlberg, 71).  There are certain things that define this public sphere: 1) it must be flexible, 2) opinions must be understood as plural, and 3) it must overlap internationally, nationally, and locally.  This ultimately allowed for “critical scrutiny”.  Dahlberg compares this to the European bourgeois, which was ultimately destroyed by the development of mass media.  He then goes into a more recent example of Al Gore’s argument that the Internet offers more democracy than mass media would because of the anonymity it offers.  However, this anonymity is not as “blind” as Dahlberg suggests because it can eventually be traced with new technology.  Therefore, this would make it less likely for people to post negative things about democracy as Habermas suggests.  Dahlberg then goes into an argument about how the public sphere will offer equality among users, a point a strongly disagree with.  Though it is discussed more in Papacharissi’s article, Dahlberg completely ignores the “digital divide” of those who do not have the luxury of computers, let alone Internet access.  These people, usually of the lower class, probably have more problems they would like addressed than those with access.  This creates an enormous problem with Habermas’ public sphere because there is automatic inequalities.  Next, Dahlberg discusses the three major developments of privatisation: 1) commodification, 2) convergence, and 3) commercialisation.  In terms of capitalism, he argues that the Internet offers the “perfect market place” because it is a place for direct advertising.  As the Internet continues to develop, it is clear that this is becoming increasingly true.  There are now ads in more places, including Facebook, YouTube, and extended ads on Hulu.  Dahlberg then quotes Apple founder Steve Jobs, who discussed the implications of the privatisation of the Internet, including: 1) corporate control and censorship, 2) access restrictions, and 3) privatisation of interactions.  However, it was conceded that privatisation is the reason the Internet is growing as quickly as it is.  As a result, cyberspace is becoming a commercially rented space, causing a need for censorship.  This eventually is causing new classes to develop, again indicating that there is indeed a “digital divide”, but not only between users with computers between those without.  Instead, there is also a divide between companies who can advertise and market online and those who cannot.  Eventually, Dahlberg states that the Internet will be increasingly seductive in that people will want to “maximize their individual pleasure”.  This will ultimately lead to more censorship and control of information on the Internet.

Erkki Karvonen sets up a better explanation of Habermas’ “public sphere” by setting up the historical background of democracy.  The author begins by developing the history of the pure democracy in ancient Greek.  Karvonen then discusses the development of how democracy has become privatized with the development of capitalism with public discussion in English salons.  However, this was still limited to those not in the bourgeois and those who were not considered to be in the lower class.  The author defines Habermas’ “public sphere” slightly differently saying there are three main features: 1) universal access, 2) rational debate, and 3) disregard for rank.  This definition is similar to Dahlberg’s.  Karvonen believes that there has been a “refuedalization” because of the digital divide within the Internet realm, however.  One part of Karvonen’s essay that I agree with is that “it is widely agreed that western democracies have problems in activating people to discuss, debate and even engage with their common business” (Karvonen, 347).  Because of the difficult way to vote, only a small portion of our country actually votes in presidential elections, and even less in mid-term elections.  However, Karvonen ultimately believes that “the internet will contribute to, or even be primarily responsible for, a new era of participatory democracy and a re-energizing of the public sphere” (Karvonen, 347).

Zizi Papacharissi continues the idea of Habermas’ public sphere, but believes that it cannot be revived because of the increasing digital divides.  She analyzes democracy in a different way than Karvonen in which she looks at the different views of different philosophers, including Tocqueville, Dewey, and Jones.  Papacharissi believes that there is a distinct difference in a public space and a public sphere.  She believes that the new Internet a public space, in which it offers a place for discussion.  However, a public sphere is different in that it provides a new form of democracy, which has yet to be developed.  She believes that the democratic tradition was corrupt because only the upper class had a say in what went on.  This has led to multiple unequal public spheres that the government cannot keep track of.  Therefore, collective opinions are being ignored.  Papacharissi reiterates Dahlberg’s idea that “privatizing forces of capitalism have created a mass commercial culture that has replaced the public sphere” (Papacharissi, 381).  She points out that the speed that information can be accessed will eventually lead to citizen activism.  However, I believe the opposite.  I think the Internet has offered a forum for political discussions, but if it was supposed to lead to citizen activism, we would have already seen it.  Instead, we have seen how lazy the Internet is making our generation.  This is reinforced in Papcharissi’s next section about information access.  An example of this laziness can be seen in the 2008 Presidential elections.  While both candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain, were very prevalent on the Internet in order to gain support from a younger generation, I don’t think they did so effectively.  Obama had a popular video on YouTube (Yes We Can), and it helped him gain support from younger voters.  However, the video had nothing to do with his campaign and was simply a bunch of celebrities who supported him.  Therefore, neither candidate took advantage of the easy access to information younger voters had.  Papacharissi then discusses the digital divide in further detail, saying that “[the advantages] do not instantaneously guarentee a fair, representative, and egalitarian public sphere” (Papacharissi, 383).  The Internet is still also liberals versus conservatives, despite the effort to combine people of common beliefs.  Papacharissi also talks about white supremacist groups, which we have seen in detail in class.  This “certainly [does] not promote democractic ideals of equality” (Papacharissi, 383).  The author then goes on to examine the effects of different cultural backgrounds combining on the Internet.  However, this also may lead to miscommunications and may not make a difference.  Papacharissi then discusses the evolution of rapid information flow, from radios, to televisions, to the Internet.  Something I found surprising was that only six percent of the world has access to computers.  Lastly, the author looks at a virtual sphere and how “cyberspace extends our channels for communication” (Papacharissi, 388).

I’m going to be honest and openly admit that I don’t understand the point of Twitter.  I found myself not “tweeting” nearly as much as everybody else in the class because I truly did not see a point in informing the Twitter community about my daily occurrences.  In addition to this, I had a hard time posting some of the things I wanted to tweet about using my iTouch.  For example, I posted the Web site to the Orient article about our seminar, but did not know how to copy and paste the link.  I ended up using Twitter as a place to advertise as well; the Orient was conducting a survey and I posted the link on my Twitter.  I also tweeted about sports I watched, like the Red Sox and Bruins, rather than activities I was doing.  I don’t think that’s what you’re supposed to use Twitter for, but like I said, I’m still not really sure what the point of the Web site is.

When reflecting upon surveillance and privacy, I found that Twitter has very little privacy, making it incredibly easy to survey random strangers.  Even entering twitter.com, you are shown random people’s tweets whether you are a user or not.  This, in my opinion, is a huge invasion of privacy.  However, I did not change my privacy settings because I was simply uninformed on how to do so and did not have the patience to look through the settings.  I wasn’t overly concerned because I wasn’t posting important information about myself through my tweets.  When I was talking to Toph tonight at the Orient meeting, he informed me that he had seen that I posted both the article and the blog, even though he was not one of my “followers” at the time.  I honestly had no idea the site was so open with its users, and I was surprised by his comment.

I’m definitely going to let my account die after this assignment is over.  I’m incredibly sketched out by the idea of Twitter and the features it offers.  I don’t like people knowing my constant updates about my life, and I don’t feel the need to constantly update people about random things like coming home from a meeting.

Facebook: Threats to Privacy-Jones and Soltren

This article examines the privacy risks users take when initially entering the Facebook realm.  However, the article was published in 2005, and I found that a lot of the information could be updated.  For example, the authors identify Facebook as a Web site available only to university students.  However, it is clear that this is no longer true, and Facebook has extended to middle schoolers with an e-mail account.  I think if the authors revisited this topic, they would find that more information is shared now then when they originally did this research.  The authors goals included: 1) analyzing the extent of data disclosure by using a “spider crawl” method, 2) how the system protects data, and 3) the “threat model” of Facebook.  Jones and Soltren argue that Facebook is a popular commodity, and up to 80 percent of freshmen enter the site before even coming on campus.  This is evident even today, shown with the various groups college classes create upon their acceptance to the school.  According to the author’s, Facebook’s main goal is to “allow users to interact with each other online”.  Again, this is more evident today, as Facebook continues to add features to the site to enhance this goal.  For example, Facebook chat was added as an instant message type system to allow users to talk to each other at a quicker pace than simply writing on each other’s walls.  What surprised me most about this article was the author’s claim that after a user logs in, their information is very apparent in the URL used.  I think it is more encoded now, however, because the URL they used as an example did not appear when I tried to login.  Instead, the URL ended with loginattempt=1 (or something of that sort).  Last week’s article argued that the younger generation is more likely to share information readily on the Internet.  This article almost supported that fact, showing that the younger a college class, the more information they are willing to share.  Jones and Soltren believe that more data is going to become available as Facebook continues to develop.  I agree with this statement.  This is shown with the new networks created as Facebook has evolved.  For example, I can be in the Bowdoin network, but also in the Philadelphia, PA network.  If I chose to do this, anybody in this network can also see my information, unless I protect it carefully.  This supports the author’s claim that information will be more available.  Lastly, the authors claim that 26 percent of users are not familiar with the “My Privacy” settings.  However, I argued this point last week because most users are not on the “My Privacy” part of their Facebook as often as they use the other features on the site.  This percent is probably less as Facebook continues to complicate this feature.  This is also an issue because, as the statistics in my and Becca’s social networking site presentation show, younger users are more likely to friend complete strangers.  In the beginning of the article, Jones and Soltren suggest that Facebook should educate their users are their privacy settings.  I agree with this, especially if a user indicates a younger age on their profile.

Webster readings

Introduction into surveillance-Blom
In this introduction, Blom discusses the effects of technology on increasing surveillance.  He argues that the more technology society is introduced to, the more surveillance there will be, especially by “Big Brother”, or the government.  However, I believe that there is increased surveillance simply because there is more to be watched over.  The Internet offers an entire extra realm where people can communicate with each other.  Therefore, this increased surveillance may be necessary to a certain extent.  For example, it’s absolutely necessary for the government to monitor terrorist Web sites, but it is wrong to monitor things like my Facebook wall.  This is a tough distinction to make, however, and one the government consistently struggles with.  It was interesting that Blom brought up the point that it is necessary to have surveillance in order to gain access to simple liberties, like voting.  I disagree with his example of the companies using surveillance in order to figure out how many products to make.  Isn’t that simply observation, not surveillance?  In the remainder of the introduction, Blom summarizes the articles found within the chapter, which made it a lot easier to understand Chapter 20.

Panopticism-Foucault
This article examines Bentham’s “panopticon”, and the development of surveillance as time has passed.  Bentham’s panopticon is a prison-type society where the goals are “to enclose, to deprive of light, and to hide” (Webster, 302).  It is a place where one is always watched without being watched and contact with others is impossible.  Bentham’s definition of power is that it “should be visible and unverifiable” (Webster, 303).  It’s easy to see this with power today.  There are figure heads, the president of the United States, that are visible to people.  However, we are all unaware if our phones are being tapped or if our e-mails are being monitored.  The Panopticon’s goal is “to strengthen the social forces – to increase production, to develop the economy, spread education, raise the level of public morality; to increase and multiply” (Webster, 305).  However, Foucault continues to describe the Panopticon and how it centers around discipline, hoping to form a generalization.  One key thing that Foucault brings up is that “our society is one not of spectacle, but of surveillance” (Webster, 306).  This was proven in the introduction by Blom where he proves that we cannot be given our liberties and freedoms without surveillance.  Foucault proceeds to explain six “important results” of the justice system, of which a few I agree with.  First, he argues that we are headed towards more surveillance in order to inflict more punishment.  While I think this may have slowed down, he makes a good point when he points out the change from the classical period to a more present period.  Next, Foucault claims that delinquents are born and there is no way to avoid them going to prison.  This is seen today in the nature vs. nurture argument.  Foucault also believes that the power to punish is natural in this system, and that there are numerous ways to punish people, whether it be prison or rehabilitation.  He then moves to the argument that it is difficult for someone to pass judgement on another, but “insertion, distribution, surveillance, observation, has been the greatest support, in modern society, of the normalizing power” (Webster, 311).  This argues that these means are necessary in maintaining power in modern society.  Foucault also argues that the carceral system has made “human sciences possible.”  I find this argument, along with his last argument, the two hardest to believe.

The two readings this week offered contrasting views of people’s expression on the Internet.  While Smith portrays it in a positive note, Livingstone looks at the negative shallowness associated with younger teenager’s use of the Internet.

Web hit touches a chord with anorexics-D. Smith

This article describes the effect of a latent song that was rejuvenated by YouTube.  The song was put to a series of still pictures of an anorexic girl, and it had an incredible impact on many anorexics on the Internet.  I enjoyed reading this article because it was different from what we have been reading so far in that it was much less formal and told a story rather than concepts and theories.  It was interesting that Smith described that anorexics used the blog for the video as a diary.  However, it is understandable that these users would open up because the Internet offers anonymity.  This anonymity allows people to state their feelings without a face behind the comment, and therefore avoiding all judgements.  Smith describes this site, however, as more powerful than a normal blog, which again I believe is because of the anonymity offered.  Overall, I think this article shows a positive view of the support the Internet can provide.  The support shown for anorexics reminds me a lot of the House episode we watched in class, where the blogger needed to post and gain approval for the type of surgery she was considering before she made and decisions.

Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy privacy and self-expression-S. Livingstone

Livingstone’s essay discusses trends as to why younger teens use the Internet, what they choose to share, and what their privacy settings are.  The studies were done in London, which is easy to see.  And although the essay was published in 2008, it is clearly outdated when it discusses MySpace as the most popular Web site, along with Facebook and Bebo.  Facebook is now the most prevalent social networking site.  To be honest, I’ve never even heard of Bebo, so I didn’t understand the references Livingstone made in his article.  One thing I found that is still true today is the age difference between MySpace users and Facebook users.  I usually see younger users, like middle schoolers, on MySpace, and high schoolers moving to Facebook.  This was one aspect of the article I could easily agree with.  While I found that Livingstone took a mostly cynical view towards social networking sites, he does concede that they may help with literacy skills, but I disagree with this statement.  I find that younger users tend to use more abbreviations when typing online, like lol and sup, which ultimately will hurt the users when they have to start writing papers.  Besides this, Livingstone was very negative about younger users on social networking sites, claiming that our generation has no sense of privacy.  However, I think this is true for the younger side of our generation, but it is something that they grow out of.  While I agree that adults may consider some of what children are doing online to be risky, I think it’s part of the immature behavior exhibited by the users Livingstone interviewed.  You can tell the users are immature by the language they use in their interviews, using “like” in almost every quote in between thoughts.  The one point I think Livingstone makes is that younger users on social networking sites use these sites for the wrong reasons.  They are using them, as Livingstone says, to talk to their local contacts and maintain a certain online social status.  The users claim that they only comment on their friends pages if the friend comments first, hoping to be “popular” online.  This reflects the age group interviewed, however.  In middle school, it was always more important to seem “cool”, and the development of social networking sites is just another place that teenagers need to prove their social status.  The users claim the need to keep “constant connections”, but these connections are fake and shallow and add to the personality they want their pages to show.  In relation to privacy, Livingstone makes it clear that the teens he interviewed did not know how to change the privacy settings on social networking sites.  However, I’ve been using Facebook since my freshman year in high school, and I have no idea how to work the privacy settings.  It’s not something that requires daily attention, and therefore, users will not be as acclimated with the settings.  It’s the kind of thing you sit down one day to figure out and leave it be.  Overall, I think Livingstone completely ignored the positive aspects of social networking sites that we have discussed in class.

This week’s readings focused on virtual ethnicity.  Because I had never heard this discussed before, I found the readings confusing, but they discuss the idea of racism online, but also how language barriers can affect one’s online experience.

McLelland’s article was interesting in that it approached what he described as a more homogeneous Internet than the Internet of the other major Internet languages, which were English, Chinese, and Spanish.  It was not surprising to me that McLelland proved that the English language online is declining while the other languages are rising because it is also being done in other industries, not just the Internet.  Within the article, the author attributes the racism that can be found online to the Internet’s origins.  However, McLelland’s article focused mostly on Japanese Internet, something that he mentions is rarely studied.  While he says that there are definitely different classes in Japan, McLelland claims that “there is no clear ‘majority’vs ‘minority’ split in internet use in Japan along racial lines,and consequently the advent of a distinctive Japanese cyberspace has not led to the disappearance of racial difference (as is arguably the case in Japanese commercial media),but rather to increased visibility and activism around issues of ‘race’” (McLelland, 817).  Earlier in the article he makes the claim that Anglophone Internet is incredibly “white”, and that minorities within the country do not have as much access to the Internet.  Therefore, the “whiteness” he describes can be attributed to the fact that these minorities are not online as much and cannot spread the ideas as easily.  However, Japanese racism comes more from one’s blood, rather than actual race.  McLelland also discusses that because that the Japanese language is so different than the other previously mentioned languages used on the Internet, the Internet within the country is a “closed system impermeable to non-Japanese perspectives” (McLelland, 826).  A majority of McLelland’s article focuses on the website 2-Channeru, which openly discriminates against people within Japan.  The website makes it easier to anonymously post your opinions, which explains why it is so popular.  A similar example we analyzed in class was the website StormFront, which an organized form of racism within America.  As discussed within the article as well, the website is connecting the country by creating a global village of racism.  Overall, McLelland shows the negative impact the Internet has had within a country by showing the racism behind it.

Poster’s article examines ethnicity by challenging past definitions of the term and applying them to today’s digital world.  He first looks at language and questions whether or not language can alter experience.  Poster ultimately agrees with what we have said many times in class: “that the virtual is not real” (Poster, 191).  I found his take on this view interesting, however, especially the quote “everything is always already virtual so although it is everywhere, it is also nowhere” (Poster, 192).  I disagree with this statement because he fails to recognize the digital divide, which consists of those without the Internet.  We have discussed “black holes” in class, which are places with no access to being connected.  Because of places like this, the Internet is not universal, and this quote is false.  Poster then goes into the history of ethnicity and attempts to relate it to “electronically mediated communications”.  He argues that ethnicity is no longer “true” because it has moved from “face-to-face, to print and finally to electronic communications” (Poster, 195-6).  I agree with this argument that we are losing certain parts of cultures through the continuing use of the Internet because we are no longer required to have the face-to-face interactions.  Poster then carries this argument to tribes and examines the technological effect on them.  He finds that “viritualization” is a phenomenon that “enables subjects and objects increasingly to appear in configurations of space and time, mind and body, human and machine that disaggregate the real or actual into constellations of indeterminate-not amorphous-complexity” (Poster, 203).  However, he later claims that the Internet has made some ethnic groups closer, using Jews as an example.  He discusses “cyber Sedar”, which I have personally seen.  Many of my friends cannot make it home for the Jewish holidays and actually iChat with their families during Sedar for important holidays, like Passover.  They are still keeping the traditions that they normally kept with their family, but are able to attend a Sedar they normally would not be able to experience.  In this case, the Internet is actually helping people maintain their ethnicity.  Poster supports this argument further by examining how Jews are becoming more and more linked through the use of the Internet.  Overall, Poster shows both a positive and negative impact of virtual ethnicity with the continuing development of the Internet.