http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcom.2012.62.issue-2/issuetoc
On 4/5/12 2:37 PM, lasko wrote:
> On 4/2/12 7:13 PM, Marv Gandall wrote:
>
>> [WS:] I think a more accurate view is that they are neither
>> revolutionary nor counter-revolutionary. Per se, they do not matter.
>> What matters is the social context in which they are being used, and
>> depending on that context, they can be either revolutionary,
>> counter-revolutionary, or neutral.
>
>
>>
>> Couldn't agree more. True historically of all media. They're
>> instruments, like other weaponry.
>>
>
> But criticizing Twitter for not being of more utility in the organizing
> of political opposition is like criticizing a screwdriver for its
> clumsiness at hammering nails. There are better tools for that job: e.g.
> skype or encrypted email. That's a sense in which technology is not
> neutral. Public technologies like Twitter do encourage quietism, in
> radically opposed social contexts: say, in liberal democratic
> communicative capitalism, where tolerant powers-that-be encourage
> passive fantasies of participation; or in the context of networked
> authoritarianism, in which authorities regard social media as a serious
> threat and respond with despair-inducing reprisals and propaganda (see:
> http://tinyurl.com/social-media-azerbaijan ).
>
> The problem with the FT article is that it broadly asserts that
> computers encourage quietism and immobility. Computers do reduce
> socially-necessary mobility - if you can work, shop, socialize or plot a
> revolution from home, obviously you don't have to leave home as often.
> The article doesn't make a distinction between tools that can be used
> for publicity (with the risk of quietism) and tools that are more
> appropriate to behind-the-scenes organizing (with the risk of failing to
> engage sufficient numbers of people), or that perhaps in a context where
> you can stay home more often, your participation in a demonstration or
> occupation can become more significant.
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>