Monday, October 29, 2007

The problems that derive from trying to classify the internet and it's culture are not new nor are they exclusive to this one form of technology. What makes the internet so different? The government sees it's power and claims to use it carefully to prevent predators and the wonderful catch-all phrase of the word 'terrorism.' But in the age of Net neutrality, we have to ask what the government is really studying the internet for. Surveillance is not a new idea (as we discussed in class) and the idea of surveying it as a culture is quite limited. But, instead the issue is, using the internet as a way to elaborate that 4th branch of government that once was run only by journalists and now is able to extend to bloggers as a way to exemplify the original idea of the public sphere as a place to talk about events. However, as Nancy Fraser so well put, the original Habermas public sphere was a way for a select few people to discuss public events. The internet provides much more as a way for even counterpublics to divide into a greater mass of thought in articulating differing interests, values, and beliefs as well as providing a safe place for the members to gather. The government has long seen this action in reality but the use of the internet as a tool that can be used either way (http://www.bcpl.net/~rfrankli/hatedir.htm to see the more lesser side of the internet as a way to join and discuss issues.) Officials know this well.

No comments: