Sunday, April Fools Day . . .
Posted by kscott on April 1, 2007
Hi folks - since you’ve got more than enough on your plate this week with continuing to work on revisions of your essay and three readings, I’m not going to require posting this week. HOWEVER, if you are behind in any way (have missed some postings, for example), I will accept comments to this blog with regards to any one of the readings this week and will count as EXTRA CREDIT.
So this is your opportunity to do a little catch-up if you are behind.
No joke . . .
April 3rd, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Our readings this week focus on cyberspace as a kind of “new frontier.” This comment can be looked at as superficial in the sense that it is a term we often throw at any space that seems new to us or the comment can be discussed as it is by authors like Graham Barwell and Kate Bowles. Their essay talks about cyberspace as signaling a transitional phase in nation states. They see the internet as a strong force in dislocating citizens from the nations where they live.
Even though I think that the effect the internet has in the globalization process will not always be positive, it seems to be unstoppable. Although the authors are critical of the idea that we are dislocated on the internet and there is no longer a “here” or”there” and therefore not an other to colonize, I think it is this kind of thinking that will at least let us explore the new options in interaction.
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:22 pm
what i found interesting about ‘border corssing’ was the ever-appaernt presence of the Canadian moral views on what should be told to the people and the problems that Americans have wtih those morals. because the Canadian government thought going into vivid detail about the kidnapping, sexual assault, and eventual murder of two young, innocent girls was kind of irrelivent to the actual story of the developing news, Peoploe of America cried out ‘third world dictatorship!!’.. I think that once Americans caught wind of a seal on the court room details they were outraged because most americans get a hard-on for gruesome,graphic stories.
I think that bceause America is the center of the Internet today as we know it we have mass popularity in sites featuring all the graphic things that Barwell and Bowels speak of such as disgusting sexual acts and perversion of privacy with spycams and such. Canada thought that the detail was irrevivant to the people; two girls had died, we have the criminals, they will be given a fare trial and punished accordingly, thats that. Americans want to hear about the sex that took place, if theres video of it, if they can see it online, share it wih friends,ect,ect,ect,ect….. I agree more wtih the Canadian way of reporting information rather than wondering how someone could do ‘this that and the other’ to such young girls.
I think the Americanized internet as a central pivoting point for all other countries to revolve around iis another step in the process of creating an all consumer culture that we are on the way of having. The only reason the Canadian seal on detail was a big deal is America’s thirst for entertainment. America seemed to be more interested in the crime than in the girls. I think that canadian’s would prefer to think about the girls as daughters of family rather than victims of crime.
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:23 pm
In regard to the Barwell piece.
I thought the example of the Canadian trial was very interesting. I very much understand the problem with the American media circumventing the Canadian government, treating a ban as though it was ‘illegal’ without really contemplating the fact that Canada is a completely different country, and shouldn’t be subject to American values simply because they share a border and exchange citizens (a problem we have now with many other countries, but I digress).
It’s important to notice, however, that the ‘leak’ from the trial happened within Canada. U of Ontario students started a forum with the express intent of discussing the trial. While it’s easy to find the blame within the American media, I’m not sure I can really find it (the blame) in the American ‘internet’ and agenda. I realize the example is in reference is old, and the USEnet system is American in nature, but I don’t find the piece worrisome really. Contemporary examples and evidence suggest that the technology is there for countries to harness the internet and make it their own, and China is a perfect example. China controls and openly censors many different sections of their internet system. Two large examples… The Chinese ‘Google’ is regulated by the government, and in China, users can only play World of Warcraft for a certain amount of time before the game renders itself unplayable. Do I feel that Google should be censored? No. Do I feel like people should be forced to stop playing World of Warcraft and go outside? Maybe. Probably (Yes). The internet can be controlled and regulated, the tech is there. If countries are worried (as China is) about the nature of the Internet, they should take steps to change their own local networks.
On the other side, however, it doesn’t seem that (even though, within our own country, it’s as untrue as it is everywhere else) the ideals of freedom of speech and freedom of information are really a bad thing to spread about. The internet holds these principles somewhere within, regardless of whether or not any one country decides to do this. Are countries worried about American influence, or are they worried about lack of control on the populace.
The internet may have been born in the U.S, but it’s bigger then that now.