I
really enjoyed reading the section of James Curran’s book about the internet
and how the expectations of the internet were very different from how the
internet evolved to function for our time period. As someone who grew up through this time where
the internet became a huge part of daily life, I find the predictions made in
the 1990s very optimistic and somewhat bizarre.
Part of the prediction stated in the piece was that “all over the world,
the weak and marginal would be empowered, leading to the fall of autocrats and
the reordering of power relations. More generally, the global medium of the
internet would shrink the universe, promote dialogue between nations and foster
global understanding.” (3) While the
internet did change society permanently, “the enormous potential of the Internet….has
vaporized in a couple of decades.” (4) Curran
talks about the different ways in which the internet failed to rise to these
expectations. Interestingly, all of the reasons are not the fault of the
technology. The technology was capable
of rising up to the different aspects of the prediction. However, it is the
factors of human agency and availability that prevented this from happening.
One
of the reasons that really stuck me is the censorship and limited participation
in “an internet-mediated global dialogue.” (9) The reading talks about how rich
regions of the world have more internet access than poor regions. This rich
region includes Europe, North America, and Australia but what about developing countries?
In order to have global dialogue, these countries have to be included. But
these countries have less than 1/100th internet penetration rates.
(9) Thus instead, this “global communication” is primarily bringing the
affluent countries together.
Another
huge problem is the censorship of the internet by governments. The Curran
reading talks about censorship in that the internet would undermine dictators
and create democracy. However, this didn’t anticipate that the internet could
be withheld and controlled thus strengthening the dictatorships. An example
from the reading is about Saudi Arabia. The internet connection was first made
in 1994 there but public access wasn’t given until 1999 so the government would
have time to perfect its censorship over the medium. Once again, this prevented
global communication and the rising of democracy worldwide.
This
link is from the Huffington Post about the effect on China’s use of
censorship. “Beyond establishing a
great firewall to block thousands of sites from being accessed within China,
the government also works to prevent opposition on social media websites and
blogs.” If the government sees opposition,
the writer could face up to 10 years in jail. That is definitely a factor in
the lack of communication with other countries even apart from the language
barrier. The article continues to talk
about how this censorship is affecting China’s ability to grow economically. I
think that its important aspect of studying technology. A country needs to have
the newest technology in order to stay ahead or with other leading countries. This can especially be seen during war time
with the weapons different countries use.
What
part(s) of the internet not rising to predictions grabbed other people’s
attention?
I really enjoyed reading your blog post, Caroline! To answer your question, I found that the journalism section of the Curran piece was the most interesting. I am interested in possibly pursuing journalism in the future, so that is probably why this stuck out to me the most. Curran wrote that people had thought that the Internet would be "journalism's ultimate liberation" (18). It was believed that anyone could be a journalist due to now having the ability to spread news on their own through the Internet.
ReplyDeleteHowever, most independent online news ventures failed due to the fact that the public became so used to having free web content that most big name news sites can offer. These independent journalists would need subscriptions to keep their sites alive, but they failed without them.
Not only did independents fail, but big name news outlets, like newspapers and television channels, also went under due to losing advertising. Since the Internet reaches a large audience and is cheap, advertisers paid to promote their products on the Internet rather than with the big name journalism outlets.
Jordan, I agree with you the the journalism aspect is interesting and important to our society. It's really a shame that citizen journalism started up with inaccurate facts and that news outlets are going under because of the loss of advertising. Thanks for commenting!
DeleteI think the misconstrued anticipation that the internet would lead to global understanding and peace struck me the most. It was a great intention and a great milestone to think that this piece of technology would allow individuals to learn about each other and be able to coexist in harmony but it did not exactly pan out. Hate groups were given an easy way to get their messages out, language barriers prohibited free flowing information, uneven access left certain people out and too intense national pride made people not want to communicate. What is a tool that could be used for such momentous gains has instead been holding us back even more, which is a shame. Maybe in the future individuals can get past the 'storming' phase and really get to know eachother.
ReplyDeleteKeith, I hope you're right about the future. I think the language barrier and uneven access is a huge problem with that though. I agree with you in that the internet should have been used for momentous gains like the ones you are talking about. I hope for the future that access to the internet becomes more widespread and perhaps more individuals become bilingual to allow more communication between different countries.
DeleteI like the point you made about how the internet is only accessible to a very small portion of the world's population. This fact demonstrates the true reason why the internet failed to achieve the globalization people believed it had the potential to create. It exposes the paradox behind the internet. While these "rich" regions in North America, Europe and Australia have widespread access to, integration, and usage of the internet within their societies, those in developing countries surely do not. This sparks a lot of observations for me. For one, it seems that the internet is actually dividing us even further than we were before rather than being a unifying force. In present day the internet comes along with a "rich" connotation, meaning that it's true force is only relevant and accessible to the lives of those living in well-off countries. The internet fosters the dividing force between third and first world countries. It has grown to become something that symbolizes Western-ism, for the most part, and I think that it's interesting that we as Americans automatically assume that countries which lack heavy internet integration are still "developing" as if the internet is their endgame and they will not reach full development unless the internet infiltrates their societies and everyday lives. Sometimes I wonder who really is better off after learning about and experiencing all the detrimental side effects that come with the internet age in our own country.
ReplyDelete