Blogging...a new public sphere?

With the emergence of many blogging programs like this one, many issues that were once left to the private lives of individuals have now become the public. We have recreated what information is deemed to be kept private and what is released publicly. "Citizens act as a public when they deal with matter of general interest without being subject to coercion; thus with the guarantee that they may assemble and unite freely, and express and publicize their options’ freely"- Habermas (2003). This theory of Habermas states that as a public, blogging has allowed us to communicate freely, free of control and pursasion over what is appropriate and what is not. As a new form of online communication, blogs have turned the private conversation into a public one. We are no longer afraid to hid concerns about our social institutions and provide valuable information for the rest of the population; no matter how controversial. There are blogging sites, such as Hackbloc.org, creating a community for hacktivists on the internet. A support system for those people around the globe that share the same view on digital activism. Without the introduction of the blog, i feel many issues which have been brought up recently would not exist. It is more dangerous that the citizen journalist has more say, or is society finally realizing all of the issue that they were too afraid to express?

What is next for online communication?

When we think of all the social networking sites that are available to us on a 24 hour basis; its beyond astounding. Over the course of the past few months, it has come to my attention how involved society is in this online public sphere. A community of individuals from all over the world can communicate when ever, from where ever, and how often they would like. With the continuing addition of technological advancements, it is becoming easer to distance ourselves from traditional face-to-face communication. From our now hand-held devices we can access our online social networks at the touch of a screen. What individuals used to keep private and away from the public eye, has now changed. People can discuss their emotions, attitudes, outlooks on millions of topics and communicate with others in the process. We have created an online sphere where once private issues can now become public. We can share information immediately and obtain it just as quickly. From the avid, myspacer, facebooker, or blogger, all of them are sharing the same withdrawn experience no matter what form is used. Where we obtain our daily news, updates and understandings about the world are simply a few seconds away. Throughout the last three months, I have begun to understand the importance of understanding and giving credibility to this new online era of communiation. What will be next, how will we evolove when the internet becomes so full of information that we will not have enough time to figure it out? It will be interesting to look back on the current state of citizen media and the public sphere in 20 years from now and see which path society chose.

Our 'Second Life'

Firefighter training in Second Life
Uploaded by MASAGroup

After hearing about Second Life for the first time this week I looked into this internet pseudo community, to truly gain a sense of what it entailed. I understood it as an online 'life' outside of the reality in our everyday lives. We can be who we want to be in regards to looks, lifestyle, career, etc. When I came acorss this video of Second Life, where people with accounts can be trained as firefighters, it really made me think. Do we find our satisfaction in life through the public sphere and abilities of the internet? Maybe when you were younger you always wanted to be a firefighter but your parents forced you into being a business student. Second Life not only gives you the ability to become a firefighter but see what training and hardwork it takes to be one. This notion of being able to create a second path for your life, is so beyond what I think anyone would have ever thought to achieve out of the internet. When we participate in such online programs as Second Life, we may be recreating a life that we hoped was ours. This social network is something that elminates all cultural boundaries of real life, and allows for the impossible to longer be impossible. We can eliminate the notion of boundaries that is so readily enforced in everyday life. Is this a positive use of the internet? Are there negative impacts to creating such an unrealistic life for oneself?

How many more devices can we take on?

It is interesting to note the use of electronic devices as a key part of our everyday lives. We are on a computer, laptop, blackberry, cellphone, ipod, etc. and sometimes we are on all of them at once. This is something that has developed over the past 5o years, and continues to grow with each year of innovation. I specifically thought of this one cellphone advertisement that just recently aired on television. This cellphone allows you to record a program on your tlevision form your cellphone. The advertisements shows a middle aged man at a party realizin h forgot to tape the hockey game that night. He simply reaches for his cellphone and opts to record it from the coach he is sitting on at this party. What is the world coming to?! Do we need to have more of these 'efficient' devices? Are they even efficient or more time consuming?


This advertisement is for the new LG Arena, which allows you to do pretty much anything on your cellphone. It is a television, a phone, a browser, a music player a GPS, etc. Is this really what we want our lives to become? It is interesting that we think this is easier than having several devices for each of these functions. In reality, I believe that this i just a way for us to waste more time on technology and send less time on what really counts in life. We are becoming so socially detached from one another that soon communication will be a thing of the past? Is this something that could happen? I certainly think so!

Free Information: Would it ruin societal structure?

The internet is supposed to be a place where individuals can share information and comment on eachothers thoughts and ideas. If only we had access to the information that companies and the government kept from us. Would we live a more concision, yet worries life, knowing that things we thought were once uncontrolled were not. Would we feel lost knowing that governments had lied to us or covered up truths to protect their own? These types of questions consider me to look into wether knowing ALL information is a for the better or worse. Are we better of without it?

I think that society has created this protective system for its internet users, keeping truths that could dismantle the structure of society in hidden places. Only those with the authoriy to access this information can truly know what goes on. If information was free, would those such as hackers stil fight against technology? Or would they give up, feeling they have nothing to uncover anymore. I think that hackers would stil exist in this internet world of free information. There needs to be some sort of punch to the systems built in society. I mean by this, that there needs to be a challange and those who are rebelious for society to function the way it is. If we were rid of hackers and those who competed with the structural order, then how would culture change and how would we evolve?
Who would have thought that hacktivism would have taken over from marches and standoffs like we saw in the 60's and 70's. Now we see more peaceful protests, even those they have begun to disappear over time. We need these rebels of society in order to challenge the norm, in this case, the internet. We see in this photos, the changing nature of activism from a time of industrialization to a time of technology. Has activism create a new meaning within society as it has become more internet based?

Hackers or Hacktivists?

There are definite ethical and societal confusions when it comes to understanding what hacking really it and what purpose it serves. Over the last 30 years, most hackers were those who intended to learn more about technology and create cyberspace societies in which to meet those who had similar interests. Most hackers were either rebellious teenagers or those who intended to develop more advanced technologies by decoding preexisting ones. Now a days, it seems there are is shift in what purpose hackers truly serve. Many hackers have become hacktivists hoping to spread political views via personal blog and web pages or taking over political websites. This form of hacking has become most extremely common, and confused with the hacking intended to exploit others. The law has created an ideology that hackers are rebellious citizens who do not follow through with societal order and surveillance. Opposing this, hacktivists are simply voicing their views through websites rather than protesting on the streets. Cyberspace has become a new place for activists to create identities and discover others who share the same understanding of societal norms and views. This was posted on the CNN website during the Chinese olympics in Beijing, when the government felt offended by the allegations of the western press in portraying their country in a negative light.
This message was a way for Chinese hacktivists to make sure their word was reached by a large portion of the western world. This type of hacking is common and usually these groups have sites which help create a common place to meet in the virtual world. Hackbloc.org is a website that clearly states on the home page, was created with the intention of attracting other hacktivists to discuss and identify with others who have the same political beliefs. It allows hackers to feel free in creating such controversy as the hacking of the CNN website created. Is this right ethically? Should hackers be allowed to do this?

Now can we give credit to citizen journalists?

While surfing on the Internet, I came across this photograph of a CNN billboard reading, " You see it, you report it. Be a Citizen Journalist." At first glance, I thought this billboard portrayed many things. It is not true that most people think of citizen journalist's as being that of opinion rather than of hard fact? I notice that in this advertisement, the letters bellow the main slogan line read, "SMS CJ to 2622." Not only are they advertising people to be citizen journalists, but also they are encouraging them to distribute their information to CNN. This billboard is ironic on many levels, as it promotes opposing aspects of media. Can we see citizen journalism as a valid factual source of news in this instance, or is CNN promoting a false sense of what citizen journalism is?

The fact that CNN wants the citizen journalist to text their news stories in to this credited and valid news source poses many question. Are the stories posted on the CNN website factual and do they contain the work of academically trained journalists? This billboard definitely seems to make the average citizen reevaluate this. It is a positive thing that professional news sources are promoting citizen media and journalism, but I feel it causes more confusion between the two. We have clearly defined the separation between the two, where journalism is the profession and citizen journalism is that of free opinion and discussion. When we see images such as this, what are to think? What is the difference now between journalism and citizen journalism? Can we now call them the same thing?

This advertisement is promoting a type of journalism that is reaching out to the average citizen. But if these citizens are the ones giving professional journalists at CNN news ideas, is CNN news factual? Are the new stories in part taken from citizen journalists who texted their ideas off the streets and in their homes? What can we determine as journalism now?