Amanda Zhang-- lincoln dahlberg

          in class we discussed five competing positions and on the possibility of digital democracy. for
my opinion, i agree with lincoln's argument that digital networked platform can enable news forms of democratic participation. and also i think that deliberative is really convincing.
          just like message sender send text to receiver, receiver can directly see the message from sender without any other steps or procedures. so sender can find exact and proper words to say to receiver and receiver can understand clearly after he got the message. but in digital network media age, internet produce large amount of informations everyday, and sometimes, if a writer finished an essay, he needs to find somewhere to publish it and there are many options for him to find platforms. and then, maybe editors from different websites will do some changes for the paper, like consensus. they will add or delete consensus in order to accomplish the highest positive effect for their own benefits. and sometime people won't choose appropriate words to describe a thing that cause people are uncertain about the truth of the issue. here is an example of hong kong. since hong kong was managed by chinese government, many negative events happened in hong kong in decades. public media announced and blamed on hong kong government that it was a wrong decision made by them before and result in today's condition.
       

           also, because of some uncertain news, people are led to doubt their mind and beliefs. just like the last instance, people didnt know the whole truth back of some events and they followed the media to blame on government and they started parades to show their arguments to government. people were criticizing government without enough evidences. meanwhile, they were many citizens immigrant to canada or the united states at that time. therefore, after all parades and the truth came out, people appealed that internet or public media should be better concentrating on their jobs rather than spreading wrong and meaningless informations online. people suggested that works of public media should listen to what people are willing to do and hear in order to decrease the possibility of this sort off issue's. because internet and other digital media are the first form and resource for people to receive informations so it is significant to publish something deliberative and convinced.
          so, i think that deliberative is a really important element for public to know the truth of the issue and it is really convincing.
            

Putnam Theory is Outdated

            While Robert Putnam’s interpretation of digital media as a cause of disengagement was debatable at the time Bowling Alone was published, since 2000 however, Putnam’s ideas have become antiquated. With the advent of the digital age and the plugging in of human society, what was once perceived as a threat to social capital is now its greatest protector and developer since bowling leagues.

Lincoln Dahlberg’s perception of the internet as a tool for democratic engagement is more persuasive because he uses up-to-date examples of the internet as a tool for social capital development. Whether he is explaining counter-publics with the South Asian Women’s Network or Autonomist Marxist via wikis, Dahlberg’s evidence shows thousands of people banding together and creating communities on the internet. Now people often belong to dozens of internet group, and they can use the internet to meet people as well as build social capital online.

The deliberative digital democracy position says that people will get together in forum and deliberate on their views of politics. “Rational deliberation is also identified as taking place, if less ideally, through the writing and commentary of online citizen journalism and ‘serious’ media sites” (Dahlberg). Normal citizens can form communities and discuss with one another in digital forums rather than the bowling alley or PTA meetings. Inciting change does not have to come from finding your way to a socialist club or a feminist rally. While Putnam claims that we are losing valuable interactions, they are merely changing form. For instance, there is a Facebook group for the United Students Against Sweatshops on campus that often posts about their meetings and their progress with the university bookstore. While most people cannot be there physically, the group meets once a week at night, allowing people to join and keep up with their progress and comment on their actions using Facebook. If the online group did not exist, that sphere of influence would be inaccessible to the population of students who do not have the time or ability to make their meetings. Rather than the internet destroying social capital, it is actually building it. Allowing people to get connected with one another when they otherwise would not have been able to due to location and time. The internet is therefore building our communities and facilitating democracy by allowing the free exchange of ideas.  

Life in the minority world

Putnam’s theory of people needing to be physically near each other to gain one another’s trust and be amiable is outdated. If you want to join a bowling club, there are a plethora of groups on Facebook to meet your social needs or you could bowl online with thousands of other people. Putnam’s shortcomings probably arise from the years that his research was taken. The late 90’s had far less social media sites. Facebook was several years from its inception and other technological advances such as faster computers and better design made the internet sphere seem less attractive. Dahlberg’s theories have a better base in contemporary society, so his position is intuitively superior and with an almost endless stream of counterexamples to Putnam’s argument, making Dahlberg more convincing. 

Digital Democracy-Amber Robinson

Between, Robert Putman, and, Lincoln Dahlberg,  point view on the digital democracy, I believe that the Lincoln Dahlberg had a more convincing agreement for the four different positions. In each of the four different positions of the liberal-individualist, deliberative individualist, counter-public, and autonomist Marxist. Dahlberg at the beginning of his abstracts he states, “to aim is to draw attention to different understanding of what extending democracy through digital media.” He did that exact throughout his article.

As liberal-individualist provides information about a specific topic that may be important at the time. Also, there will be groups that will be assembly by people all over the world that believe in protesting against that specific topic. One of the examples that, Dahlberg, suggests is Avaaz. On this website demonstrates how someone could start their own petition, the different stories that going on throughout the world. Currently there are 34,458,442 people that are involved world-wide a member of Avaaz. Even Avaaz website states, “Avaaz is the campaigning community bringing people-powered politics to decision-making worldwide.”  
http://www.avaaz.org/en/



To me this first one that convinced me about, Dahlberg, article, because right there at that website gave the perfect example how liberal-individualist can be used to the advantage of digital democracy. This website was designed for people to step up and make decisions, just as, Dahlberg stated in his article, “liberal-individualist effective transmission of information and viewpoints between individual and representative decision-making process.”

Even though, Dahlberg talks about deliberial individual, he mentioned later in his article about the counter-publics being more affective subject. An example of this is cycle lane that used in class. This video brings about a serious matter for bicyclist, however, the producer is able to turn the video into a way that brings the point across in a funny matter. Once this video was able to go viral, the video was able to spread and people started to “ride for lane.”

 

With this one video being an example of counter-publics, Dahlberg, states in his article that, “further action that is happening with the digital media it has strengthen the voice of alternative, marginalized or otherwise oppressed groups.” I believe this is true, because having one voice of alternatives that can be done raises the groups that will do something for the issue, thus once again the digital democracy support with Dahlberg article.

Finally, Dahlberg, talks about autonomist Marxist in his article stating, “A sense of self-organized and inclusive participants in common productive activities that by pass centralized state and capitalized systems, which are understood to be necessarily anti-democratic and has common network.” By, Dahlberg, stating this in his article shows a well example about autonomist Marxist, because an autonomist is meant to be a group that is formed, but has no leader, because this group is meant to be as one body of people.

 

Autonomous Marxist in Practice - Jack Jeffrey

Revolutionary action has always been a major part of human history. When oppressed, it is only natural for those affected to push back against their oppressors. However just recently we have seen an immense shift in how these campaigns have been carried out. The use of social media to bring about the democratic interests of those being oppressed by a centralized, totalitarian state of power is a new idea that has been relatively successful. An example of what Lincoln Dahlberg calls Autonomous Marxist can be seen in the still ongoing Arab Spring. 

  According to Dahlberg, "this position (Autonomous Marxist) sees digital communication networks enabling a radically democratic politics in the sense of self-organized and inclusive participation in common productive activities that bypass centralized state and capitalist systems, which are understood to be necessarily anti-democratic." We see exactly this throughout North Africa and parts of the Middle East when the Arab Spring began in Tunisia in 2010. The use of Twitter and Facebook greatly encouraged the protesters to collaborate, network, and share their ideas and displeasure with the centralized governments around them. 

It is suggested that after this crisis began, social media use more than doubled in the Arab communities affected. The success of these democratic protests relied heavily on their ability to effectively network through digital and social media. 

Anika Top- the Liberal-Individualist

As given to us by Lincoln Dahlberg, the four positions or categories of the types of people who use the internet for social, political, and business interactions are as follows: the Liberal-Individualist, the Deliberative, the Counter Publics, and the Autonomist-Marxist. Each position has a unique identity and has significant proponents and consequences, but it is interesting to look into the world to find groups of people who fit into these positions well.  

The Liberal-Individualist uses the interet and web to seek out information for themselves. They consider themselves to be the best decision maker for their own lives and prefer to base these decisions on facts and information they have found themselves through research. Dahlberg writes, "The free transmission of information is necessary here for the liberal-individualist subject to make their strategic cost-benefit calculations and choices. As a result, the position aims to promote and protect the 'rights' of this subject to freely partake in communication and to encourage the provision of systems that allow for the maximization of information flows and the registration of choices." In class we discussed many political groups who feel into these positions, but I think that Dahlberg makes a great point when he brings in the economic view of the liberal-individualist. I would offer that the magazine, Consumer Report, bases their entire existence on the reliance on the liberal-individualists in our midst. When someone wishes to buy an expensive appliance, car, technological gadget, they usually go online to search for the best item they can purchase with the most reliable ratings, reviews, and benefits. 

 Next comes the Deliberative approach, who utilize the internet's capacity to share information with others. They prefer not to make their decisions on their own, but to engage in conversations and seek out others' opinions before forming ones themselves. Dahlberg writes this non this subject, "The democratic subject here is seen as developing from out of rational deliberation, rather than being pre-defined as in the liberal-individualist position. Such deliberation is understood to constitute a rational public sphere I which private individuals are trans-formed into publicly oriented democratic subjects interested in the 'common good'. The result is critically informed public opinion that can scrutinize and guide the official decision making processes." I tend to disagree here with Dahlberg, because in my experience the people who go searching on public forums and discussing their ideas before making up their mind on whatever decisions they feel they need to make, they are the people who are not vocal about their opinions since they feel they do not own them. The liberal-individualist however has full knowledge of why he/she made their decision and can respond to criticism with convincing rhetoric and logic. I think that those friends of ours who constantly start political or religious "debates" on Facebook or constantly are accessing social media like Twitter and Instagram are the people fall into this category most distinctively. 

The third position is the Counter Publics group whom are the ones that the world has excluded and therefore find ways on the internet to express themselves and organize some type of resistance to the exclusion that they feel. Dahlberg thinks the two forms of Counter Public Protest are Electronic Civil Disobedience and Digital Culture Jamming. I want to compare illegal immigrants and their use of the internet and social media to schedule "marches on the capitals" and other such civil disobedience movements. In my home state, the illegal immigrants organized marches on our state capital, showcasing the exact way the internet can be used to organize marches. Many organizations argued that they should round all of these illegal immigrants up at these actual marches, which makes one question the wisdom of organizing these marches. But, nonetheless, many people utilize the internet to organize acts of civil disobedience. 

Finally, the Autonomist Marxist position, which combines all of the other three positions into one. The self-organization and focus on indivialism is akin to the Liberal-individualist. The direct participation and inclusion aspect comes from the Deliberative position.  Then the working outside of government, legal, political, and economic spheres hales from the Counter Publics. Combining all of these positions into one position seems to be a wise use of the best aspects of all of these categories. But, the example we discussed in class was that of the Occupy Movement, which is apt but also not something to aspire to. Information being freely shared is quite a hot topic these days, and since I don't care to plunge myself into a debate like those Deliberatives and their over-sharing on social media sites, I will stop now.

 

 

Picture Perfect -Lincoln Dahlberg's Digital Democracy-

Lincoln Dahlberg believed in re-constructing the digital democracy. He discusses the four positions of understanding digital democracy within research and practical initiative. Dahlberg stated, "Democracy is based on two major assumptions saying any social formation necessarily involves inclusion/exclusion relations and associated discursive contestation, where discourse is understood as a contingent and partial fixation of meaning that constitutes and organizes social relations or practices." So with the use of these really fancy words, Dahlberg is stating the digital democracy draws upon the counter-publics and counter-discourse traditions and terminologies, contributing to their development. Dahlberg explains his position on the digital communication technologies as supporting the dominant and counter-public media.

Dahlberg enabled counter-publics and contestations in the case of the internet, digital democracy advocates the challenge of its increasing colonization by the state and other interests. Dahlberg argues that digital networked platforms can enable news forms of democratic participation.

Visual enthymemes are a daily advertisement accessed through social media or found through other print sources, such as journals or newspaper articles.

So you may ask what exactly is Nikon pushing with this advertisement, the fact that Nikon cameras can take sexual photos. The conclusion may end with "Buy this camera and you can take sexy pictures."

Enthymemes in the public eye often display sex in an introverted, yet explosive kind of way. Some memes illustrate the power of social truths, but will make you feel as if you came up with the idea yourself.

Memes in the social world constitute as the beginning of the digital age. They open a whole new cultural experience and spreads quickly around the web in various iterations and becomes an agent of globalization.

Amber Jacobsen- Digital Democracy

            Lincoln Dahlberg brought up a new form of democracy that had never been truly considered before. Digital democracy is a concept that didn’t even have the ability to exist until very recently. It is only in the last 15 years that nearly everyone has gained access to the Internet, and the idea of democracy existing in a way that is not achieved in person is a very new model for the world. I feel the most comprehensive and logical model of this is deliberative digital democracy. This model suggests that the Internet is a public forum used for discussion, and as the name suggests, deliberation. Viewing the Internet as a public forum is the best way to see it. This idea is designed for those still forming their opinion on a subject, which I believe is the majority of people. Even if a person is not looking to form their opinion, a forum can help to be more educated about a topic, and even help someone in forming arguments for a debate.

An example that has been prominent recently is the subject of marriage equality. The Equal Sign campaign, run by the Human Rights Campaign began in digital media, and travelled to the rest of the world.

This campaign began on Facebook, and immediately sparked a great deal of digital debate. Whether it was on a profile picture, or on a link to a blog, the red and pink equal sign gained great traction in a very short amount of time. Personally, as a person who did not have a strong opinion on the subject of marriage equality before this campaign, seeing the equal sign all over the Internet really caught my attention.

Over time the Internet is becoming a place for more and more digital democracy, and I feel this is a natural transition. The average American now spends almost 2.5 hours on the computer each day, and obviously not all of this can be spent reading emails or on Facebook (well maybe it can, but that’s just a bit extreme). Most people need to do something productive with their time, and it is only logical for that to be done debating on the computer.

In digital democracy, it is very easy for people to show support for one another’s opinions. This is something that many people value and look for when proposing an idea. Whether it is through positive comments or “liking” a Facebook status, showing agreement is easy when deliberation occurs online.

Digital democracy not only makes sense, but also is a simple principle. Dahlberg had the right idea, and was correct to say that digital democracy is a very useful concept. It has forever changed the way democracy works, and now there is no way to go back to the way it before, so we might as well embrace it.

The role of digital networked platforms

In class we discussed 5 competing positions on the possibility of digital democracy. Robert Putnam carries a pessimistic view of digital communication as a force for disconnection and disengagement. Lincoln Dahlberg argues that digital networked platforms can enable news forms of democratic participation (liberal-individualist, deliberative, counter-publics, and autonomist Marxist). Which of these positions do you find most convincing? In spite of the competing positions on the possibility of digital democracy, the opinion that digital networked platforms enable news forms of democratic participation----liberal-individualist is the most convincing. Thanks to the modern digital networked platforms, such as computers, modern people are able to take a more active part in participating in public affairs and expressing their viewpoints.

First and foremost, it should be noticed that digital networked platforms provide people with new and more convenient channels to participate. Personal computers and other various types of digital devices are actually channels for people to access, disseminate and evaluate the latest information and happenings across the globe. As a natural result, they can participate in public affairs more actively with the rich information availability and easy accessibility of the digital devices. In the past, the only ways for people to access information were newspapers or government advocates, and the speed of receiving information was extremely low. Thus, their participation in public and political affairs was limited not only to a little extent. On the contrary, at present, it is possible for people to freely express their opinions, views and attitudes for certain news, events and affairs via the internet or other digital devices. Without the information and help provided by the government, modern people can express their selves and participate in the social affairs. A case in point, when digital devices did not come into being, during the presidential elections in the US, the voters had to make their votes and obtain the information of the presidential candidates by reading the newspapers or going to the local voting places. However, now they can give their votes without going to the fixed places, which gives them great convenience. This is why modern digital networked platforms contribute to liberal-individualistic participation.

What is more, the digital networked platforms help a growing number of people to participate. In terms of political affairs, people who had the voting rights and served government duties were allowed to participate and voice their opinions, while the rest of the population was excluded. Either due to the lack of information or the costs required for participation, some people refused to participate in public affairs. Digital networked platforms spare some people of the worries related to costs and information. As long as people have the basic access to the digital networked services and are willing to participate, they are allowed and even encouraged to participate and speak out their own attitudes and advice. For example, through the internet, the common citizens can communicate with each other, post their viewpoints and put up with suggestions for the public officials. Instead of gathering together to share information, people can access the information they need and give themselves to full expression. In some sense, digital networked platforms are both personal and public channels for people to participate in public affairs and express themselves. Some people think that digital networked platforms are the forces for disconnection and disengagement. It is true that through digital networked platforms, people will access information with great differences, diversity and variety, but it does not necessarily mean that they will be disengaged. The information diversity can also be the positive forces to motivate people to be connected and join in forces to affect public opinions.

To put it in a nutshell, digital networked platforms are news forms of liberal-individualistic democratic participation. On the one hand, it is much easier for modern people to participate in and express their views about the public affairs. On the other hand, more and more people can participate, for digital networked services are featured by easy accessibility and rich information availability.  

Digital Reproduction

In the age of digital reproduction, interactive art has the following seven special features: it is portable, it is private (not public), it represents realistic details, it has a kaleidoscopic orientation, it requires a network connection, it enables feedback/replies, and it can be archived. Digital reproduction has changed the creation and reception of art in many ways. Years ago no one thought to remix a song and call it their own. No one thought that the tools would be available to edit computerized images on a singe device.

Digital art is the most portable and mobile art to this day. You can send a digitalized picture over the internet across the world in seconds. You can share a song or post a tweet interacting with people all over the world. Digital art has the ability to be private. In a way, everyone’s personalized Facebook page is art. It is an individual digitally expressing oneself through the form of social media. Art is shared on Facebook, twitter, and Instagram.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iwd_9o53Bc

            Nowadays, if someone were to die, you usually hear about it first from some form of media. Whether it’s the news, Facebook, or even online articles. The internet grows more and more complex by the minute. Millions of Google searches happen every minute, an endless pit of information. It is the most realistic, detailed form of art out there and the best example is remixed music. Remixing songs remains a controversy to this day with two different standpoints. One being that it is copyright of original material and the other side argues it is a totally different song. Neither side can truly prove if they are right or wrong but it’s just some controversy that spurs from digital art. Social media and email require internet connection to be able to share anything. People can reply and comment their own opinions anywhere on the internet regardless if it is profane or rude. My generation is filled with keyboard warriors, a self explaining term. And everything on the internet never fully disappears, even if it’s deleted.