Week 5 Response

Today, many events are planned and operated through the Internet.  The Internet has provided an easy way for millions of people to come together and organize to fight for a common belief. Last week’s articles offered a more pessimistic approach of the Internet, specifically censorship in the media and filtering of websites that skew your perception of what you are seeing. However, I noticed that Glaiseyer and Karpf presented a positive view of the power of the Internet to rally people for a cause. Both authors present ways in which people have used the Internet for political means.

First, Glaisyer discusses the power of digital activism in the government. I thought that the introduction quote captures the true power of the Internet, where six people can come together and “all of the organization of the Internet. On the street came out 15,000 ”.  I think that Glaisyer effectively demonstrates the great power that comes from communicating via Internet. I found his section “Digital Activim in Government” to be very interesting, as it presented a new view of digital activism. Whereas Karpf discusses the public’s use of the Internet, this section analyzes how the government has employed methods of digital activism to its advantage. For example, GovLoop was created as a type of Facebook for the government, where officials could get to know each other beyond the work environment. Glaisyer mentions that now bureaucrats can collaborate and organize in a way that the public does.

Karpf’s Measuring the Success of Digital Campaigns discusses these public efforts of collaboration and organization.             One of the instances in which Karpf exemplifies the public’s ability to organize on the Internet is in a reaction to an online video segment, “Mouthpiece Theater.” In one episode, viewers thought that inappropriate remarks were made about Hillary Clinton. Because many digital activists were disturbed by this comment, they were able to come together and organize a “twitterbomb” to flood the segment. Karpf recognizes how, in this case, thousands of people were able to use their Twitter accounts to remove a video that offended their views. Without the Internet as a means of connecting all of these people, this would not have been possible.

 

My question for the class is based on the readings from this week and last week, do you agree with Karpf’s and Glaisyer’s more optimistic approach of the Internet or with last week’s authors’ pessimistic view?

 

This entry was posted in Week 5 and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Week 5 Response

  1. emilythibodeau says:

    I agree with both this week and last week’s authors. I think there are many disappointing aspects of the interent, particularly in authoratarian states. The fact that many users are uninterested in the internet for activism and simply enjoy entertainment from abroad is upsetting, because it seems to show that little has changed for activists in repressive governments since the USSR. However, I think this weeks authors brought up many valuable points about the power of internet activism, especially in terms of governments uniting with activists to share their messages and create social networks online. I think there is a future for internet activism, but it may not be as bright as some of this weeks authors seem to expect.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s