Today’s the day for the group to present our work to lecturers and fellow students.
Michael and Mindaugas have prerecorded videos for their respective portions. Continue reading →
28
Oct 15
Refugee memes and communication misuse
By Julen Figueras
In my previous post, I wrote about Facebook posts, comments and the (lack of) debates that emerge from them. Another recurrent piece of communication not only on Facebook but on Social Media in general is that of the memes. For those not familiar with the term, memes are units that carry ideal, symbols or practices that are transmitted through writing, speech and other ways with a mimicked theme. Although this definition from Wikipedia is specific enough, when it comes to the Internet and our current 9gag culture, memes tend to be (albeit not exclusively) images with an attached text. These images relate to diverse Internet cultures and to audiovisual phenomena.
22
Oct 15
The impermanent way: reactionary new media activism in the European Union
by Michael O’Regan
There’s an observable inclination in some of the literature to automatically associate digital communication with progressive political practices. For example, Hintz’ normative formulation of civil society media explicitly excludes “right-wing movements” (Hintz, 2007, p. 244). Likewise, although Taub et. al (2012) reach overwhelmingly negative conclusions about the techniques and effectiveness of Kony 2012, they acknowledge that the campaign was initially driven by the noblest ameliorative motives.
But it’s salient to remember that new media may also “empower illiberal actors”, (Aday et.al, 2010, p. 7) and can be “fuelled by reactionary tendencies and aims”, (Cammaerts, 2007, p. 217) emboldening those individuals and groups seeking to develop communication against social change. Continue reading →
21
Oct 15
The formation and regulation of discursive knowledge: Wikipedia
By Mindaugas Jocbalis
What is community power in new media? How does Wikipedia connect new media development to Habermas’ communicative rationality and Foucault’s diffusion of power and concept of metapower? Foucault argued that ‘power is everywhere’ and is dispersed throughout several institutions, but with strong issues of social exclusion. However, the centrality of this was debated. Habermas, on the other hand, presented a view that community action checks and challenges political power.
In a discussion on modernity, Habermas (1984, p. 3) gave a view stating that “modernity revolts against the normalizing functions of tradition; modernity lives on the experience of rebelling against all that is normative”. It is here that we can find the debate on community information networks as new media expressions of retaliation against traditional information sources. And interplays between power and knowledge happen at the level where social involvement reaches a peak in transforming a global network into a library of linguistic data, debate and argument.