In Conclusion: What’s Your View on the Internet?

To sum up this series of blog posts I want to introduce to you the two main perspectives of the internet. It is evident that the internet can have an overwhelming affect on our relationships once we decide to engage in it; however there are polarized views as to whether this effect is negative or positive.

The utopian position is that the internet will make it easier for people to communicate politically, and socially. This view promotes the public-sphere as democratic and connective.

In contrast, the dystopian perspective is that the internet has the potential to negatively affect communication by altering the practices and spaces. This view claims that we lose democracy as the society loses its ties to each other and individuals become isolated.

After a lot of thought, I believe that I am much closer to the utopian view than the dystopian view. Although the internet does make for less face-to-face interaction with friends, it is definitely creating a forum of civic engagement. We are keeping in touch with more people, rather than just a few, and we are participating in our culture, both politically and socially. By engaging in blogging, or twitter or even Facebook, we are keeping up-to-date with news events and therefore actually “thinking” more than before. As described in one of the lectures: at least by being on the internet chatting, researching or playing online games with others we are doing something, putting ourselves out there, instead of lazing around the TV with which we have no real interaction with. The idea of two-way communication that the internet provides gives us, the individual, a lot more power. No longer can we just sit back and listen to the politicians and marketers we can now talk back with our own educated opinions. The digital revolution empowers individuals by allowing them to question the advice of many authoritative figures. This is providing a more democratic and interactive medium that will definitely have a positive effect.

What’s your view? What do you see for the future of the internet?

"Latest Weapon in a Bully's Arsenal"

Along with many things in life, we often find ourselves in a love-hate relationship with the internet. Its ability to provide constant communication and wide dissemination of information takes the bully and victim relationship to a new level. It has left the four walls of a cafeteria and has escalated through the internet. The bullying is constant now rather than just at school. With the use of email and websites, victims of bullying are now feeling trapped. This is truly a parent’s worst nightmare and even worse for the victims. To feel as though they no longer have the freedom to log onto the public sphere without being harassed or put down is horrible. What is more unfortunate is that because of our freedom of speech rights many internet providers refuse to take down hate-sites. David Knight is a prime example of this. David had a hate-site created about him by fellow classmates. The site contained immature, false comments about him. He would also receive cruel emails that left him in tears. His parents felt helpless as on multiple occasions they contacted the website service pleading with them to take it down but service providers refused. It became evident for them that the only means of getting what they wanted was to pay the website to take it down. It is sad that a situation like this strictly comes down to ethics. Is it morally ok to let this young boy suffer at the expense of allowing these young kids their right to freedom of speech? Another heartbreaking story about cyber-bullying has to do with young, Megan Meier. Here is her story:

It is unbelievable that deaths (like this) are occurring, yet cyber-bullying still hasn’t been taken as serious as it should. Authorities need to grasp how devastating it is for young kids to be humiliated. To these kids their reputation is everything. How do you feel about the question of ethics in cyber-bullying? Do you feel they should be allowed to keep the site up or do you think that David should have the right to have it taken down?