Does the interactivity of web 2.0 democratize societies? Use evidence from this article and your experience following the election (or through other political experiences) to support your response.
- Front Page
- About
- Course Syllabus
- Blog Policies and Procedures
- Course Assignments and Projects
- PowerPoint Presentations
- Review Questions
- Supreme Court Cases
Archives
Pages
Blogroll
Blog at WordPress.com. Theme: Cutline by Chris Pearson.
12 responses so far ↓
08avogel // March 2, 2008 at 3:26 pm |
Yes, it does democratize societies because people have a more hands on influence on the election. Citizens are able to ask questions directly to the candidates during debates, and information is shared immediately online and commented on. This enables people to keep up with the election step by step, and allows them to have real contact with the candidates.
lindsayh // March 2, 2008 at 9:11 pm |
I don’t think that the web 2.0 democratizes societies, I think it just inhances and intensifies societies that are already mainly based on democracy and a relatively non-corrupt government, like us. The web 2.0 allows citizens to reach politicians easier, as Allie pointed out, and puts people’s opinions in the open. However, although I’m sure there are a lot of blogs in Russia (the internet may not be as readily available in Russia, but the amount of people that use the internet everyday in 2007 has increased by 5 times the amount in 2002) that didn’t stop President Vladimir Putin from having Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov removed from the ballot, which obviously takes away from the people’s choice of candidates and right to vote on who they think should run the country. In fact, opposition leader Garry Kasparov said that there was evidence of Putin’s party ballot-stuffing and making threats to hospital patients and state workers unless they voted for pro-Kremlin parties. Thus, the web 2.0 doesn’t seem to have that much affect in really democratizing Russia.
08lgattozzi // March 5, 2008 at 3:10 am |
Personally, I do believe that web 2.0 does democratize societies. I believe that it is a great way to have citizens state their opinions and beliefs on a topic, espeically the presidential election. Although Lindsay makes many valid points, I agree with Ali that web 2.0 does allow citizens to keep up with the election step by step. As the article states, “technology can amplify and aggregate voices that used to be faint and muffled.” This helps many people to express themselves and have their voices heard. I also think this is a great way for candidates to keep in touch with citizens on certain issues.
08cbifani // March 5, 2008 at 9:33 pm |
I agree with Ali and Lisa that the web 2.0 does democratize societies. “The internet has provided citizens with vastly more information about their elected representative.” The web 2.0 is a great way to follow the candidates because contacting them is easy through email if someone has questions or concerns. The web 2.0 is also a great way to express your beliefs anonymously, so many people aren’t afraid to do so. Just reading the blog might influence someone’s opinion on the a candidate. Technology has come a long way to help promote political participation, and I think the web 2.0 definitely will increase the political engagement all over the world.
Colleen H // March 6, 2008 at 12:36 am |
I agree with Lindsay that web 2.0 does not nessecarily democratize societies but instead enhances democracy in societies where it is already fairly prominent. As the article points, out even those people are blogging and getting more involved in politics online the majority of people blogging about politics are already politically aware and involved. Also, it seems that even though people are discussing these issues online, it does not always transcend to them taking action off of the computer–the article specifically says, “the story so far is that technology intensifies the democratic process, but does not fundamentall change it.” Lastly, in the countries that are most desperate for democracy, such as third world countries or Communist countries, the Internet is either less accessible or monitored by the government, both of which really prevent this web 2.0 from making a difference.
Will H // March 6, 2008 at 5:06 am |
I agree with Colleen and Lindsay on this subject. Web 2.0 cannot create democracy. By simply typing on the internet, a person can’t create democracy. They must get out and act on what they speak about. In the future web 2.0 may be able to create democracies, but not now.
However, web 2.0 has the ability to enhance democracies. A perfect example is youtube and the youtube debates. A simple website has become so popular that it has made its mark on national television. A person’s voice that normally is not heard, is played loud and clear to presidential candidates. This enhances our democracy. If youtube becomes as much of a phenomenon in a non-democratic country as it is here, it couldn’t create democracy. People need to go out and make their physical voice heard, not their typing, to create a democracy.
kevoco75 // March 6, 2008 at 11:06 pm |
I think that web 2.0 does democratize societies. This is because people can reach politicians and become more active in politics much easier than in the past. Because it’s so easy for people to become more involved, it might encourage more and more people to do so. All of this interactivity could also make the political involvement more fun and interesting. (Similar to the Democratic Delegate counter game)
Mike S. // March 7, 2008 at 12:51 am |
I agree with lindsay on this one. Web 2.0 does not democratize societies. It was said many times in the article, blogs and other online networks that allow people to talk and interact about political issues show alot of activity. The problem is that this activity has not translated into the real world. For example in Howard Dean’s campaign in 2004 he raised a ton of money on the internet but this online success did not translate to the real world. Also in places like India there is an extreme dislike of there current government by the middle class but this is only seen only and there has been no action taken in the real world.
jessica123 // March 7, 2008 at 1:56 am |
While I understand how web 2.0 can appear to democratize societies, I think that is under a false pretense. By being so open and available, it can make people think it is fair and gives them a voice. However, all it really does is create an entire other universe where people think they can affect society by becoming a part of this online world. While this may prove true in some cases, the majority of the time it does not.
musikmajor22 // March 7, 2008 at 1:58 am |
I find it difficult to believe that one device, such as Web 2.0, can cause so much radical change such as democratize societies. Web 2.o simply allows people of all realms of thought to share their ideas in a safe place, as Melody Laila believes “Bogs give us the freedom to say things that wouldn’t be published in the mainstream media, and the safely of anonymity. Web 2.0 and blogs, have refined our democracy, bringing our political system into the fast paced internet world of today. The internet offers places for people to become more involved in the voting process, by offering them more information about candidates. For example, in my own pursuit of a candidate I chose to search the Candidates’ Official Websites, which housed proposals, voting records, YouTube videos, and a clear philosophy behind each candidate. I truly believe that the internet has allowed voters to become more educated about the democratic process, as well as our representatives. This new age of educated voters, I believe will create positive change in our government, calling for accountability and transparency in the government. Similar to the ‘internet candidate’ of India, who reached his prospective constituents by appealing to their modern way of life, Barack Obama can be seen as the internet candidate of America. In the beginning of the Democratic Primary Barack Obama represented the young, educated, and computer-friendly youth, shown through his record breaking donations via the internet. Barack Obama’s mantra of ‘Change’ can also reflect the main foundation of the internet, proposing radical thought and change to evolve the world. The internet has evolved the way Americans view our democracy, Web 2.0 is responsible for the fortifying of American politics not democratizing of our system of government.
AndrewK // March 7, 2008 at 4:33 am |
The Web 2.0 most definetly democratize societies. Throughout history. democracy has been limited and limted, slowly developed, or flat out stop by the limitations of the exchange of new ideas. and especially ideas that did not follow the status quo of the times. Think communist Russia, Nazi Germany etc. People where persecuted, ostrasized, and seperated from society due to ideas that did not follow the government and the acceptable principles of the time. Change was slow because ideas and opinions many times had to be spread secreatly, secreate meetings, basements etc. With the Web 2.0 people can become more involved and know that thier opinions can have an effect without the risk of be persecuted and ostrasized by their peers. Imagine if their was the Web 2.0 during the reign of the Nazi’s, how many more Germans who were against what was being done but to afraid to say anything. Imagine the civil rights movement and other were change was called for against the general status quo. Web 2.0 is limited in what can it can alow people to accomplish and until the web is completely free to limitations on exchange of ideas and opinions it will be limited on how much it can truely democratize societies. In America, where the exchange of information is nearly completly unlimited, it has had its greatest effect. Now politicians are forced to take into consideration nearly everyones opinions who want a voice. You can see it in fact that politicians are using YouTube and utlizing blogs.
aslivingston // March 10, 2008 at 3:04 am |
Personally I don’t believe web 2.0 does anything to democratize a country. It does little to even further democratize an already democratic nation. Although it seems like more and more people are bloging and more and more people are becoming politically interested, it’s just that the people who were already politically interested now have an outlet for their views. Blogs don’t increase awareness to the average American, because the average American isn’t reading blogs. The average American votes only during the presidential election and really doesn’t care that much in the period of time before or after. We can even tell how little web 2.0 makes in the way or democratizing a community by looking at our class. We are a group of politically interested teenagers and should be the type of people who cling to internet media outlets like blogs, but we don’t. It’s become a hassle to get us to comment and only when we are forced to we put in the effort. Now how is it possible that the internet could change a country that is 1) a third world nation or a nation with only a small amount of people having access to the internet 2) a country that is corrupt and where the government does not care or does not listen to its people or 3) a country where people know that ranting and raving on some website will make no difference in igniting “change” that will lead to a better government and life for their fellow countryman. Also Mr. Siegel even though this late you gave me the sheet on Friday and said I could comment this weekend.