Blogging and Civic Discourse

The Barton piece was actually the first blog-related reading of an “academic” type I’ve been able to get into this semester. I’ve been critical of pieces that treat potential as what’s going on; this seemed to have a more tentative tone about it and was more practically oriented toward what users can actually do with technology.

Barton’s treatment of access appealed to me in this reading; I flagged his statement that “the Internet’s ‘means of production,’ that is, the ability to create and manage web sites, is becoming ever more separated from the average user as powerful corporations find more ways to distinguish their web sites with expensive, high-end, proprietary technology like Macromedia Flash” (178-9). Aha! But blogs, wikis, and discussion boards are free to anyone with Internet access (which is a small portion of the world’s population) and the know-how to create or contribute to one (which is an even smaller portion). But within these small populations, how many could actually afford a program like Flash? At least these solutions offer some more options for participation. (As long as the blog doesn’t get shut down, which is what happened to the students using zblogger in the Wiltse article.)

As I read this piece, I asked myself whether we could really consider these tools to be “democratic.” After all, even Blogger has rules to maintain a certain level of civility in the content that appears in blogs, as well as terms that dictate the use of a blog. But I feel that these rules, much like rational-critical debate itself, are designed to protect Blogger’s readers and users, not to limit the perspectives that can be offered there—keep it legal, keep it just. I’m okay with having these rules in place; in order for rational-critical debate to take place, we have to be able to bracket beliefs that directly interfere with the rights of others.

But, just when you thought blogging was democratic, here comes Michael Barbaro with news of Wal-Mart feeding bloggers info to vouch for their interests. Wait a second, didn’t Blogger tell us not to do that in the terms of service? Not really. But they did tell us to acknowledge sources, which Pickrell did not do, which begs the question of whether we should consider bloggers to be journalists; if they are, they don’t have to reveal sources of information. (Are you confused yet? I know I am.)

The issue at hand is the one Jonas focuses on: transparency. But this issue goes beyond just being honest about information sources and whatnot. It also has to do with potential consequences related to disclosing information in a public forum. I’m inclined to agree with the author on this one; if you face personal risk by disclosing your identity along with sensitive information, why disclose it in a public medium like a blog? The problem with that, as the commenter “Tony” pointed out, is that “anonymity increases freedom.” Then again, does freedom that has to be anonymous really count as freedom?

…I’m not sure where I’m going from here. Thoughts?