ltomr

[ltomr]

Religion and Spirituality: Intersection With The Internet

In “Digital Culture and Religion in Asia”, the author Kamaludeen Mohamed Nasir explores the relationship between Korean religion and technology, particularly modern Christianity and how its practice is transmitted through a culture via the internet.  Examining Korean cultural practices and comparing it with the ideals of Christianity and its modern technological interpretation is important in considering how the online world is shaping modern religion or spirituality.  Further, in the TEDTalk we watched in class, it seems that “religion” or “religious” practices are fading away.  Instead, religion isn’t fading away but rather evolving into a sort of “spirituality”, or more of a private sphere belief in a world where government institutions have now replaced many of the functions in society that religious establishments once occupied.  So we see that spirituality, or its modern take on religion, is not fading but rather evolving with us as the internet and modern communication technologies become more intertwined within society.  Nasir describes in his piece the ever increasing presence of technology in our lives, “The media ecologies of households have been radically altered by various devices that simultaneously function separately as well as in conversation with each other. Our cell phones talk to our televisions, which also speak to our computers, which also speak to our tablets. Moreover, we carry on conversations, for instance, on Facebook, on all of these devices. Hence, to interact with one another via technology no longer conjures the image of two individuals sitting at their desks typing away in a chat box. While this form of communication is not extinct, the means by which techno-social interaction occurs are dispersed and varied in the digital age.” It’s because of this interconnected aspect of technology to our formation of ideas on spirituality and religion that it would be important to examine some of the concepts we learned in class, and how the concepts intersect with modern interpretation of religion and spirituality by means of the internet.

One of the earlier concepts discussed in class revolved around fragmentation of ideas or communities on the internet. On page 25 of Nasir’s research piece, “The sociality of cell groups” is discussed and how “elective affinity” determines some of the “social dynamics” at play when communities organize themselves both online and in the real physical layout of Korean cities previous to the internet.  This dynamic is important to consider, as it is its own form of fragmentation where ideas may exist within an echo chamber of sorts.  Some of these ideas might not necessarily provide societal “good”.

Trolling culture, or the recent popularity of bad digital citizenship, is an example of a fragmented online community that has little discursive benefit in online realms. Because this culture is now sharing spaces where religion and spirituality are forming their modern interpretation for our culture, its important to consider that they’re neighbors in this online space. Suppose a sort of “spill-over” effect between the cultures, where nefarious discourse might spread into otherwise well-intentioned corners of the web. I wonder what sort of trolling culture exists in Korea, and whether its as prominent as we’ve witnessed in the U.S. examples we’ve looked at.  Further, how would this Korean culture of trolling potentially impact their formation of religious ideas?

Trolling culture perhaps results from many things, but one discussed heavily in class was the culture of andro-centrism.  The focus or idolization of masculine characteristics have all sorts of pervasive results stemming from lack of empathetic considerations. In Nasir’s piece, he highlights research done that “reveal important features of Korean Christianity.” The illustration of Korean religious culture tends to have a focus on idolizing a prominent figure.  In their digital interpretation, Christian Korean websites feature almost exclusively the “pastor first and foremost.” in which “the site revolves around the charismatic figure of the pastor”. These cultural practices, when passed down, perpetuate a sort of andro-centric or masculine focused society.  Religion and spirituality can arguably be one of the most powerful vessels for which to pass on cultural beliefs or practices, and because its now so intertwined with technology its important to consider what ideals we transmit to future generations.  

Korean culture idolizes these masculine figures because they might be emblematic of their idea of leadership, but also because of their seemingly business-oriented successes. Nasir’s article discusses how business structures are similar to how Korean churches organize their physical presence. Further, an importance on community commonly associated with the church, a place where the social network has a physical embodiment.  This “semiotic link between ‘Christianity and commerce’” is an interesting function of their modern church, and speaks a lot to how economic prosperity is a value so linked to the spirituality and religion of modern Korean Christianity.  Valuing economy above all else has in itself many resulting cultural negatives as well, from valuing free market liberal democracy so much that we ignore destruction to our environment, or to letting powerful multi-national corporations wield extraordinary power and world influence.  Arguably, the greatest cultural promoter of this ideal is likely not the Christian churches run by Koreans, but stands as a pervasive Western cultural ideal all together. Still, examining this intersection would be important in seeing how this cultural ideal is passed on in other corners of religion and technology.

Another corner worthy of discussion is the digital divide. How will communities or groups of people who are technologically disadvantaged evolve in their interactions with religion? Nasir’s article argues that “Korean church websites reshape the nature of the relationship between the believer and God, which is at the very heart of Protestantism,” --showing that there’s a significant amount of cultural change that happens because of the online connectivity of today’s religions.  Nasir goes on, “the increased mediatization of religion has resulted in a new situation whereby individual and collective religiosity is ‘created and maintained by a series of experiences and representations that may have no, or only a limited, relationship with the institutionalized religions.” So when religion is ‘mediatized’, it undergoes transformations it perhaps would not have without the technological advancements available today. In discussing digital divide, there are communities or people who have less access to being online, which could result in further fragmentation in our various understandings of religion and spirituality.

The intersection of religion and technology is fascinating because religion so often serves as a vessel for which cultural practices and beliefs are passed on to the next generation. Online connectivity has the potential to drastically shift how we interact with religion. This coincides with our drastically different way of now interacting with information, and the resulting fragmentation of truth and “fake news”, making this an important discussion to have.

[ltomr]

Part 2: Overcoming Constitutional Perception Hurdles, Conclusion

The second perception that stands as a hurdle to the idea of gaining internet access rights is the idea that our Constitution or our rights are immovable entities.  They are not.  Our founding fathers had no clue something like the internet would ever come around, heck, they thought the press machines that printed newspapers were so important they included some rights for that industry we call journalism.  Further, I like to use the Second Amendment as a good example of a Constitutional right afforded to our citizens that lets them utilize a form of technology.  Guns are an important part of our history, and without going into too many Second Amendment details, its end-purpose was to provide people with the tools to fight back against a tyrannical government and to defend themselves.  When I weigh the benefits of a gun next to the benefits of access to the internet, the internet wins as a more important tool with a more productive “end-purpose” from almost every angle except for maybe being involved a shoot-out or a robbery.

When we consider what things are currently considered as “rights” I think it’s important consider they were written so long ago.  The breathing Constitution, one that grows alongside our society, is the one that will benefit us most.  Considering the harrowing digital divide between lower income schools and schools that are better funded, we’re quickly going to approach a problem of what to do with those who aren’t educated in technology.  I like to imagine teaching technology today on par with teaching a language.  You need language in order to participate in most careers; you have to be able to read instructions, communicate with managers, and write reports or food orders.  I imagine what would happen if only the rich schools taught their kids how to read, and the poorer schools were left illiterate, unable to participate in contributing to the economy by getting a job, unable to care for themselves adequately.  The result of the digital divide will create a new reason to be stuck in the lower class, a new kind of way to be marginalized.  “In the information age, digital citizenship may rival formal education in its importance for economic opportunity” - Mossberger, Tolbert, McNeal.

Most of these arguments in support of bringing digital access forward as a right are met with a sort of standardized comparison counter-argument leveraging things like cars, televisions, or other forms of hardware technology that we utilize every day that isn’t given to us as a right.  We don’t have a right to a television, and the government doesn’t make sure we have access to one is a common counter argument.  This comparison is unfair because unlike television, internet access and digital technology education has become integral to so many facets in our everyday lives outside of merely intaking moving imagery.  And despite my earlier hopeful economic arguments, I don’t necessarily think this is an economic issue anymore.  I really liked this quote from the Mossberger piece: “we examine whether and how the Internet is integral for economic opportunity and political participation, and whether on that basis, all Americans should have the ability to use the Internet, if they so choose.  This implies a concern for equality, not just a utilitarian calculation of market efficiency based on the relative costs and benefits.”

Those two perceptions are what I felt were the largest hurdles in accepting the idea that digital citizenship ought to become a right.  In short, I think financial worries can be solved  through grass roots initiatives, government and corporate cooperation, as well as through efficient coding through a lens less focused on meeting consumer demand.  Also, I’m not certain that financial arguments are all that relevant when it comes to discourse as to whether digital access ought to be a right.  Because of its large role in modern society, digital citizenship is a political philosophy question and yes, it ought to be right when considering its ability to offset whatever “equal opportunity” we attempt to provide.

[ltomr]

Let’s Make Digital Citizenship a Right: Overcoming Just Two Perceptions Part 1: Intro, Overcoming the Financial Hurdle

Our discussions in class surrounding digital citizenship, the internet as a right, and the increasingly many ways we utilize technology to participate in society has left me reflecting a lot about the perception of internet access as a right.  There doesn’t seem to be a lack of evidence that we’re increasingly reliant on technology in almost every facet of our lives, yet the perception of internet access as a privilege versus a right seems to prevail due to perceived hurdles to achieving this goal.  Some of these hurdles are financial arguments, one’s that examine the extensive costs of placing fiber optic networks into rural neighborhoods or placing a laptop into each students hands.  Other resistance to this idea may, I suspect, stem from our tendencies to glorify our Constitution, a perception that places “rights” into a sort of unmovable category that makes introducing the idea of internet access as a right seem laughable.  I’ve got a lot to say on this topic, but I’d like to focus on these two main perceptions, and how to overcome them.

The documentary we watched for class, “Without A Net” was great at bringing a focus on the issue of technology education in public school systems.  The documentary mentioned many of the financial hurdles that schools face, most stemming from inequitable allocation of public education funds based on property taxes.  I think that in order to overcome the financial hurdle, a different system as proposed in the documentary is necessary.  More federal involvement is necessary, and getting tech companies into the mix is important as well.  I believe the documentary stated that companies like Adobe, Apple, and Google, contributed some $2 billion to education that year and all I have to say is, that’s it guys?  Let’s get federal government more involved with tech companies in order to bring our public education system up to par.  Here’s a few ideas:

Cost of entry for hardware is often one of the largest hurdles.  Let’s consider more grassroots initiatives like approaching cellular companies and tech companies to create “Donate a Phone” programs where old devices can be repurposed for students.  

Let’s create more projects like this: http://laptopstudy.net, where in the 2000’s this initiative sought to get low-tech computers into the hands of every child.  

Along that line of low-end hardware thinking, let’s consider that code itself pulls the digital divide apart quicker: software updates often render older devices as obsolete and sometimes in as quick of a span of a few years.  Let’s change the way we code for older devices to extend its lifespan so we aren’t 1) wasting so many phones and 2) repurposing unwanted devices into ones that can be used by students.  Apple, having recently been “busted” for slowing down older devices with older batteries, has shown that the capitalist incentive for market growth and meeting consumer demand is satisfied when device turn-over rates are higher.  Further, consider that a student will be in high school for at least 4 years, and a device ought to last them through that amount of time with perhaps just a battery upgrade.  Everything included hardware-wise within 2014’s iPhone 6 ought to be plenty capable of accessing the internet of 2018.  In short, market based strategies for tech companies result in code that is written to satiate the consumer demand for higher fidelity video streaming, augmented reality face swapping, and Animoji’s rather than keeping devices that are older around longer or focused on recycling hardware for the purpose of education.

Access to the internet is another financial hurdle, one that I imagine can be alleviated through government involvement and cooperation of our most prized multi-billion dollar multi-national corporations.  Further, advancing technologies will change the perception that gaining internet access is difficult and expensive, and we will soon be in a future where wireless technologies are ten times faster than they are today, and more widely accessible than ever.  This, coupled with government cooperation, will be necessary in bringing access to more individuals.  That it will cost money can’t be an end-all argument; of course it will cost money.  But the benefit resulting from this investment will be obvious years from now, and disinvestment will look like a very large mistake in our technological future.

[ltomr]

Building A Better Internet By Building A Better Government

I had a lot of thoughts about today’s discussion, and I felt the need to jot down my ideas however unorganized:

In class today we discussed potential ways to help fix the internet; primarily focusing on how social media companies, news outlets, or many other internet companies rely solely on marketing and advertising as their source of revenue during a time when their platforms are becoming more intertwined and relevant to our every day social and political lives.  Because the internet and these social media platforms are more intertwined with us than ever before, they wield immense power over information and its distribution, over vast amounts of private user data.  When addressing some of the many problems that the internet faces, who do we hold accountable for change, and how do we take control over the increasingly relevant space that is the internet?

During class discussion, the astute idea of democratizing code itself was brought up by a fellow classmate.  To enable the free flow of ideas, whether coding or otherwise, can help to serve the community of the internet.  When a company can patent code, much like Monsato seeds, it can capitalize on that code and be sure that within a capitalist liberal democracy, it will be capitalized upon.  A hypothetical example could be that YouTube patents proprietary code for video streaming technology, one that it holds hostage and monetizes its usage.  The process does a little to push technology forward, but does plenty for the company looking to own and sell proprietary technology.   This small example is a fantastic one, because our American knee-jerk reaction to this example is that in a capitalist society, the brilliant coder who invented this video streaming technology ought to reap the monetary benefits of his or her creation, a testament to how hard work and brilliance can help one excel in a capitalist society.  This reaction is the product of us having the expectation that realms like the internet must also fall into our framework or understanding of our own liberal democracy, one fundamentally focused on capitalism.  Democratizing code is less an issue about protecting the idea of the brilliant coder, and more about enabling the internet to be an even greater tool for the greater good. Where we press for the internet to behave more like we expect a capitalist democracy ought to is where we limit our thinking as to how we can help change the internet.  Perspectives on "big government", or the defeatist idea that government is run by corporations, not to be trusted, and are too big to be tackled, are also limiting our thinking on how to address this issue because government is potentially the best vessel through which to bring about change on the internet. Ideas about getting government involved in the regulation of the internet in any shape or form are usually met with pretty warranted fears, considering the inner workings of the modern political landscape that's so easily swayed by SuperPAC's, or giant multi-national corporations.  Today we distrust that government could take on such a task, because today our government operates barely on democratic guidance and so heavily on dollars.  Our distrust of "government" isn't really that, but really distrust of our current government that is currently controlled by money. But our task for this discussion is about tomorrow, and technology has always been about the promise of tomorrow. When it comes to all of the roadblocks that appear before us when imagining a better internet, its more than convenient that technological capability is not one of those roadblocks, but rather a means for which to help solve some of its most glaring issues.  Block-chain and torrent technologies show us that de-centralized systems can be viable alternatives to single-server web hosting, democratizing the capability for web presence without the need to sign up for web services under Amazon's host umbrella.  Astra Taylor referenced Wikipedia, a powerful tool that has sustained itself purely on community engagement and so the technological burden of sustaining a viable social network or other platform really isn't there.  However, technological capability has enabled us to do some pretty crazy things these days: the other week I filed my taxes from my iPhone.  Twitter helps bring out awareness to the issue of voter turnout, and subsequently we got Obama elected.  Movements like #metoo, #timesup have had positive social impacts by bringing these issues into the spotlight, all propelled by very capable technologies.  Social media campaigns brought about awareness to the very issue of economic disparity, just look at the Occupy Wall Street movement of a few years ago and how the "1%" has now become a regular part of our political vocabulary. We need to utilize all of these technologies in order to bring us closer to a more direct form of democracy, one that enables the voices of the citizen, one that engages its community in changing the shape of our political landscape.  Technology can bridge the physical gap that voters face, can potentially speed up the political process tenfold, yet the political world chugs along, largely a reactionary entity rather than one responsibly molding new and unexplored places like the internet. The fear of government taking control of the internet is dependent on the perception that government will always be corrupt.  Technology enables us to transmit information and provide transparent lenses on so many current events that the potential for us to change government is greater than ever before.  Utilizing the very technology we're trying to fix will help us bring about a greater discourse, and in turn a more reliable and citizen-centric government if we can get actively involved.  The ideal outcome is people utilizing technology to help shape democracy away from capitalists frameworks that perpetuate an advertising revenue dependence, perhaps through civic engagement enabled by technology. Although there's a lot to unpack in terms of what would be necessary to attain a better internet, it does need to be a process where the government is involved in order for wide spanning change to occur.  For this reason, it's vital that we as citizens sustain our efforts to be engaged with the larger decision making process, and thankfully it is technology itself that can enable us.

[ltomr]

How Inter-sectional Analysis of Trolling Can Help Us Shape A Better Culture

Whitney Phillip’s “This Is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things” is an interesting overview of modern trolling culture online, how it impacts the world beyond the internet, and how our understandings of the Constitution or androcentrism play roles in determining the framework or perception we have when interacting with others in the online realm.

It’s apparent that an intersectional approach of analysing the issue of trolling is required.  While the act of trolling could be classified simply as online bullying, its roots are difficult to explain when examining the online/real world persona dichotomy.  Two explanations stood out to me in particular, first being that of our enculturation of the Constitution enabling our framework for how to approach the “free” internet is a very interesting intersectional analysis.  By harboring these attitudes learned from our ideals of freedom, it serves as a backbone or justification for seemingly jovial online behaviors that help shape the trolling culture online.  The second, was how androcentrism and our understandings of masculinity impact our tendencies to emotionally detach from things in the name of male austerity.  These cultural frameworks lead to trolls being able to justify their online behavior, to attack those who bring real world emotion into an online realm where it has been declared that no empathy is necessary in this space.

It’s important to consider these two intersectional approaches in other realms.  In technology, we have a workforce sector that is predominantly male.  Male culture drives the industry, and we can have little doubt that services like Facebook or Twitter are even coded from a male-centric perspective.  Even more concerning, these male-centric companies are having an increasing responsibility in the realm of content filtration and aggregation: are their perspectives on freedom of speech or considerations of androcentrism being included in the discourse of how to govern this new online space?  In media, how do we represent and express ideals of freedom of speech, equality, or masculinity as to shape the future discourse properly?  Media is a powerful cultural tool, and when we grow up seeing troll-like discourse tactics utilized on the evening news debate, or watch James Bond make the same emotionless face every time a bomb goes off, our perspectives and standards shift.

The importance of examining the cultural phenomenon that is trolling lies in uncovering multiple perspectives, or intersectional approaches, for explaining its beginnings and how it continues to impact the larger picture.  Understanding that cultural behaviors are rooted from other learned cultural behaviors is powerful if we’re to shape what’s to come.

Astra Taylor’s work on how we need to take control of our internet is perfect material to follow up this discussion.  The importance on providing governance to a space like the internet that has such a large impact on society is larger than ever.  Our online spaces are changing political landscapes, changing standards of discourse, and continues to intertwine with our everyday lives.

[ltomr]

Should the government regulate social media?  An analysis of free speech limits within the context of modern social media, and the case for government regulation.

This research hopes to first contextualize previous free speech precedents within the framework of a culture that has access to the powerful tool that is social media.  Justice Louis Brandeis once wrote, “freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth.”  While the marketplace of ideas is beautiful, Justice Brandeis probably did not consider the freedom of another country to create Twitter bots to help spread misinformation, tilt influence in campaigns with re-tweets, or push the fragmentation of American political conversation into further chaos.  With the landscape of free speech related issues expanding into the unprecedented realm of the internet, how do we adjust our constitutional thinking about free speech? I hope to explore other realms where free speech conflicts took place, and to show how drastically different of an issue the internet is in comparison to say, handing out pamphlets or burning a cross, and why understanding this variance is important in approaching the regulation of social media platforms.

With regard to this issue, I do feel that government should have some role or duty in regulating social media.  Politicians ought to be held accountable for re-tweeting a hate group, and there should be laws in place for that.  Re-tweets ought to be monitored, and they should be treated like campaign currency.  Anonymous users on these platforms are there more often than not to be detrimental to any given discourse, and perhaps the mainstream social media platforms should have policies of transparency with identification.  I feel strongly that free speech is important, but I also feel that the powerful platforms like Twitter or Facebook ought to shed its anonymous users and if you’d still like to participate anonymously online you can head right to 4chan.

I think when people hear the phrase “regulate social media”, they immediately are afraid of some infringement of some assumed right they believed they had on the internet.  Perhaps that phrasing isn’t the best way to begin the discourse, so my recommendation would be to maybe frame the debate as “Should politicians be held accountable for their social media posts?” From there, I think we can have a good debate about a legitimately pertinent issue, one that has a window of opportunity for discussion currently. Then, that might open the conversation up to seeking a transparent (in terms of account identification) social media environment.  I definitely feel that if we leave critical decisions to the young guys who own Twitter and Facebook, we’re allowing literally these young guys who own tech companies to wield tremendous and influential power with the decisions they make on how to run their company.  I’m almost certainly less afraid of government regulation that can hopefully be democratically decided upon, than the closed boardroom doors of Silicon Valley.

[ltomr]

Discussing “Everyone is a Media Outlet”

This weeks reading was from Here Comes Everybody by Clay Shirky.  Chapter three in the book is titled "Everyone is a Media Outlet" and discusses the changing landscape of newsmedia today, and how it involves not just professional institutions but individuals and often informal outlets as well.  Utilizing an analogy of his uncle who worked for a local paper, the author dissects a different era of news media where the paper felt threatened by USA Today.  The news media often worried about other rising media corporations as competitors, but overlooked many of the informal news outlets as the internet age took rise.  Throughout the chapter, the author shows how technology had influenced the news industry: during the paper era, newspaper outlets controlled the ability to mass produce news on paper, the most effective way to distribute news at the time.  As new channels for which information to travel rose, the author describes how the industry attempted to balance what type of content they were choosing to publish or air.  Because of technological advancements, weblogs and "mass amatuerization" entered the news media arena, further evolving the definition of news itself.

The chapter uses excellent storytelling of historical moments in news media to highlight its ever evolving state.  Bringing us back to a time when information traveled primarily by paper shows us a tangible technological shift that had large scale impacts on the news industry.

"From now on news can break into public consciousness without the traditional press weighing in.  Indeed, the news media can end up covering the story because something has broken into public consciousness via other means."

I felt that diving into how the news media industry had to act on certain "imperatives" during these shifts was important in analyzing why news organizations choose to cover what they do.  These days, I see so many news articles where the entire bulk of the article is about what other people on social media are doing on social media.  News organizations now recognize that these things are relevant enough for us because of our constant engagement with it, and every now and then its a primary source for breaking stories (i.e. Boston Marathon, Egypt's social media revolution).  So the imperative has shifted since the arrival of instant social media platforms like Twitter, which have now become powerful forces in communication, technology, and news media.

During our class discussion about "is the definition of news changing?" I felt it was difficult to find a way to say no without trying to strangle the definition of news into being a concrete definition.  However, this chapter had much to say on that very subject, and the more that technology changes, the more communication and news media will have to change along with it.

[ltomr]

First post!