Democracy 2.0 Awaits an Upgrade - 3 views

• 
  #1 Jude John on 14 Sep 09

   

  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/world/americas/12iht-currents.html
  
  1. "President Obama declared during the campaign that "we are the ones we've been waiting for." That messianic phrase held the promise of a new style of politics in this time of tweets and pokes."
  
  2. "the most revealing efforts have been in "crowdsourcing" - in soliciting citizens' policy ideas on the Internet and allowing them to vote on one another's proposals."
  
  3a. "There is a lively debate in progress about what some call Gov 2.0. One camp sees in the Internet an unprecedented opportunity to bring back Athenian-style direct democracy."
  3b. "Another camp sees the Internet less rosily. Its members tend to be enthusiastic about the Web and enthusiastic about civic participation; they are skeptical of the Internet as a panacea for politics. They worry that it creates a falsely reassuring illusion of equality, openness, universality."
  
  With technology and technological products being so pervasive in modern society, can we and should we look towards technology as being the answer to all problems. As this new exciting participatory age dawns upon us will we finally be able to be free to live as we have always wanted?
  
  I think not. No matter how wonderful techonology and all its affordances are we should not forget that technology is but a tool to be used as a means to an end. I suscribe to the second group of individuals in the article, the pessimists.
  
  Consider this quote from the article: Because it is so easy to filter one's reading online, extreme views dominate the discussion. Moderates are underrepresented, so citizens seeking better health care may seem less numerous than poker fans. The Internet's image of openness and equality belies its inequities of race, geography and age."
  
  Therein lies the question:
  Can we really be sure of what techonology affords and means for us?
  
  Who gets to wield power over the tools and thus the terms of engagement?
  
  If what we're moving towards is really our future, what happens to our rights as we remove institutions of power able to effect changes towards these ends (such as governments), will our rights still be recognised and will we be able to agree on them (as a form of consitution)?

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner"><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/world/americas/12iht-currents.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/world/americas/12iht-currents.html</a> <br /> <br /> 1. "President Obama declared during the campaign that "we are the ones we've been waiting for." That messianic phrase held the promise of a new style of politics in this time of tweets and pokes." <br /> <br /> 2. "the most revealing efforts have been in "crowdsourcing" - in soliciting citizens' policy ideas on the Internet and allowing them to vote on one another's proposals." <br /> <br /> 3a. "There is a lively debate in progress about what some call Gov 2.0. One camp sees in the Internet an unprecedented opportunity to bring back Athenian-style direct democracy." <br /> 3b. "Another camp sees the Internet less rosily. Its members tend to be enthusiastic about the Web and enthusiastic about civic participation; they are skeptical of the Internet as a panacea for politics. They worry that it creates a falsely reassuring illusion of equality, openness, universality." <br /> <br /> With technology and technological products being so pervasive in modern society, can we and should we look towards technology as being the answer to all problems. As this new exciting participatory age dawns upon us will we finally be able to be free to live as we have always wanted? <br /> <br /> I think not. No matter how wonderful techonology and all its affordances are we should not forget that technology is but a tool to be used as a means to an end. I suscribe to the second group of individuals in the article, the pessimists. <br /> <br /> Consider this quote from the article: Because it is so easy to filter one's reading online, extreme views dominate the discussion. Moderates are underrepresented, so citizens seeking better health care may seem less numerous than poker fans. The Internet's image of openness and equality belies its inequities of race, geography and age." <br /> <br /> Therein lies the question: <br /> Can we really be sure of what techonology affords and means for us? <br /> <br /> Who gets to wield power over the tools and thus the terms of engagement? <br /> <br /> If what we're moving towards is really our future, what happens to our rights as we remove institutions of power able to effect changes towards these ends (such as governments), will our rights still be recognised and will we be able to agree on them (as a form of consitution)?</div>

  ...

  Cancel

To Top