{"id":595,"date":"2007-07-10T21:52:52","date_gmt":"2007-07-11T02:52:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/UnhinderedByTalent.com\/Phi\/?p=595"},"modified":"2007-07-10T21:56:19","modified_gmt":"2007-07-11T02:56:19","slug":"thoughts-on-technology-communication-and-dissent","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/UnhinderedByTalent.com\/Phi\/archives\/2007\/07\/10\/thoughts-on-technology-communication-and-dissent\/","title":{"rendered":"Technology, communication, and dissent"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Mixed<\/a>
\nThursday I’m guesting in Paula and Chris’s Summer Scholars class (Talking About a Revolution: Dissent and Freedom of Expression in Today\u2019s World<\/a>). I’m being brought in as a “tech head” to talk about how technology plays into these questions, so I’m going to jot down a few thoughts.<\/p>\n

First, dissent (or at least effective<\/em> dissent) fundamentally requires communication. If people wish to change things, they presumably have to convey<\/em> their dissent in order to make a difference, raising awareness, explaining the issues, and recruiting support. Second, the mechanics of and opportunities for communication have and continue to be defined by technology, and the rapid changes in technologies certainly affect communication, and consequently dissent.<\/p>\n

Consider, for example, McCarthy and Murrow a la Good night and good luck<\/em>. McCarthy used the technology of Congress (and I use technology extremely broadly here) to create his bully pulpit and communicate his ideas. Murrow, in turn, used his access to the still young technology of television to communicate his alternative view. Similarly, the Dixie Chicks can use the technology of music recording, radio, and public performance to object to Bush’s policies, but at the same time large media conglomerates like Cumulus Media can ban the Dixie Chicks’ music from their 300+ radio stations, potentially limiting the impact of that dissent.<\/p>\n

So to understand the impact of technology on dissent, we have to think about how they affect our communications. Key, though, is to think about who a technology allows to be a speaker, and who is forced to be a listener. Who does the technology empower, and who loses opportunities? Jerry Mander<\/a>, for example, encourages us to<\/p>\n

\nMake distinctions between technologies that primarily serve the individual or the small community (for example, solar energy) and those that operate on a scale of community control (for example, nuclear energy).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So, are the internet and the web the great savior of free speech (and dissent), or shall just another controlling arm of corporate and government interests?<\/p>\n

Discuss.<\/p>\n\n\t

\n\tTags: technology<\/a>
<\/div>\n\n\n\t

Related posts<\/h4>\n\t