In the reading, Beniger compares the architecture and landscaping of Harvard University to 'free-flowing cyberspace.' Harvard has forsaken the centralized control of the campus and is instead "...in favor of decentralized control by emergent popular habits."
This is not always the case on the internet, as Beniger alludes to with a compelling inference:
"For those who would control vast populations...the growth of cyberspace does present an immediate setback..."
But it also "...[has] the promise of even greater control in the near future."
The author points out that no medium has ever resisted application to mass persuasion and control. This is a scary thought. Is freedom as we know it on the internet doomed by time via corporate/political interest?
When mass communication is limited to one-way delivery, there are so many restrictions. Two-way communication is much better (I hope we agree on this by now,) "because the effect of any one message can be monitored and responded to in a subsequent message." Its as simple as that primordial idea; it brings us back to the idea of 'feedback.'
Regardless of whether or not the control of cyberspace is iron clad, it is difficult to picture a future internet that restricts two-way communication. This is subjective: I'm an American who has been blessed with the opportunity to own and use new technologies for my entire life. I along with many others are jaded; we should all be educated on the Internet as it pertains to the rest of the globe...the Chinese internet is dreadful, it makes me think of Farenheit 451. Our nation needs to use objective knowledge and wisdom so as to find a balance as a whole, but I truly hope to see a continuously growing free-flow of information in the years to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment