The first article, “Social Media and…Tahrir Square” by Tufekci and Wilson highlights the activism that can arise when using SNSs, pointing out how sites like Facebook get the word “revolution” associated with them. The possibilities for communication represented by these websites represents a threat to the authoritarian style of government that exists in the Middle East and provides a space for a rallying cry from protestors and disseminators of “citizen journalist” media. A quarter of the participants heard about the protests from Facebook. Another quarter used Facebook to distribute their documentation of the event.

In “Democracy on the Web…” Loveland and Popescu seem a little disturbed by the opportunities for engaging in meaningful exchange on Internet forums. Using the website of an American northeastern newspaper as their model, they found that anonymity inherent to Internet forums creates problems of mutual respect and accountability. They also found that discussion becomes less of a conversation and more of a place to state one idea and withdraw, or suffer the asynchronous effects of Internet inter-communication. There is an evident longing in the article for a forum style that approximates the face-to-face style of discussion.

In “Playing with Politics…” Wilson, analyzing within an Australian context, considers online impersonation of political figures through Twitter. In class, we’ve discussed the notion of famous figures having their assistant tweet for them, but the notion of mimicking a public figure raises the stakes considerably. What’s interesting is that the “fakers” by necessity must be well informed and up to date on current news and identity quirks so there is a level of accuracy to the representation. The corruption of the real political figures as “brands” gets a moment of consideration, but I think the inherent revolt and humor in this kind of faking is a wonderful inroad to considering our increasing dependence upon digital identities and what this means in terms of individuality.

The attitudes toward  civic  websites in British youths are assessed in the article “Online Youth Civic Attitudes…” by Gerodimos. The findings are not too surprising, with political discourse generally coming off as “inaccessible” and “intimidating.” And paired with what Gerodimos considers a “lack of efficacy” in today’s youth, there needs to be a push toward connecting with them. Gerodimos finds that the information needs to be practical and straightforward (if such a thing is possible in the political sphere), and the appeal needs to be direct and emotional, utilizing empathy and visual stimuli. With the inclusion of such factors, the “misperception” of civic websites seemingly held by British youth can begin to be ameliorated.

Manuel Castells, who I’m glad to be reading again, considers the nature of power relations within an ever-advancing system of mass communication in his article, “Communication, Power and Counter-power in the Network Society.” I’m inclined to agree with lines like, “What does not exist in the media does not exist in the public mind, even if it could have a fragmented presence in individual minds” (Castells, 241). The media exists as a “space where power is decided,” (242) not held. He refers to the “personality politics” of political leaders, which relates back to the notion of branding identity. When it comes to a cynical public choosing a political leader to support, “they choose among all the immorals the kind of immoral that they find more akin or closer to their interests”(243). More relevantly to this week’s consideration of inspired activism, Castells emphasizes the current “culture that emphasizes individual autonomy, and the self-construction of the project of the social actor”(249) with the allowances of current technologies.  The “autonomous communication networks” are no longer confined but exist within a “global space of flows” between mediums and destabilized spaces. This guy is awesome.