In this week’s readings, Castells writes about world powers changing as they are challenged by globalization, deregulation, and today’s “crisis of political legitimacy” (2007). Certainly the access to information provided by the internet, and more recently the influence of mobile internet access, has changed some societies. While the internet can neither be blamed nor praised for the fall of dictators as of late, it can certainly be lauded for its part. Tufekci and Wilson explore this future in their piece on the protests in Tahrir Square during the political upheaval in Egypt in 2011. As an American who has never known anything other than freedom of speech, it really hit me that “for many people, the online sphere might have been the only context in which they encountered dissident content” (2012). While they did find that traditional face-to-face exchange was effective in spreading the word about protests, the information presented about the behavior of those present as citizen journalists was intriguing. Digital media and mobile phones were allowing citizens, potentially participating in political protest for the first time, to post real time documentation of the events. Although not mentioned in their article, I would like to read some research on empowerment of individuals who have cameras connected directly to the internet. Does having the ability to share what is happening around them embolden them to take actions they wouldn’t otherwise?

Mobile internet has produced something of a third eye for all of us. We can now access in a moment what we used to either have to memorize or look up later. With a mobile phone, nothing has to be out of sight, out of mind. However, what is on our mind is influenced by “old media”. The 24 hour news machine still influences what is on our collective minds. Sandy is the obvious example this week, and we’ve even been caught up in fake Instagrams of Sandy’s destruction. http://mashable.com/2012/10/29/fake-hurricane-sandy-photos/. Castells reiterates this point again citing, “What does not exist in the media does not exist in the public mind” (2007). However, with these faked images of Sandy, and other internet entities going viral, aren’t we taking part in this creation of what is on the collective societal mind?

At the heart of our readings these past two weeks has been one main question, does the internet affect our engagement in the civil/political process? We may have lowered the cost of accessing political information, but it still seems that those who are utilizing the internet for political knowledge or participation are those that would have sought it out regardless. Wilson confirms this by quoting Coleman, “Political participation is to a large extent driven by affective motives” (2004). Even those who do have genuine interest in the political process and seek to engage in political interaction online tend to lose their civility in the process. In their piece, Loveland and Popescu concluded that, “Online interaction is thus less prone to be polite, which could also explain the lack of positive reinforcement” (2011). Is it any wonder that those of us who aren’t particularly interested in politics are driven further away from the polls as we are exposed to callous exchanges both on TV and the internet by those that are engaged in the process?