Month: April 2012

Byebye Santorum

Post author By ludmila
Post date 15:13

I am not sure how I feel that Santorum has dropped out of the race for President. On one hand, of course, I am glad because there was such a severe divide between his political philosophy and my own. On the other hand, however, part of me was hoping he would be the Republican candidate because I felt Obama would have a much easier time beating him than the rest of the Republican alternatives. This notion provided me with some comfort. But now I am not sure exactly who to root for. I saw this hilarious photo and I had to share (A lot of the reasons I had problems with Santorum stemmed from his anti-LGBT mentality and also from his puritanical views on contraception):

At the end of the day (and I find it extremely hard to do this) I need to remember that politicians, no matter how much I disagree with their opinions, are people. And I shouldn’t hate people. Even people like Rick Santorum. It is, ultimately, his philosophy and political/social views that I hate. So on that note, I wish him and his family the best. And I hope his little girl gets better.

Democracy in the News

Google-opoly?

Post author By ludmila
Post date 14:18
1 Comment on Google-opoly?

Although this is probably a huge waste of my energy, it really, really rubs me the wrong way that Google and Facebook are slowly but surely beginning to monopolize the internet. Not that I am, by any means, emotionally attached to internet applications (although I am to some), I think it is incredibly frustrating that these two corporations feel the need to snatch up all of these innovative applications. No one likes a monopoly. And the way I see it we are living in an age, not only of information and technology, but of subsequent monopolies of these domains. Since the beginning, the internet has effectively symbolized the notion of a free market in its purest form, and healthy competition is undeniably a critical part of this reality. However, the fact that the internet is starting to look like some twisted version of a monopoly game is really starting to rub me the wrong way. Essentially all of the major ‘sections’ of the internet are dominated and controlled by one, overpowering company. The two that first come to my mind are Google and, more recently, Facebook.

Today, Facebook bought Instagram, an incredibly popular photo-sharing device for mobile phones, which marks Facebook’s largest acquisition to date. Now, is it just me that has a problem with this? I have to say that it is becoming pretty difficult to deny the fact that we are in fact living in an age of information monopolies. What I wonder is: is it possible that we (North Americans, specifically) actually like and support these monopolies? We live in a very diverse society that is very much centred around the individual, how could it be possible that societies with such an individualistic, entrepreneurial spirit can allow themselves to be monopolized like this? Obviously, this is in the realm of the internet, but that does not mean that it is not controlling us, as the vast majority of the population uses the internet daily. I guess what I am getting at is that this does not seem like the most democratic way to go about things. Why has monopoly become the rule and rendered competition as a mere exception?

In the case of Instagram, Facebook has claimed that they are going to work together with the company to make improvements and bring it to more people. However, back in 2011 this did not seem very appealing to the owners of Instagram:

Facebook has been interested in Instagram for some time. In early 2011, Mr. Zuckerberg reached out to Instagram to discuss possibly purchasing the company, but Mr. Systrom chose to keep it independent and focus on expanding it, two Facebook engineers who asked not to be named said in August. At the time Instagram had less than 7 million users. (NY Times)

Today Instagram has close to 30 million users. Like I mentioned before, this particular example isn’t very personal for me. Recently, Google has acquired another online photo-editing program, Picnik and will be incorporating it into the Google+ interface. This is the same idea, once again. It isn’t necessarily that I feel strongly about Instagram’s independence, or Picnik’s independence for that matter, because it’s not that. It’s the principle behind it, and this, for me, is ultimately a matter of principle. One can argue that the internet may still be in a relatively benign phase of Internet monopolies’ rule. This may be true. But I think we all need to make closer evaluations of what exactly we are okay with. We need to stop viewing the internet as this distant, abstract, alternate universe. It is very much entrenched in our society and has become vital to our interactions and our means of accessing information. Facebook’s buying of Instagram just made me think, and thinking is something we all need to do more of. The idea of democracy and democratic rights apply to the internet just as much as ‘real life.’ Obviously, this kind of mentality is pretty evident in the recent scandals with SOPA and other anti-Internet censorship movements. But this should also apply to internet monopolies. Most of the repercussions are felt most strongly by internet entrepreneurs and private innovators. But ultimately we must realize that we as a society will begin to feel the consequences of these circumstances over the long run. The changes may be slow and subtle, but we are heading down a dangerous path. If this continues, we may soon find ourselves looking back at what once was a dynamic, innovative resource, teeming with opportunities, and see nothing more than a stagnant, syndicated black hole.

Mini Assignments

Online Voting: Realistic or Not?

Post author By ludmila
Post date 17:51

For me, the very first thing that comes to mind when anyone mentions “digital democracy” is online voting. More specifically, when I get to thinking about notions of digital democracies, a question immediately pops into my head: would this be a good idea?

It is easier, perhaps, for individuals living in the Western world to be inclined to say that online voting would be a great idea. After all, what better way to ‘cure’ voter apathy than to allow individuals to vote for their next leader in the comfort of their own home and at their leisure? Hell, they could even vote in their pajamas! How could this possibly not be a good thing?

The only problem is that this is based strictly on a very privileged way of thinking; one that assumes that individuals, across the board, have access to the internet or to a computer. In the U.S. and Canada and throughout much of Europe, this is a luxury that a considerable portion of the population can say that they have. However, throughout much of the rest of the world, this is not the case at all. In this sense it is obvious that online voting would not be a viable option in most parts of the world. It should come as no surprise that online voting would cause more marginalization; relegating those without access to certain types of technology to the fringe of society. Clearly most of the world is not ready for digital democracy, in terms of online voting. However, it is equally important to ask whether or not it is even a good idea for the countries that do in fact have the ability to begin implementing this kind of system.

I am by no means an expert in online voting. I have a general idea of what this would mean–in theory– but I have no idae how this would actually play out in practice, regardless of how widespread access to the internet was in a country. Ultimately, I think in theory, online voting could help seriously curb a lot of the problems that arise from voter apathy and pure laziness. It could be a brilliant attempt to fix a lot of the preexisting circumstances that lead to pathetic voter turnouts. However, it is important to remember that online voting, while possibly having very positive effects on voter turnout, will only have such effects on those with access to the internet. This means severe inequality and an imbalanced opportunity for citizens. Which brings us, essentially, back to square one. After all, democracy is for everyone, and online voting, clearly, is not. Back to the drawing board, I suppose.

Free Posts

Rape Culture

Post author By ludmila
Post date 16:10

We live in a culture where joking about rape, often in a sickeningly nonchalant fashion, has somehow become ‘okay.’ A culture where the perverted view of rape as a ‘fact of life’ has gradually become acceptable. Over time, rape and other forms of sexual violence have become trivialized. This trivialization has resulted in a society that is now able to regard violent, sexual acts as inevitable norms and behaviours that are deeply embedded into the fabric of our culture and therefore impossible to eradicate. Actions and rhetoric that normalize rape are rampant both in the media and in personal interactions and discourse and have bred widespread apathy and complacency among individuals who have been led to believe that change is unrealistic and unattainable. Rape culture is dangerous in and of itself, however it becomes exponentially more menacing when you realize just how discreetly it has been woven into the fabric of our lives.

The context surrounding rape culture is complicated and complex; a web of deeply entrenched cultural beliefs that are surprisingly resilient and difficult to break down. For the sake of clarity, I will refer to rape culture as a set of beliefs that “encourage male sexual aggression and supports violence against women … Where violence is seen as sexy and sexuality as violent. [A culture in which] women perceive a continuum of threatened violence that ranges from sexual remarks to sexual touching to rape itself … A rape culture condones physical and emotional terrorism against women.” (iix) Yet encouragement and support exist in many different forms, and it is for this reason that it has become so difficult to accurately demarcate the causes. Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of rape culture is not merely what it suggests (that violence against women is ‘okay’), but is instead the terrifying reality that rape has come to be viewed as a norm; as something that is fixed and therefore impossible to change. However, what our society has come to see as something inevitable is, in actuality, something that is entirely contingent upon our current set of values and beliefs; a set of norms that can be changed.

While reading an article the other day, I came across a metaphor that likened rape culture to something called the boiling frog syndrome. I had seen this metaphor applied to a wide variety of circumstances before, however seeing it applied to rape culture fit so perfectly that I didn’t know whether my shocked reaction was due to appreciation or horror. Perhaps it was a bit of both. In any case, the boiling frog syndrome—used to illustrate the inability for individuals to recognize slow, gradual change, no matter how significant the overall change—suggests that if a frog is placed in a pot of lukewarm water that is then heated gradually, the frog will not be able to perceive the danger and will slowly be cooked to death. Whether or not this a biologically accurate phenomenon, it exposes how contemporary norms surrounding rape have come to be viewed as ‘normal’ and ‘commonplace’: very slowly and discreetly. What originally seemed to be benign, ‘lukewarm’ circumstances have nearly come to a boil, right under our noses. The time has now come for us to deal with, what undeniably is, a very complex problem. To suggest that this is an easy feat would be ignorant and naïve, so I will not try to dilute the intensity of this undertaking. But if we do not mobilize our society and take collective action, we too will be met with the same fate as the boiling frog.