[ICTs-and-Society] Fwd: RE: Plenary session 3 “Social Media, Democracy and, Politics in the Information Society” (Christian Christensen, Peter Dahlgren)
Christian Fuchs
christian.fuchs at uti.at
Mon Feb 27 15:45:10 PST 2012
From Ben Klaess benjiklass at hotmail.com:
I must not have made my thoughts clear enough, because it appears that I
have been misunderstood.
Jodi,
You said: "If you associate interaction online with healthy deliberative
democracy, then I would expect that you would associate more interaction
online with more democracy or with healthier democracy." I have not
argued that online interactivity is a sufficient cause of better and
broader democracy. Of course it is not; I do not even think it is a
necessary cause. What I do think is that access to networked
communication media is a facilitator of democratic participation; it
fosters the spread of information, awareness (of issues, viewpoints,
events, etc), dialogue etc. Christian recognized this when he said:
"Nobody doubts that communication technology as a tool [...] can support
information, co-ordination, communication" and so on and so forth. This
is relevant for a number of reasons, of which I would like to discuss two.
First is the assumption, implicit in Gladwell's article, that "online
activism" and "in-real-life (IRL) activism" are rival goods: that we
play a zero sum game when clicking "like" on Facebook or participating
in a discussion on reddit. This is clear when he says: "[Social media
evangelists] seem to believe [...] that signing up for a donor registry
in Silicon Valley today is activism in the same sense as sitting at a
segregated lunch counter in Greensboro in 1960." This is the idea of
"slacktivism": that a user will "like" some cause, or join some group,
pat herself on the back, and then immediately return to looking at
pictures of cats with grammatically incorrect captions. This is the
technologically-determinate aspect that Christian described. Are
Facebook and Twitter revolutionary, because they create the technical
conditions for people to "like" causes? No, of course not. In most
cases, the ideology that they are inherently revolutionary is designed
to prevent them from being so. We must be critical of services that cast
a shadow over people's ability to see them for what they are: capitalist
companies aimed toward exploiting free labor generated by unsuspecting
users.
It isn't all bad though; the existence of slacktivism or hidden
profit-motive does not detract from actual revolutionary uses of social
media. While commercial media pundits were collectively scratching their
heads, wondering "Just what does the Occupy movement stand for?" on
National and Local TV stations, organizers were busy utilizing
decentralized Web 2.0 tools to /facilitate/ their protests. These tools
allowed them to establish and expand an authentic, grassroots movement,
prior to having to involve other, more short-sighted groups, for fear
that they might be "like the SEIU, Teamsters and United Auto Workers,
which are top down and centralized, joined at the hip with the
Democratic Party and eager, even desperate, to be the junior partner of
capital." Think of Andrew's example of mimeo machines (Had to wikipedia
that one) and telephone trees. Without easy access to Web 2.0 types of
communicative tools, which allowed individuals to develop, organize and
express the Occupy movement on their own terms, would we have gotten the
Occupy movement at all? Or would it have fizzled into a cacophony of
bourgeois musings about the economy? Notice that the use of network
media did not preclude or prevent the amalgamation of more traditional
forms of protest down the line: Unions crucially lent support and people
across the country, and in fact up here in Canada too, hit the streets
in a still ongoing IRL protest, but only once network media-facilitated
organization had taken place; the protest started on the Internet, and
throughout, awareness of it, including its day to day events as well as
its beliefs and demands, has been spread not by the mainstream media,
but through the Internet.
This leads to the second point. Our point of reference when gauging
social media's efficacy as a tool is its predecessor, commercial media.
Organized to develop lowest common denominator content aimed at passive
receivers of information, with the goal of generating maximum
ad-revenue, commercial media is and always has been an inferior
mechanism for facilitating grassroots movements. I would be curious to
find out the nature of the role the mass media played in framing the
sit-ins Gladwell describes. I can only guess that they weren't portrayed
in a positive light; I feel more confident in stating that they
certainly did not facilitate organization of movements at anywhere near
a grassroots or radical level. Viewed in this light, networked
information media are clearly preferable to our previous option, the
only one that was available on a wide scale before the emergence and
critical-mass adoption of Internet media technologies. Exploitative
capitalist motivations do not exert influence over networked media
anywhere near the extent to which they did over traditional mass media,
and as such I think that we should not be so quick to discount the
benefits of mass media to revolutionary politics.
I find it a bit curious that you would reference the thirty-forty year
trend that saw a 275% increase in the 1%'s earnings. Interactive, Web
2.0 models only began to displace static-web, walled-garden (AOL-style)
Internet use on a wide scale about 10 years ago. The rest of the period
was dominated by commercial media. Is it appropriate or relevant to
claim that "online interaction has been accompanied by immense
concentrations of wealth" in such a direct way?
Just my thoughts for now,
Ben
> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 21:19:14 +0100
> From: christian.fuchs at uti.at
> To: discussion at lists.icts-and-society.net
> Subject: Re: [ICTs-and-Society] Plenary session 3 “Social Media,
Democracy and, Politics in the Information Society” (Christian
Christensen, Peter Dahlgren)
>
> I agree with Jodi. I do not fully disagree with those who disagree with
> her, but think we must take a look what the dominant claims about social
> media actually are and where they come from.
>
> I think that what we have to see that the most frequent claims about
> social media (in the media, by politicians, and especially in management
> and business literature and by companies and managers) are that
> Facebook, Twitter, etc are revolutionary - and by revolutionary they
> mean the technology itself and that it automatically brings about more
> democracy. Democracy is reduced to technology.
>
> Now, nobody doubts that communication technology as a tool in a
> critical-political context can support information, co-ordination,
> communication, collaboration processes that aim at bringing about
> working class struggles, protests, revolutions, questioning domination,
> etc. But given that there is so much techno-deterministic uncritical
> optimism and techno-fetishistic ideological myth-making surrounding
> "socail media", it is necessary to point out the limits of social media,
> and I think that is what critical scholars now tend to point out more
> and more. So I agree with Jodi.
>
> The problem are social media ideologies and how corporate social media
> function for exploiting the digital labour of users. There is both a
> political economy and an ideology side of it. At the same time, social
> media bring about new potentials for the socialization of the
> intellectual productive forces and the means of struggles. So there is
> also an aspect of (potential) struggles and alternative media. These are
> only potentials that can be transformed into realities via class
struggles.
>
> The question is if Internet-mediated democracy is a goal or a reality
> and what we understand by democracy.
>
> Liberal representative democracy is a reality at least in some
> countries, although its very principles are permanently questioned by
> the warfare- and surveillance-state. But what shall be the desirable
> form of democracy? Liberal representative democracy that is inherently
> bound up with the idea of private property and therefore with inequality
> - or socialist participatory democracy?
>
> The problem is that too much social media optimism ends up in a love
> affair with the very business and its gurus that are at the heart of the
> problems we are facing today - capitalist crisis, global inequality,
> global war, etc.
>
> Best, Christian
>
>
> Am 2/27/12 8:04 PM, schrieb Dean, Jodi:
> >
> > Ben,
> >
> > If you associate interaction online with healthy deliberative
democracy, then I would expect that you would associate more interaction
online with more democracy
> > or with healthier democracy.
> >
> > Yet the increase of online interaction has been accompanied by
immense concentrations of wealth, that is to say, dramatic increases in
inequality such that the lives of
> > the majority of people in the US are economically worse than they
were 30-40 years ago. The wealth and privilege of the top one percent
has increased approximately
> > 275 % in this time period.
> >
> > So what is all this "deliberation" accomplishing? If this is what
democracy looks like, then democracy looks pretty inadequate as a
political form for achieving anything like
> > economic and social equality.
> >
> > By "turn out" I mean getting people out on the street, to show up
for an event or demonstration. Liking on FB is less politically
efficacious than blockading a road or
> > occupying a building.
> >
> > But, perhaps for those who think that deliberation is enough, that
as long as people are liking and pointing and clicking, then this isn't
a problem. From this perspective,
> > it's great that there are far right bloggers and racist message
boards, and Tea Party email lists, because at least people are
participating.
> >
> > I oppose this view because I think it enhances those elements of
communicative capitalism that impede left organization.
> >
> > Jodi
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: ben klass [benjiklass at hotmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 12:19 PM
> > To: epetrovna at gmail.com; Dean, Jodi;
discussion at lists.icts-and-society.net
> > Subject: RE: [ICTs-and-Society] Plenary session 3 “Social Media,
Democracy and, Politics in the Information Society” (Christian
Christensen, Peter Dahlgren)
> >
> > I also agree with the sentiment expressed by Ekaterina and Andrew.
> >
> > In response to Jodi's thoughts, we might look at Robert Putnam's
Bowling Alone as a reference. From his point of view, of a decline in
'social capital', with regard to democratic involvement (p170-177), has
been a real trend, at least in America, over the past few decades. If we
accept this, then I would argue that an increased engagement in "any
kind of politics" is laudable. If we're interested in a healthy,
deliberative democracy, then a forum for promoting awareness, at least,
but more importantly discussion amongst people holding various and often
contradictory political positions is desirable. This is of course
leaving aside the fact that Facebook is exploitative of "knowledge
labor" (if we accept this concept), but that may well be beside the
point in this case.
> >
> > I'm not sure exactly how to respond to Jodi's first point, that
"turn out" is less viz. Facebook than it is with regard to "direct
contact". I would argue that, with regard to the second, that
participating in a discussion, even as basic as commenting on a post or
clicking "like" does itself constitute more, not less direct engagement.
The use of "social media" and the internet in general streamlines the
process of being directly involved with others in terms of discussion,
argument and contact in general, and I think that this mailing list is
an obvious example. A lot of the discussion so far has focused on FB, or
other similar "social media sites" (twitter, diaspora, etc), but let's
not forget that email, IRC, USEnet, blogs, forums, etc are all forms of
social media. "Direct involvement" seems to me to be a subjective term,
and I guess what I am saying is that I see no reason why these social
media forms wouldn't be considered direct and involved.
> >
> > I also think that, in regard to the third point, networked media
facilitate, rather than diminish organizational capability. This speaks
to Andrew's point earlier regarding the naivete of Gladwell's article,
which wrongly counterposes political activity IRL and online political
awareness. To think that these two things are rival goods is, as Andrew
said, to miss the point. Ekaterina's most recent reply this points this
out: "Farmville" and other distractions coexist with serious political
discourse online, and often create a casual atmosphere that may draw
awareness to issues to which people may not otherwise have been exposed.
More to the point, we would have to ignore the SOPA/PIPA protest and
action in the States, ACTA protests in Europe and negative public
reaction to bills C-11 and C-30 in Canada to make the case that raising
social awareness somehow takes away from political action. Benkler makes
the salient point in Wealth of Networks that the uses of new forms of me
> dia, while potentially diminishing the roles of the old, do not
wholly occlude them, and in our case here I think that the presence of
"online activism" has been seen to act as a complement to and a catalyst
for IRL activism, not its replacement. We must also keep in mind the
point of reference: it seems the potential for creating calls-to-arms
amongst the general public is considerably greater in a decentralized
social media atmosphere than it was during the industrial, ad-revenue
driven commercial media era, in which "eyeballs were bought and sold"
and couch potatoes were the primary commodity.
> >
> > I hope this isn't viewed as uncritical, as I assure you I am
familiar with, and to a certain degree I share the concerns of thinkers
such as Evgeny Morozov and Darin Barney. However, alarmism isn't the
primary feature of my research, and although I consider it and respond
when appropriate, to simply dismiss the motivational power of networked
media would be, as Andrew pointed out, naive. If I do have a piece of
criticism, I guess it would center on the roles of corporate capital in
translating democratic outcry into actual political decisions. I'm not
sure about the ACTA protests, but I know in the States there has been
contention over whether "the Internet" (the public) or the "Tech
Industry" (Google, FB, etc.) were the prima movens behind SOPA being
shelved. This is a harder question to answer, although given the
11th-hour appearance of action like petitions by Google, I tend to lean
towards the belief that the critical mass had already been reached by
the time industry r
> eally stepped in. (Especially in light of the fact that Google's
earlier presence, as the only "pro-internet" group actually presenting
at the Congress hearing on the bill, was dismissed as alarmist and self
interested before it achieved the legitimate support of the public). The
case for the public's primary role is a bit clearer in Canada, as anyone
familiar with the hilarious "#TellVicEverything hashtag can attest.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Ben Klass
> > M.A. Student, University of Manitoba, Canada
> >
> > ________________________________
> > Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:32:41 +0000
> > From: epetrovna at gmail.com
> > To: JDEAN at hws.edu; discussion at lists.icts-and-society.net
> > Subject: Re: [ICTs-and-Society] Plenary session 3 “Social Media,
Democracy and, Politics in the Information Society” (Christian
Christensen, Peter Dahlgren)
> >
> > Hello:)
> >
> > I find the discussion very interesting and thought-provoking.
However, i tend to agree with the comment made by Andrew. Facebook is
often criticised for its entertaining aspect (apart from the fact that
it belongs to capitalistic organisation, promotes commodification and
that people can be seen as working for free their), and that political
news and some attempt at civic engagement are lost in the stream of such
applications as Farmville. As one user, whom i interviewed observed:
> >
> > “Well, there was a group that started up and got a very large
number of members saying, 'We don't want the Lib-Dems to make a deal
with the Conservatives'. This was its title. Obviously, that wasn't
successful in its aim but, you know, you get these kind of things and I
think there is a potential there, but it needs more than potential to
actually happen. They’re a lot of groups like that, but they co-exist
with all other things like Farmville!”
> >
> > I often asked questions on my wall about how my 'friends' perceive
Facebook. I remember I once posted an important question about what did
people do on Facebook and whether they thought it could bring about some
social change. I was having a very interesting discussion related to
this question, with some of friends sharing quite deep and important
thoughts and then suddenly a friend of mine joined the discussion by
asking the following: “I am more interested to know WHY you are my age
but you have absolutely no wrinkles?!” This question followed a comment
from another user who shared some very serious observations about Facebook.
> >
> > And this is what Facebook is basically about. Important political
news are presented together with the latest advert from L'Oreal. One
friend posts an important update about the Occupy Movement while another
writes what she is eating for lunch. But whether it is bad or good is
open for discussion.
> >
> > if we look at it from the angle of popular culture, this comment of
my friend about my wrinkles can actually appear as 'interesting' and
thought provoking. It was at least for me, because as it happens, I am
obsessed with all kinds of beauty products and can discuss this topic
for ages. And that is why I actually replied to my friend and we had an
interesting discussion about anti-aging creams, etc. The discussion did
go back eventually to the topic of Facebook, but the comment of my
friend, if anything, allowed to inject some 'fun' into a serious topic.
> >
> > This fun aspect of Facebook is actually what allows people to read
some news with the means of Facebook. Maybe indeed people are more aware
about certain topics because they are presented in an interesting and
entertaining way? And maybe there is nothing wrong indeed with simply
clicking 'the like' button if for some people it is the first step to
some sort of political engagement?
> >
> > As the same user who remarked about Farmville continues:
> >
> > “...But you get this in everyday life, each of us is embedded in
lots of networks and has potential contacts and ties to all kinds of
things, and we spend an awful lot of time just in chat and discussing
things and chatting about things and yes, gossip. And we spend then,
some other pieces of time where, quite actively, we're trying to do
something, sometimes trying to make a difference; sometimes only a
difference related to ourselves or our house or planning a vacation or
something and sometimes dealing with local issues on a much deeper level.”
> >
> > Ekaterina Netchitailova, PhD student at Sheffield Hallam
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 11:41 PM, Dean,
Jodi<JDEAN at hws.edu<mailto:JDEAN at hws.edu>> wrote:
> >
> > Andrew's use of the term "civic use" of the internet is
interesting. It points to the fact that there is nothing particularly
revolutionary, left, liberal, or progressive about using
> > networked media for organizing. The convenience is convenience
regardless of political outlook.
> >
> > "Use of the internet" doesn't tell us anything--virtually everyone
and everything
> > uses the internet. It's what spam, porn, activists, World of
Warcraft, and cute kittens have in common.
> >
> > If one's view is that any kind of politics is laudable, then one
might celebrate this. I don't think any politics is laudable.
> >
> > Even if I did, I would still be critical of a one-sided celebration
of the politics of networked media. Here are just a couple of reasons:
> >
> > 1. The turn out rate for mass emailings/FB invitations is lower
than with direct contact.
> > 2. Reliance on electronic media means less direct involvement with
people (so, instead of going door to door and building knowledge and
connections first hand, one relies on a database of phone numbers).
> > 3. Capacities for organizing diminish: people think that all that
is necessary is an FB page.
> > 4. Political action becomes synonymous with awareness.
> > 5. Political action becomes seamlessly integrated with consumption
and entertainment; the content may be radical but the form is not.
> >
> > Jodi Dean
> > (not part of the conference but lurking on the list)
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From:
discussion-bounces at lists.icts-and-society.net<mailto:discussion-bounces at lists.icts-and-society.net>
[discussion-bounces at lists.icts-and-society.net<mailto:discussion-bounces at lists.icts-and-society.net>]
on behalf of Andrew Feenberg [feenberg at sfu.ca<mailto:feenberg at sfu.ca>]
> > Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2012 2:17 PM
> > To: christian fuchs
> > Cc:
discussion at lists.icts-and-society.net<mailto:discussion at lists.icts-and-society.net>
> > Subject: Re: [ICTs-and-Society] Plenary session 3 “Social Media,
Democracy and, Politics in the Information Society” (Christian
Christensen, Peter Dahlgren)
> >
> > I want us to consider a naive observation about social media. A
recent New Yorker article dismissed the political uses of the Internet
by contrasting the courage required to participate in a sit-in in the
60s and the triviality of signing an online petition. This sort of
critique of the Internet mistakes completely its significant civic role
which is communicative. It enables discussion and makes it cheap and
fast to assemble masses. I had a student write a biting critique of the
destructive effects of the Internet on civic culture, only to organize a
successful and quite large "Slut Walk" in Vancouver shortly afterwards
in just a week using the Internet. I went just to tease her and asked
her if she knew what mimeo machines and telephone trees were. She had no
idea. I told her this would have been her communication system when I
was organizing demonstrations. So, of course the Internet does not
"make" revolutions. But it plays a role in them just as did Khomeini's
cassette
> s or the leaflets passed around in the May Events in 1968. A total
government and corporate takeover of the Internet might well reduce it
in the future to the abject state of television, but until that happens
let's celebrate its positive role where we find it. I await your
critical counter-attack!
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Christian
Fuchs"<christian.fuchs at im.uu.se<mailto:christian.fuchs at im.uu.se>>
> > To:
discussion at lists.icts-and-society.net<mailto:discussion at lists.icts-and-society.net>
> > Sent: Sunday, 26 February, 2012 11:00:29 AM
> > Subject: [ICTs-and-Society] Plenary session 3 “Social Media,
Democracy and, Politics in the Information Society” (Christian
Christensen, Peter Dahlgren)
> >
> > In plenary session 3 of the Uppsala conference "Critique,
Democracy and
> > Philosophy in 21st Century Information Society", Peter Dahlgren and
> > Christian Christensen will discuss fundamental challenges for
> > contemporary politics and democracy in the context of digital media.
> >
> > They ask questions like: What is transparency? How can media
advance the
> > transparency of power structures? Is transparency a viable political
> > goal? What is the relationship of WikiLeaks to power,
transparency, and
> > the mainstream media? How does the relation between alternative media
> > and mainstream media in the age of the Internet look like? What is a
> > civic sphere? What is the role of the Internet for the civic sphere?
> > What are the political opportunities and limits posed by social media?
> > What is democracy today? What are the political and democratic
> > potentials and limits of critique today?
> >
> > Discussions and comments on these contributions are welcome.
> >
> > Best, CF
> >
> > CHRISTIAN CHRISTENSEN
> > Uppsala University, Sweden
> > WikiLeaks: Mainstreaming Transparency?
> > ABSTRACT: In the period shortly after the release of the “Collateral
> > Murder” video, “Afghanistan War Logs” and “Iraq War Logs”, it appeared
> > that WikiLeaks had done something that many had thought unlikely: the
> > insertion of a radical critique of US military and geo-political power
> > into mainstream popular discourse (particularly in the US). While The
> > Guardian, New York Times and Der Spiegel (the three newspapers
chosen by
> > WikiLeaks for the release of the first leaks) are not the
newspapers of
> > choice for many in the US, UK and Germany, the very presence of the
> > material on their front pages opened up the possibility that the murky
> > world of US power might now be forced to concede ground to
transparency
> > advocates. In this paper, I address the often contentious
> > WikiLeaks-mainstream media collaboration, and the potential impact of
> > this relationship upon the evolution of transparency as a political
> > philosophy.
> >
> > SPEAKER INFO: Christian Christensen is Professor of Media and
> > Communications Studies in the Department of Informatics and Media at
> > Uppsala University, Sweden. His primary area of research is in the use
> > of social media during times of war and conflict, but he has also
> > published on the representation of Islam, post 9/11 documentary film,
> > and international journalism.
> >
> > ***
> >
> > PETER DAHLGREN
> > Lund University, Sweden
> > Social Media and the Civic Sphere: Crisis, Critique and the Future of
> > Democracy
> > ABSTRACT: While the advent of social media has already had a
significant
> > impact on people’s daily lives, it has also come to alter the
character
> > of the civic sphere, i.e., the broad social terrain of citizens’
> > activities.
> > Thus, social media in their various forms quickly became incorporated
> > into discourses about democracy and the political. Clearly, social
media
> > can play a useful role in the advancement of democracy, but it is
by now
> > quite clear that they offer no simple solution to the ills that beset
> > contemporary democracy. On the one hand they can just as readily be
used
> > for purposes that are anti-democratic, on the other hand – and in a
more
> > complex perspective – the contingencies of late modern capitalism
> > generate a variety of conditions that intercede, in problematic ways,
> > between even progressive “produser-citizens” and the advancement of
> > democracy via social media. These contingencies have to do with a
number
> > of factors, including power relations at different societal levels
> > (including the growing separation between power and formal politics),
> > the imperatives of consumer society, late modern cultural currents of
> > individualism, and the architecture and political economy of the net
> > itself and its Web 2.0 affordances. As the global crisis deepens,
these
> > contingencies become more pronounced.
> > This presentation will highlight and exemplify these aspects, arguing
> > that research needs to become more alert to such obstacles in
regard to
> > social media’s role and potential in cultivating the civic sphere.
Even
> > the notion of democracy – too often deployed as incantation – needs
> > critical interrogation to elucidate its multiple and at times
contested
> > ideals.
> > In this regard, the latter part of the discussion will probe the
notion
> > of critique, suggesting that there is a methodological dimension that
> > can be retrieved and applied to social conditions, practices, and
> > discourses for progressive political purposes. The concept of critique
> > of course remains multivalent; I focus on the lineage from Hegel’s
idea
> > of the critical reflection on unnecessary constraints on human
freedom.
> > Its concern is with “emancipation”.
> > Historically, various intellectual and political movements on the Left
> > have used the no-ion of critique. Today, however, the concept seems to
> > have lost its punch, due to the decline of the Left, the rise of
> > neoliberalism, the growing social uncertainties, the ironic
> > sensibilities of liquid modernity, and not least the current global
> > crisis, in which no clear political alternative has emerged to
galvanise
> > the many heterogeneous strands of opposition.
> > I intend to explore the notion of critique as it still can be found in
> > the writings of a number of contemporary theorists – Laclau and
Mouffe,
> > Boltanski, Bauman, and Žižek – and extract some common threads. These
> > will be applied to social media and the civic sphere, against the
> > background of the current crisis, with an eye towards reinvigorating
> > critique as an intellectual endeavour. Also, I will briefly
address the
> > notion of ‘emancipation’ to see what useful meaning can be
elucidated in
> > regard to our contemporary horizons.
> >
> > SPEAKER INFO: Peter Dahlgren is Professor Emeritus at Lund University,
> > Department of Media and Communications Studies. His research
focuses on
> > democracy, the evolution of the media, and contemporary socio-cultural
> > processes, including identity formation.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discussion mailing list
> >
Discussion at lists.icts-and-society.net<mailto:Discussion at lists.icts-and-society.net>
> >
http://lists.icts-and-society.net/listinfo.cgi/discussion-icts-and-society.net
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discussion mailing list
> >
Discussion at lists.icts-and-society.net<mailto:Discussion at lists.icts-and-society.net>
> >
http://lists.icts-and-society.net/listinfo.cgi/discussion-icts-and-society.net
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discussion mailing list
> >
Discussion at lists.icts-and-society.net<mailto:Discussion at lists.icts-and-society.net>
> >
http://lists.icts-and-society.net/listinfo.cgi/discussion-icts-and-society.net
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing
list Discussion at lists.icts-and-society.net
http://lists.icts-and-society.net/listinfo.cgi/discussion-icts-and-society.net
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discussion mailing list
> > Discussion at lists.icts-and-society.net
> >
http://lists.icts-and-society.net/listinfo.cgi/discussion-icts-and-society.net
>
>
> --
> - - -
> Christian Fuchs
> Unified Theory of Information Research Group
> christian.fuchs at uti.at
> http://www.uti.at
> Personal: http://fuchs.uti.at
> NetPolitics Blog: http://fuchs.uti.at/blog
> Editor of tripleC: http://www.triple-c.se
> Chair of ESA RN18-Sociology of Communications and Media Research
> ICTs and Society Network: http://www.icts-and-society.net
>
> Chair in Media and Communication Studies
> Department of Informatics and Media
> Uppsala University
> Kyrkogårdsgatan 10
> Box 513
> 751 20 Uppsala
> Sweden
> christian.fuchs at im.uu.se
> Tel +46 (0) 18 471 1019
> http://fuchs.uti.at
> http://www.im.uu.se
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion at lists.icts-and-society.net
>
http://lists.icts-and-society.net/listinfo.cgi/discussion-icts-and-society.net
More information about the Discussion
mailing list