[Air-L] 2010 Virtual Institute for Assessment and analytics based on intercollegiate media...
rbradley at Tnstate.edu
Sat May 15 12:39:13 PDT 2010
Would like to invite participation either by submitting media or by judging media as part of our fourth version of the DMSC Governors Challenge.
All best to all and happy summer!
Robert R. Bradley
Director of Technology Integration
Communication and Information Technologies
President and CEO
Digital Media Sandbox Consortium
Tennessee State University
3500 John Merritt Parkway
Nashville, TN 37209
rbradley at tnstate.edu
Think. Work. Serve.
From: air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Ted Coopman [ted.coopman at gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 2:31 PM
To: Charles Ess
Cc: Air list
Subject: Re: [Air-L] Boyd: Facebook and ³radical transparency² (a rant)
FYI: For those of you are interested and so inclined, the ACLU has a
petition they plan to send to Facebook concerning their privacy (or lack
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Charles Ess <charles.ess at gmail.com> wrote:
> yes, excellent indeed.
> May an interloping philosopher comment and then ask a question? (and then
> comment again, if anyone cares to read that far.)
> >From my perspective, much of this instantiates what I take to be Niel
> Postman's appropriation of Huxley, in contrast with Orwell: the shortest
> version of it I can come up with is, we fall in love with the technologies
> of our enslavement. (There's actually a nice reading of Postman's Foreword
> to his _Amusing Ourselves to Death_ on Youtube;:
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMZejVltDDs&feature=related>, FWIW.)
> This critique is even easier to make in light of the early 2008 Guardian
> piece on the political and economic views of FB's founders (roughly,
> neo-conservative and "über-capitalist":
> Without developing this critique more fully here - one last bit of
> background to my question. Danah wants to focus more on choice and
> consent rather than privacy:
> > The battle that is underway is not a battle over the future of privacy
> > publicity. It¹s a battle over choice and informed consent.
> I'd like a little clarification here - because I'm struggling to see how
> can have meaningful choice and informed consent _without_ a strong
> realization of privacy?
> This isn't intended as a criticism of danah's most helpful and insightful
> comments. It's intended as an open and constructive request for
> clarification regarding what, in my view, may be a critical point. See
> further comment below, if interested.
> many thanks in advance to anyone who might be able to shed light on this
> - charles
> (As I have come to understand it, individual privacy is a core component of
> modern western views of the person as an entity capable of agency and
> genuinely free choice - which in turn is a primary legitimation of basic
> rights, including choice and informed consent, and thereby liberal /
> democratic states (where liberal = you get to choose your own best good in
> reflective and informed ways, rather than have it defined for you by family
> / clan / tribe / state). Habermas is helpful here - but so are Locke and
> Kant, as well as, e.g., some recent feminist takes on Kant.
> I recognize that individual privacy in the U.S. is encoded into law only
> with the Warren and Brandeis decision in the late 1800s and is affiliated
> with a conception of identity that many (but not all) feminists,
> post-modernists and post-structuralists sought to deconstruct and replace
> especially via hyertext and CMC affordances in the 1990s.
> It is further abundantly clear on both theoretical and empirical grounds
> that our engagements with CMC are accompanied by a shift from a sense of
> self / privacy as primarily individual to a sense of a relational self more
> interested in a small-group privacy - of the sort expressed by the teenage
> girl danah mentions.
> While there are numerous individual / social / ethical / political
> to this shift - my worry is that if we thereby forget these basic
> of democratic / liberal societies , much less forget how to foster and
> sustain such agentic selves and their capacities for reflective choice (as
> facilitated by individual privacy), we are thereby likely to fall (perhaps
> happily) into the decidedly non-democratic / authoritarian /
> regimes that are historically affiliated with such relational selves.
> FWIW: between more recent research in CMC that points to a "return" to
> something like the modernist self that largely went out the window in the
> 1990s, and seeing some ways in which different cultures seem to offer, in
> some cases, conceptual resources and real-world practices that sustain such
> a self - _alongside_ the more relational kind of self - I'm less worried
> than I used to be.)
> On 5/15/10 2:24 AM, "Richard Forno" <rforno at infowarrior.org> wrote:
> > Another worthwhile bit of commentary by danah.....
> > Facebook and ³radical transparency² (a rant)
> > sparency-a-rant.html
> > _______________________________________________
> > The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
> > is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
> > Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
> > http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
> > Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
> > http://www.aoir.org/
> The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
Ted M. Coopman Ph.D.
Department of Communication Studies
Department of Television, Radio, Film, & Theatre
San Jose State University
The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
More information about the Air-L