Socratic dialogue

Jenkins: The internet has done so much for connecting us to one another. The participation that is now possible thanks to it will bring about a much more consumer-controlled society!

Fuchs: Oh Jenkins, you are so naïve. Take a closer look at the object of your unbridled optimism.

J: What is so terribly wrong about the internet? It allows us to connect with people with similar interests. I love talking to people about My Little Pony on the brony forums!

 

F: This is exactly what I am talking about, Henry! You talk to other grown men about cartoon horses! If you were a child this would be fine, but this is not participation as you would like to call it.

 J: Why not? People must start to engage on the internet somewhere. Today’s bronies will be the leaders of the next great political movement!

F: Your logic is flawed. You assume that fans will automatically move from fandom to political activism. If the most popular topics and groups on social media are any indicator, entertainment will always reign supreme. Politics will always be at best, secondary.

 
J: So what’s the big deal if entertainment is bigger? Both politics and entertainment are just parts of the culture we live in. We need to look at what is most important to our culture, and if more people pay attention to entertainment, so should we!

 F: It is not truly participation if it is not political! Your definition of participation reduces it to merely cultural participation, not democratic participation. In doing so, you ignore vital issues.

 J: What are these vital issues?

F: Well for one, you have to question what ownership of the media means. We live in a capitalist system and thus, most social media is owned by companies who want nothing more than to maximize their own profits. In doing so, the companies exploit everyone involved. The raw materials for all of your beloved gadgets come from Africa and they are assembled in Asia. Workers in both places are for all intents and purposes, slaves and work in toxic conditions. Once you have your device and are using social media sites, you are under constant surveillance. Websites track what you like and things you say, they sell all the data that you generate to advertising agencies who then selectively target you. They advertise products that you might like. They change what your perception of the world is without you even realizing it.

 J: So that’s why there are so many ads for horse-related objects on my Facebook! I thought everyone got those ads.

 F: No, the advertising is based on your set of interests and no one else’s.

J: Well that’s a little too 1984 for my comfort, but isn’t the companies using our data in their terms and conditions? Sure we’re being exploited, but a little bit isn’t that bad right?

 F: But it is! This exploitation continues the capitalist domination over us! The corporations that run these sites control what you see and bend it to their own profit. You are getting nothing out of this deal. All you are to them is free labor that can be turned into capital without your knowledge or permission. They are stealing from you!

 J: But even if we don’t get paid, we do get something out of it. We get a method to rapidly communicate with like-minded individuals from around the world. Creativity and artistic expression has never been easier to do or to share than it is now. We may not get a money but this is how we pay for the service that social media sites provide.

 F: Does that give them the right to make millions off their users when all the users get is another way to communicate? Does cultural worth legitimize the exploitation of the consumers that is going on?

 J: Well there has to be some level of corporate responsibility. They can’t go too far or they risk alienating their consumers.

 F: What do you mean by corporate responsibility?

 J: Eh...still hashing that one out.

 F: Exploitation is just one issue that you are neglecting with your reductionist approach. Additionally, you must consider the visibility of your participation.

J: How so?

 F: As I have already said, the Internet is dominated by corporations with far more resources than you or I will ever have. Most of the top websites come from established media corporations with a reputation that makes people consider them a go-to place for their news and entertainment. These corporations thus have a disproportionate visibility on the web, while people like you and me are lucky to have blogs with small followings. Whatever you say on a blog will have much less weight than something that makes it onto CNN or the Huffington Post’s website. Additionally, if a non-commercial site gathers enough of a following, media corporations are likely to take notice and try to capitalize on the site by purchasing it or copying its model. This makes it harder to truly gain any sort of power while remaining separate from the capitalists.

 J: But as a whole, independent blogs have some power right?

 F: No, again the high visibility gathers many people is power in and of itself. Independent blogs and websites do not have the same solidarity, they are fragmented and dispersed throughout the web, resulting in many different issues. There is little to no power here.

 J: You bring up a lot of good points Christian. I’ll need to spend some more time thinking about what you have said!