people say the internet, or more specifically, web 2.0, or more specifically, the blogosphere, is the new public sphere, a habermassian theory referring to a physical/metaphysical location where people come to discuss events of the day openly, to engage in discourse without fear of reprimand.
i don't agree with this 100%, because blogs have already been used as marketing tools.
marketing != public sphere.
the public sphere is composed of ideas made public to advance democracy, and commercialization has no place within it.
because when commercialization exists, people cease to be autonomous and no longer have the ability to speak freely and openly; there is a corporation ensuring they speak only the very best about their products.
it can also be argued that viral marketing in the blogosphere is just as damaging to the idea of the public sphere. this is valid in the sense that viral marketing works by making word-of-mouth popularity of a product seem spontaneous when that spontaneous nature has in actuality, been strategically planned. so, even when people fall for viral marketing and speak of it freely and openly, they are spreading ideas of a product that was meant to be circulated in such a fashion, and there is still a commercial force behind the discussion.
i bring this up because, increasingly, A-list bloggers are being paid to write by corporations, and for some people this new relationship, between the blogger and the corporation, usually indicates a loss of blogging freedom.
i agree with the principle, but i don't see why people are so upset about it when the blogosphere advanced in a commercialized internet place to begin with. it was ultimately bound to happen. furthermore, when the post 1995 version of the internet exploded with commercialization, we lost any chance of having a real public sphere anyway.
notice i say real public sphere, because i am not challenging the fact the blogosphere has acted as a public sphere, because it has. it helped shape a tremendous number of ideas the mainstream media ignored up until the force of recognition was too great. and there is no doubt that the power of the blogosphere and the ideas it has created and circulated have influenced many other aspects of society, too numerous to list here. even within mainstream media, there is a certain level of public discourse available, e.g. letters to the editor, call-in radio shows, etc.
not to mention the fact that even within our current framework, bloggers still have a certain amount of freedom not found in the typical employment contract of a journalist. for example, if an advertiser who rents space on an A-list blog does not agree with the blogger's opinions, the blogger can probably find somebody who does.
not that they necessarily will.
many bloggers will choose to talk positively about a product they believe in if that corporation is paying, and it's not necessarily because they felt forced to, but because they are actually passionate about that product and genuinely enjoy it.
to me, that's not good enough, because you will still regulate what you say. there's nothing wrong with blogging about products we enjoy - i have done it, you have done it, it's how we find out which screwdriver, book, or sex toy is the best. but when the company is paying you to utter those words, there is a forced urgency and self-regulation behind it, and those words no longer represent the true you.
yet, i don't see why people get so upset over the fact that A-list bloggers are the new public relations practitioners, when it was something that was so obviously bound to to happen anyway, given our history with mass media commercialization.
was it really this surprising? did we really think web 2.0 would remain this way? if it's this influential, did you really think companies would just leave it be? why are we repeating our ideological mistakes from web 1.0?
it can therefore be argued that the power of mediums that represent a public sphere, are only bound to be commercialized, and that the idea of a true and permanent public sphere is impossible, historically speaking.
what we can at least recognize about the blogosphere, is that given its vast nature with its many millions of bloggers, the sheer volume and influential nature of information that gets passed about is incredibly useful and helps promote the idea of public discourse. in mainstream media, we don't have anywhere near as much freedom, because media conglomerates have historically given us very little to interact with. with the 'net, on the other hand, almost anything goes (so long as you're not living in an oppressed nation, thx goolag).while there is great optimism for the 'net to remain that way - another idea i am dubious of - that is another retardedly long and boring essay in itself, and i am certain my pseudo-intellectual babbling is not particularly revered on zen for lunch, where i am more prone to bitching about more trivial subjects, which is far more entertaining than this shit. besides, i must go and sleep in REM cycles, dream of a warm beach where people never use the words "freezing" and "rain" in the same sentence (or more like, at all), and masturbate to thoughts of u + me on said beach. thank you for your time.
le fin.
