Comments on: A new citizenship?

By: Pete

Pete — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:04:36 +0000

Seems to me Michael Sandel is making a false dichotomy when he says the Internet can’t hope to replace personal engagement. I’d say the best discussion forums, blogs, email lists, or whatever do create personal engagement. But perhaps he perceives “the Internet” as just meaning websites that perpetuate the mass-media model of one-way communication. He goes on to identify “the Internet” as a universal rather than a particular form of communication, which to me just confirms that he hasn’t recognised all the possibilities.

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 06:50:20 +0000

Just to add that I’ve also found this year’s Reith lectures have been fascinating and compelling.

By: Terry

Terry — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:47:28 +0000

I agree that the internet could be a useful forum for this kind of debate; however there are a number of mitigating factors which would now conclude me to say that this medium is also flawed, not least of which the recent announcement from Germany.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/17/german_block_list/
If you add this to what is happening in Iran right now, in the wake of the recent election results and the way China, Russia, North Korea and many other nations control what their citizens are and are not allowed to read, view or post, the Internet has also becomes a tool of manipulation to the morality thought process in much the same way as many other state run institutions.
To expand on this thought process just a little further I would like to ask a simple question, and I know a number of the reason given by these institutions to justify it, however; “how many publicly accessible news sites can you openly, without moderation, post a reply to?”
My answer would be very few if any.