- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

Fwd: [csaa-forum] Surveillance and/in Everyday Life - Call for Papers
by natalya godbold 12 Aug '11

12 Aug '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Melissa Gregg <melissa.gregg(a)sydney.edu.au> Date: Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 4:49 PM Subject: [csaa-forum] Surveillance and/in Everyday Life - Call for Papers To: "\"csaa-forum(a)lists.cdu.edu.au\"" <csaa-forum(a)lists.cdu.edu.au> Apologies for cross-posting Surveillance and/in Everyday Life: Monitoring Pasts, Presents & Futures An International Conference featuring Professor David Lyon, Queen’s University, Canada February 20th – 21st 2012 Sydney Law School, The University of Sydney, Australia CALL FOR PAPERS The intensification and diversification of surveillance in recent decades has been remarkable. CCTV cameras, private investigators, loyalty cards, body scanners, DNA swabs, RFID tags, Web 2.0 platforms/protocols and internet cache cookies constitute only some of the many instruments facilitating the routine extraction and collection of personal information. Advancement in technological applications, and wider cultures of risk, uncertainty, distrust and consumption, have all helped to legitimate and naturalize surveillance as a multi-purpose tool in the everyday lives of individuals and organizations. Yet, whilst surveillance seems increasingly embedded in the physical and cultural fabric of contemporary living, and whilst surveillance today is qualitatively and quantitatively different from previous modes, it is by no means a novel phenomenon. From time immemorial, detailed records have been accumulated on the health, morality, cognitive development, motivations, sexualities, incomes, work activities and whereabouts of certain populations – not to mention on animal relations, planetary constellations, environmental conditions, and the like. In the past, as in the present, forms of life have been and are targeted by a polymerous array of monitoring and recording devices. Moreover, surveillance as a mode of social regulation, a cultural medium, a symbolic resource and a companion species is set to further dominate the political, economic and socio-cultural landscapes of future human societies and social assemblages; but with what implications for social justice, social relations and subjectivities? This conference critically considers the significance of everyday surveillance in relation to temporality, exploring the changing nature of surveillance as it relates to cultural specificities, past transformations, present landscapes and possible/emergent futures. CONFERENCE THEMES & STREAM ORGANIZERS  HEALTH, BIO-INFORMATICS & BIO-SECURITY – abstracts to: martin.french(a)queensu.ca  WORK, ORGANIZATIONS & ECONOMY – abstracts to: gavin.smith(a)sydney.edu.au  CRIME, LAW & NATIONAL SECURITY – abstracts to: pat.omalley(a)sydney.edu.au  THEORISING SURVEILLANCE – abstracts to: kane.race(a)sydney.edu.au  MEDIA, CULTURE & CONSUMPTION – abstracts to: kathy.cleland(a)sydney.edu.au  PRIVACY & PUBLICITY – abstracts to: stephen.robertson(a)sydney.edu.au  TECHNOLOGIES, POLICIES & PRACTICES – abstracts to: garner.clancey(a)sydney.edu.au  OTHER – abstracts to: peter.marks(a)sydney.edu.au ABSTRACT INFORMATION/FORMAT & REGISTRATION FEES Authors are required to identify and specify on abstracts the general thematic stream (from those listed above) in which their paper best resides. Thus, please send a 250-word abstract for review to the designated stream organizer. Where possible, abstracts should be in a Microsoft Word format, in ‘Times’ font, size 12. The paper’s title and the author details section should be embolded and centred. To be considered by the panel, abstracts MUST include: a title, author name(s), departmental/institutional affiliation(s) and contact email address(es). Please note that the conference committee will evaluate the quality, merit and suitability of each abstract before a decision of acceptance/rejection is taken. Selected papers will be given a 20-minute presentational slot and 10-minutes for questions. Registration includes both tea/coffee breaks and lunch. Registration payment categories for this event are as follows:  Academic/Professional AUD $200* * For registrations made BEFORE December 15th 2011, $225 AUD thereafter.  Concession (Unwaged, Students and Pensioners) AUD $50 IMPORTANT DATES: Call for papers/panels circulated: AUGUST 10TH 2011 Abstracts (250-words) due: OCTOBER 3RD 2011 Acceptance letters distributed: OCTOBER 24TH 2011 Registration opens: OCTOBER 31ST 2011 Registration closes: FEBRUARY 1ST 2012 FURTHER INFORMATION: Please visit: http://surveillanceandeveryday.com/ -- Dr Melissa Gregg Department of Gender and Cultural Studies Quadrangle Building A14 University of Sydney NSW 2006 Australia p + 61 2 9351 3657 | m + 61 408 599 359 | e melissa.gregg(a)sydney.edu.au http://www.arts.usyd.edu.au/departs/gcs/staff/profiles/mgregg.shtml New book: *Work’s Intimacy *http://www.politybooks.com/book.asp?ref=0745650279 Also out: *The Affect Theory Reader *(edited with Gregory J Seigworth) http://www.dukeupress.edu/Catalog/ViewProduct.php?productid=17901 _______________________________________ csaa-forum discussion list of the cultural studies association of australasia www.csaa.asn.au change your subscription details at http://lists.cdu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/csaa-forum -- Natalya Godbold PhD Candidate (Human Information Behaviour / Health Communication) Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences University of Technology, Sydney ¯`~.. ¸><((((º>¸. .~´¯`~.. ¸><((((º>¸. .~´¯`~.. ¸><((((º>¸. .><((((º>`~.¸¸.~´¯`~.¸.~´¯`~...¸><((((º> .,,.~´¯`~.. ¸><((((º>¸. .....,,.><((((º>`~.¸¸.~´¯`~.¸.~´¯`~...¸><((((º> .~´¯`~.. ¸><((((º>¸. .,,.~´¯`~.. ¸><((((º>¸. .~´¯`~.. UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects. Think. Green. Do. Please consider the environment before printing this email.

1 0

University of Michigan Faculty Openings
by Holly Kruse 11 Aug '11

11 Aug '11

Forwarded on request. Please do not send responses to me. Thanks. Holly ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: University of Michigan - Department of Communication Studies From: "Brown, Jessica" <jessjb(a)umich.edu> Date: Thu, August 11, 2011 4:12 pm To: "'air-l-owner(a)listserv.aoir.org'" <air-l-owner(a)listserv.aoir.org> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To Whom It May Concern, Would you be so kind as to forward our attached regular faculty advertisement to the Association of Internet Researchers Listserv? I would be grateful for any assistance you can provide. Please let me know if you have any questions or need further information. ---- The University of Michigan Department of Communication Studies Faculty Openings Beginning Fall 2012 Assistant Professor of Communication Studies The University of Michigan, Department of Communication Studies seeks applicants for tenure track positions. Expanding department emphasizes interdisciplinary study of the mass media. We seek top scholars to complement current faculty interests and strengths. We anticipate filling two positions. Anticipated starting date for all positions is September 1, 2012. All areas will be considered, with a special interest in the following areas: Global Media, Modernity and Modernization. Areas of particular interest include but are not limited to the relationships between media and economic development; comparative media systems; sociological and/or ethnographic analyses of international and/or global media institutions; comparative analyses of journalistic practices, news organizations and newsworthiness; the impact of traditional and emerging media on democratic institutions and/or protest movements outside of the United States; the impact of emerging media on deliberative processes outside the United States. Media and the Environment. Department of Communication Studies and Program in the Environment (PitE) seek applicants for a tenure track/tenured position. Our units emphasize interdisciplinary study of the mass media and the environment, respectively. Areas of particular interest are how the news media cover environmental issues, including climate change, energy use, sustainability; analyses of public service, corporate, or other persuasive campaigns about the environment, energy, sustainability and climate change; media effects on public knowledge about the environment, energy, sustainability and climate change; the role of new media in promulgating information about and affecting knowledge of the environment, energy, sustainability and climate change. Completed Ph.D. by September 2012 expected. All applicants must upload a cover letter, vita, evidence of teaching excellence, a writing sample, a statement of teaching philosophy and experience, a statement of current and future research plans, and three letters of recommendation. All application materials must be submitted electronically to http://sitemaker.umich.edu/onlinefacultyapplicationsystem. For full consideration, complete applications must be submitted by September 23rd. The University of Michigan is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer. Women and minorities are encouraged to apply. The University is supportive of the needs of dual career couples.

1 0

Re: [Air-L] Social Media and the UK Riots: ?Twitter Mobs?, ?Facebook Mobs?, ?Blackberry Mobs? and the Structural Violence of Neoliberalism (Christopher J. Richter)
by Mattie Palmer 11 Aug '11

11 Aug '11

Hello all, I worry that critical approaches might be a knee-jerk reaction to analyzing the impact of technology on the riots in the UK. While that might be warranted in situations more akin to the Arab Spring, where men and women took to the streets for the purpose of political demonstration, the riots in the UK are not in protest. It is not class warfare nor a plea for social justice. There is not an archaic caste system that needs toppled. It is looting and mob mentality. Thinking of this is important when looking at the role of social media and technology and the subsequent criticism of it. It's my opinion that many of the news outlets have focused on social media because it's still fairly recent that such open source technology has been used for macro-level social coordination. Compared to the chronology of social and political conflict, social media is in its neonatal period! It's the new toy... I haven't heard calls for Orwellian surveillance, but I'm also in the United States where such commentary might not make it into the headlines. I know with the 'flash mobs' here there have not been calls for the policing of social media and technology. I feel as though the media and policy makers have done well in identifying social media not as a catalyst or cause but rather a facilitator. Nevertheless, continually pinning the causes of social delinquency on structural oppression can be misguided. Unemployment has not caused nine and ten year olds to take to the streets - what jobs would they have had anyway? Sometimes it's entirely appropriate to call a duck a duck. Matthew Palmer ---------------------------------------------------- Matthew Palmer Lehigh University @TotallyRadGrad www.lehigh.edu/~mfp210/ ----------------------------------------------------

5 4

Pre-conf wksp IXmaps invite
by Paterson, Nancy (Academic) 11 Aug '11

11 Aug '11

Hi, May I inquire if you could post this special IR12.0 pre-conf workshop invite to the AOIR list? Thankyou Nancy Paterson, PhD OCAD University IXmaps pre-conf wksp Oct 10, 2011- special info & invite Please consider attending the Pre-conference Workshop: IXmaps – Do you know where your packets go? taking place on Monday, October 10, 2011 from 12 noon to 5 pm. IXmaps [http://www.ixmaps.ca] presents a geographic visualization of paths or routes taken by URL requests over the internet – presenting information about internet data exchange points along the way demonstrating key features of internet routing and cloud computing that impact personal privacy. IXmaps displays a map of North America (Google Earth) on which is rendered the data route and information about interconnection points. Information revealed thus far includes the physical location, ownership, networks and ISPs, deep packet inspection and NSA surveillance as well as known links or alliances among the building owners, clients, and government or corporate entities. We are taking this opportunity to launch a user friendly new version of our data gathering software TRgen which we hope you might use to see where your data traffic goes - through what facilities and at the same time assist our data gathering capabilities. IXmaps debuted at ‘Securing the Cyber Commons: A Global Dialogue’, a cyber security forum, March 2011 at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto. IXmaps presented at ‘CSIEL: Cyber Surveillance in Everyday Life’, May 2011 at the University of Toronto Art Centre Gallery. IXmaps is a collaborative project between Nancy Paterson, PhD, Faculty of Art, OCADU and Andrew Clement, PhD, Coordinator of the Information Policy Research Program (IPRP) at the Faculty of Information, University of Toronto.

1 0

Why censoring social media to stop #UKriots is such a bad idea: an experiment in social simulation
by Antonio A. Casilli 11 Aug '11

11 Aug '11

Dear all, a new blog post, co-written with Paola Tubaro: a social simulation experiment to explain why Internet censorship - as proposed by David Cameron - would end up in even more violent uprisings. The complete post (including figures, tables, and code) is available here : http://www.bodyspacesociety.eu/2011/08/11/is-a-social-media-fuelled-uprisin… Cheers, ---a ------------ IS A SOCIAL MEDIA-FUELLED UPRISING THE WORST CASE SCENARIO? ELEMENTS FOR A SOCIOLOGY OF UK RIOTS By Antonio A. Casilli & Paola Tubaro It's time we heard a little bit less about the economic and sociological justifications for what is in my view nothing less than wanton criminality. (Boris Johnson, public speech London, Aug 9, 2011) We are not social scientists. We have to deal with urgent situations (Paul McKeever, Police Federation Chairman, SkyNews Aug 11, 2011) Nowadays sabotaging the social machine involves reappropriating and reinventing the ways of interrupting its networks. (The Invisible Committee, The Coming Insurrection, Semiotext(e), 2009, p. 112) --Why social media bring democracy to developing countries and anarchy to rich ones? O sublime hypocrisy of European mainstream media! The same technologies that a few months ago were glorified for single-handedly bringing down dictators during the Arab Spring, are now at the core of an unprecedented moral panic for their alleged role in fuelling UK August 2011 riots. In a recent post, Christian Fuchs rightly maintains: [Quote: "Social Media and the UK Riots: Twitter Mobs, Facebook Mobs, Blackberry Mobs and the Structural Violence of Neoliberalism | Christian Fuchs"] And, o! exquisite refinement in the ancient art of double standard: the same conservative press that indignantly deplored dictators censorship of online communication, now call for plain suppression of entire telecommunication networks as unashamedly exemplified by this piece in the Daily Mail. Fact is, moral panic about social media is the specular reflection of the acritical enthusiasm about these very same technologies. They both spring from the same technological determinism that acclaims new gimmicks and buzzwords to smooth away the economic and social roots of unrest. Having said that, what can we, as social scientists, say about the role of social media in assisting or even encouraging widespread political conflict? Very little indeed, insofar as we do not have data on actual social media use and traffic during riots. It would take months to gather that data and who can wait for so long in a media environment that spits out quick and dirty analyses by the hour? The best approach is a more innovative one, relying on social simulation. This is a new methodology that compares alternative computer-generated social scenarios to detect what variables come into play in specific social processes1.One of these variables is the use of social media to organize flash-mobs in order to build field-awareness in urban uprising settings. We aim to demonstrate that the more we repress and censor social media in a situation of civil unrest, the worse the situation gets for everybody in a given society. --Epsteins civil violence model (revisited) Social scientists have been modelling civil violence via agent-based simulation for almost a decade now2. One major contribution on which we will build upon for our model was presented by Josh Epstein in a 2002 article3. Agent-based simulations are like games based on very simple rules and bringing forth complex results. The model basically describes a society where there is only one type of social agent (represented by circles in figure 1). (Before you scream at oversimplification, just ask yourself if you feel more comfortable with the political characterization that conservative media have been pushing in the last few days, where there are two types of citizens: looters and those who are ready to defend their communities. At least, Epsteins standard social agent reminds us that anyone can become a looter, according to the situation). The agents behaviour is influenced by several variables. The first one is the agents personal level of political dissatisfaction (grievance, indicated by lighter or darker green colour in figure 1). That can lead this person to abandon his/her expected state of quiet and become an active protester (red coloured circles in figure 1). However, the decision to act out whether it is to go on a looting spree or to burn the parliament and overturn the government is conditioned by the agents social surroundings (neighbourhood). Does s/he detect the presence of police (blue triangles in figure 1) in the surroundings? If the answer to this question is no, s/he will act out. If the answer is yes, another question is asked: is this police presence counterbalanced by a sufficient number of actively protesting citizens? If the answer to this second question is yes, then the agent acts out. Sometimes, in an utterly random way, one citizen gets caught by the police and is sent to jail for a given period of time (black circles in figure 1). (Again, if you are marvelling at the simplicity of this rule, just bear in mind how tricky it is for the UK police to really distinguish who did what in a riot and how many of these days arrests will eventually turn out to be arbitrary). [Figure 1 - Circles represent social agents, whose level of grievance is indicated by lighter or darker shades of green. Active protesters are colored red and jailed protesters black. Blue triangles represent police officers.] Of course the model takes into account other mitigating factors, such as the perceived risk of being arrested and government legitimacy. And of course there is the possibility of moving from one place to another to team up with other protesters and run havoc. We will come back to this point because this seems determinant for the use of social media. The main result of Epsteins model is that, in a typical situation, civil violence does not look like a linear process. The naïve vision of political conflict as cumulative processes where confrontation escalates until the government comes tumbling down is fallacious. Civil or political unrest is what Epstein calls a punctuated equilibrium. Long periods of stability where rebellion is smouldering are followed by short violent outbursts. [Figure 2 - A typical civil unrest pattern: outbursts of violence (red curve) punctuate long periods of stability when political tension is building up (blue curve).] There is another variable which is, to us, crucial for understanding social media use to create flash mobs to deploy in a civil violence situation: this variable is called vision in Epstein model. Vision is an individual agents ability to scan his/her neighbourhood for signs of cops and/or active protesters. The higher the vision, the wider the agents range. What we have done here is to modify the consequences of vision. In the original model4, agents and police officers move to randomly chosen places within their vision range. We have introduced a new rule that makes agents move to places in their vision range that are surrounded by the maximum number of active protesters. The result of the modified simulation (if you wish to download the code, just click here) is consistent with the tactical use of mobile technologies by protesters in order to gain a cognitive advantage against police forces and have a better awareness of the field, its resources and possible weak spots. This simple change simulates the behaviour of individuals involved in civil unrest, using BBM or Twitter to detect, and to converge in, hot spots. If the value of « vision » is higher (like in a situation where online networking tools are widespread and not censored), each agent has complete information as to whats going on even in remote locations. If social communication is censored, the value of « vision » is lower, and agents have partial or non-existent awareness of their surroundings and tend to move randomly. --Internet censorship: a source of protracted high-level violence Our social simulation code reproduces the functioning of a certain social system (lets say a city like London) over a significant period of time (in our case 1000 time steps), for different values of the parameter vision caeteris paribus (that is: while leaving the others parameters unchanged cf. Table 2 in Annex 1 at the end of this post). Running the model again and again and generating alternative scenarios, shows us the outcomes of lower or higher values of vision indicating the effects of more or less censorship of social media. Lets have a look at the results in figure 3 (click to expand the image): [Figure 3 - Red patterns represent number of violent protesters over time within different levels of social media censorship: from 0 vision (total censorship, upper left) to 10 vision (no censorship, lower right).] As we can se, different values of vision generate different patterns of civil unrest over time. All scenarios display an initial outburst pretty much what we have been experiencing in the last few days. What happens next is influenced by the level of censorship government applies. In the case of total censorship (vision = 0) the level of violence stays at its maximum virtually forever. Think Egypt Internet kill switch incident in January 2011 and remember its consequences on violence escalation in the country and, ultimately, on Mubaraks regime The other cases correspond to less and less censorship. Values between 1 (almost complete censorship) and 9 (almost no censorship) correspond to different levels of protracted civil unrest: the stronger the censorship, the higher the average level of endemic violence over time (best linear fit represented by the black lines in figure 3). The last case, corresponding to perfect social agents vision (and thus to no censorship at all) deserves a little more comment. Apparently this situation is characterized by incessant high-level outbursts of violence, with peak active levels that seem to be even more significant that in other cases. Yet, the average trend of violence over time (black fitting line) remains low. Moreover, if we want to measure the size of violent outbursts, looking at their peak active level is not sufficient. Looking at time intervals between outbursts, at the duration of outbursts, and at the level of social peace between outbursts, help us discover that this scenario is actually the best for everyone. In the absence of censorship, agents protest, sometimes violently, nevertheless they are able to return to significant levels of quiet (green line in figure 4), when social unrest is halted. [Figure 4 - In the absence of censorship, high levels of social unrest are possible (see peaks in red line), but between uprisings social system is able to come back to significant levels of quite (green line)] This is the only scenario where active protest drops down to zero for extended and repeated periods of time (cf. Table 1 in Annex 1 at the end of this post): exactly what Epstein described as punctuated equilibrium in his initial model of civil violence. And although that does not seem to match our wildest dreams of social harmony, it still is a situation where citizens are free to voice their dissent on social media, to coordinate their efforts and act about it albeit in confrontational ways while still enjoying a higher level of quiet over time (see figure 5). [Figure 5 - Levels of civil violence over time as function of levels of censorship. (Higher vision means less censorship and less civil violence).] In the absence of online censorship, social agents have vision= 10. This corresponds to the lowest levels of civil violence over time. --Some concluding remarks It is not our role to pass judgments on politicians and police officers disapproval of sociological justifications of the UK riots or on their dismissal of social sciences as at best a luxury we cant afford in times of unrests. Their shoot-first-ask-later stance, although probably moved by good intentions, can lead to ill-advised policy choices, like in the case of Internet censorship that we have chosen to discuss here. Of course other factors have to be taken into account to use a civil violence model inspired by Epstein. As shown in a recent paper by Klemens et al. (2010) rebellious outbursts are more likely given increased hardship (the recent financial crisis does seem to come into play here). Civil violence is also influenced by loss of government legitimacy which in this case seems consistent with the unpopular budget cuts promoted by David Cameron, not to mention the recent Murdoch/NoTW phone hacking scandal. Finally, protest outbursts are less likely given increased repressive capacity5. Which does not equate to the naïve argument that what we need is more cops routinely conveyed in situations of civil unrest. Repressive capacity, in the case of UK riots, has been about adapting police procedures to compensate for the clear tactical advantage rioters showed over the first few days of August an advantage that seemed consistent with the increased level of vision and field awareness allowed by mobile communications, as discussed here. The growing presence of MET police and law enforcement initiatives on Facebook, Flickr, and Google groups can actually account for the subsequent limitation of violent outburst by reducing the rioters communicational advantage. Other studies have applied social simulation to censorship in situations of civil violence. Garlick and Chli (2009), for example, insist that restricting social communication pacifies rebellious societies, but has the opposite effect on peaceful ones6. Our intention is to show that the choice of not restricting social communication turns out to be a judicious one in the absence of robust indicators as to the rebelliousness of a given society. What we have tried to do is to demonstrate how, even in the absence of empirical data, social sciences can still help us interpret how social factors come into play, and possibly avoid trading democratic values and freedom of expression for an illusory sense of security. ANNEX Vision levels % time spent in quiet (no civil violence) 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0.3 9 10.2 10 32.5 Table 1 % of time without riots corresponding to levels of vision. Parameter Values Initial cop density 4% Initial agent density 70% Number of cops 64 Number of agents 1120 Government legitimacy 80% Max jail term 30 time steps Vision 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Table 2 Parameters used in the model FOOTNOTES 1 We have presented our approach to this method in this article, in case you wanted to give it a shot. Otherwise just go on reading this post. ↩ 2 A summary if these researches is in Amblard, F, Geller, A, Neumann, M, Srbljinovic, A and Wijermans, N (2010) Analyzing social conflict via computational social simulation: A review of approaches. In Martinás K, Matika D, and Srbljinovic A (Eds.) Complex Societal Dynamics Security Challenges and Opportunities. Amsterdam: IOS Press. pp. 126-141. http://iros.morh.hr/_download/repository/Gelleretal1.pdf ↩ 3 Epstein, J. M. (2002) Modeling civil violence: an agent-based computational approach. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, n. 99 Suppl 3, pp. 7243-7250. ↩ 4 Here we use the NetLogo version presented in Wilensky, U. (2004). NetLogo Rebellion model. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/models/Rebellion. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL; Id. (1999). NetLogo. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. ↩ 5 Klemens, B., Joshua M. Epstein, J. M., Hammond, R. A. & M. A. Raifman (2010) Empirical Performance of a Decentralized Civil Violence Model, The Brookings Institution, Center on Social and Economic Dynamics Working Paper No. 56, http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2010/0625_empirical_performance_epstein.aspx. ↩ 6 Michael Garlick and Maria Chli (2009) The effect of social influence and curfews on civil violence. Proceedings of The 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems Volume 2, AAMAS 09, Budapest, Hungary: International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 13351336, http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1558109.1558281. ↩ CITE To cite this post: Casilli, Antonio A. and Paola Tubaro (2011) Is a social media-fuelled uprising the worst case scenario? Elements for a sociology of UK riots. Joint post Bodyspacesociety/Paola Tubaros Blog, August 11, URL:http://www.bodyspacesociety.eu/2011/08/11/is-a-social-media-fuelled-uprising-the-worst-case-scenario-elements-for-a-sociology-of-uk-riots

1 0

Social Media and the UK Riots: “Twitter Mobs”, “Facebook Mobs”, “Blackberry Mobs” and the Structural Violence of Neoliberalism
by Christian Fuchs 11 Aug '11

11 Aug '11

Social Media and the UK Riots: “Twitter Mobs”, “Facebook Mobs”, “Blackberry Mobs” and the Structural Violence of Neoliberalism A blog post on the role of social media in the UK riots by Christian Fuchs http://fuchs.uti.at/667/ “One formula [...] can be that of the mob: gullible, fickle, herdlike, low in taste and habit. [...] If [...] our purpsoe is manipulation – the persuasion of a large number of people to act, feel, think, known in certain ways – the convenient formula will be that of the masses”. — Raymond Williams “What is true of London, is true of Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, is true of all great towns. Everywhere barbarous indifference, hard egotism on one hand, and nameless misery on the other, everywhere social warfare, every man’s house in a state of siege, everywhere reciprocal plundering under the protection of the law, and all so shameless, so openly avowed that one shrinks before the consequences of our social state as they manifest themselves here undisguised, and can only wonder that the whole crazy fabric still hangs together”. This passage could be a description of the social conditions in the United Kingdom today. It is, however, a passage from Friedrich Engels’ report about the “Working Class in England”, published in 1845. In his book “Folk Devils and Moral Panics, first published in 1972, Stanley Cohen shows how public discourse tends to blame media and popular culture for triggering, causing or stimulating violence. “There is a long history of moral panics about the alleged harmful effects of exposure to popular media and cultural forms – comics and cartoons, popular theatre, cinema, rock music, video nasties, computer games, internet porn” – and, one should add today, social media. “For conservatives, the media glamorize crime, trivialize public insecurities and undermine moral authority; for liberals the media exaggerate the risks of crime and whip up moral panics to vindicate an unjust and authoritarian crime control policy” (Cohen, Stanley. 1972/2002. Folk devils and moral panics. Oxon: Routledge. Third edition. page xvii). The shooting of Mark Duggan by the London police on August 4th 2011 in Tottenham triggered riots in London areas such as Tottenham, Wood Green, Enfield Town, Ponders End, Brixton, Walthamstow, Walthamstow Central, Chingford Mount, Hackney, Croydon, Ealing and in other UK areas such as Toxteth (Liverpool), Handsworth (Birmingham), St. Ann’s (Nottingham), West Bromwich, Wolverhampton, Salford, or Central Manchester. Parts of the mass media started blaming social media for being the cause of the violence. The Sun reported on August 8th: “Rioting thugs use Twitter to boost their numbers in thieving store raids. [...] THUGS used social network Twitter to orchestrate the Tottenham violence and incite others to join in as they sent messages urging: ’Roll up and loot’“. The Telegraph wrote on the same day: “How technology fuelled Britain’s first 21st century riot. The Tottenham riots were orchestrated by teenage gang members, who used the latest mobile phone technology to incite and film the looting and violence. Gang members used Blackberry smart-phones designed as a communications tool for high-flying executives to organise the mayhem”. The Daily Mail wrote on August 7th that there are “fears that violence was fanned by Twitter as picture of burning police car was re-tweeted more than 100 times”. Even the BBC took up the social media panic discourse on August 9th and reported about the power of social media to bring together not only five, but 200 people for forming a rioting “mob”. Media and politicians created the impression that the riots were orchestrated by “Twitter mobs” and “Blackberry mobs”. And also, as usual in moral panics, the call for policing technology could be heard. The Daily Express (August 10th, 2011) wrote: ”Thugs and looters are thought to have sent messages via the BlackBerry Messenger (BBM) service to other troublemakers, alerting them to riot scenes and inciting further violence. Technology writer Mike Butcher said it was unbelievable the service had not already been shut down. He said: ’Mobile phones have become weaponised. It’s like text messaging with steroids – you can send messages to hundreds of people that cannot be traced back to you.’ Tottenham MP David Lammy appealed for BlackBerry to suspend the service“. The police published pictures of rioters recorded by CCTV and asked the public to identify the people. The mass media published these pictures. The Sun called for “naming and shaming a rioter” and for “shopping a moron”. The mass media also reported about citizens, who self-organized over social media in order to gather in affected neighbourhoods for cleaning the streets. Blaming technology or popular culture for violence – the Daily Mirror blamed “the pernicious culture of hatred around rap music, which glorifies violence and loathing of authority (especially the police but including parents), exalts trashy materialism and raves about drugs“ for the riots – is an old and typical ideology that avoids engaging with the real societal causes of riots and unrest and promises easy solutions: policing, control of technology, surveillance. It neglects the structural causes of riots and how violence is built into contemporary societies. Focusing on technology (as cause of or solution for riots) is the ideological search for control, simplicity and predictability in a situation of high complexity, unpredictability and uncertainty. It is also an expression of fear. It projects society’s guilt and shame into objects. Explanations are not sought in complex social relations, but in the fetishism of things. Social media and technology-centrism, both in its optimistic form (“social media will help our communities to overcome the riots”, “social media and mobile phones should be surveilled by the police”, “Blackberrys should be forbidden”, “more CCTV surveillance is needed”, “CCTV will help us find and imprison all rioters”) and its pessimistic form (“social media triggered, caused, stimulated, boosted, orchestrated, organized or fanned violence”), is a techno-deterministic ideology that subsitutes thinking about society by the focus on technology. Societal problems are reduced to the level of technology. Let’s talk about the society, in which these riots have taken place. Is it really a surprise that riots emerged in the UK, a country with high socio-economic inequality and youth unemployment, in a situation of global economic crisis? The United Kingdom has a high level of income inequality, its Gini level was 32.4 in 2009 (0 means absolute equality, 100 absolute inequality), a level that is only topped by a few countries in Europe and that is comparable to the level of Greece (33.1) (data source: Eurostat). 17.3% of the UK population had a risk of living in poverty in 2009 (data source: Eurostat). In early 2011, the youth unemployment rate in the UK rose to 20.3%, the highest level since these statistics started being recorded in 1992. The UK is not only one of the most advanced developed countries today in economic temrs, it is at the same time a developing country in social terms with a lot of structurally deprived areas. Is it a surprise that riots erupted especially in East London, the West Midlands and Greater Manchester? The UK Department of Communities and Local Government reported in its analysis “The English Indices of Deprivation 2010”: “Liverpool, Middlesbrough, Manchester, Knowsley, the City of Kingston-upon Hull, Hackney and Tower Hamlets are the local authorities with the highest proportion of LSOAs amongst the most deprived in England. [...] The north east quarter of London, particularly Newham, Hackney and Tower Hamlets continue to exhibit very high levels of deprivation“ (pages 1, 3). Decades of UK capitalist development shaped by deindustrialization and neoliberalism have had effects on the creation, intensification and extension of precariousness and deprivation. Calls for more police, surveillance, crowd control and the blames of popular culture and social media are helpless. It is too late once riots erupt. One should not blame social media or popular culture, but the violent conditions of society for the UK riots. The mass media’s and politics’ focus on surveillance, law and order politics and the condemnation of social media will not solve the problems. A serious discussion about class, inequality and racism is needed, which also requires a change of policy regimes. The UK riots are not a “Blackberry mob”, not a “Facebook mob” and not a “Twitter mob”; they are the effects of the structure violence of neoliberalism. Capitalism, crisis and class are the main contexts of unrests, uproars and social media today. -- Prof. Christian Fuchs Chair in Media and Communication Studies Department of Informatics and Media Uppsala University Kyrkogårdsgatan 10 Box 513 751 20 Uppsala Sweden christian.fuchs(a)im.uu.se Tel +46 (0) 18 471 1019 http://fuchs.uti.at http://www.im.uu.se NetPolitics Blog: http://fuchs.uti.at/blog Editor of tripleC: http://www.triple-c.se Book "Foundations of Critical Media and Information Studies" (Routledge 2011) Book "Internet and Society" (Paperback, Routledge 2010)

6 5

Re: [Air-L] Social Media and the UK Riots: “Twitter Mobs”, “Facebook Mobs”, “Blackberry Mobs” and the Structural Violence of Neoliberalism
by Robert Rattle 11 Aug '11

11 Aug '11

Peter, You ask: "Does anyone know about any theoretical grounding of politics using technological technodeterminism to mask and avoid the structural sources of inequality embedded in the system of production and public goods distribution?" Is this what you're looking for? (Please excuse the self-promotion.) http://computingourwaytoparadise.wordpress.com/ Robert --- On Thu, 8/11/11, Petr Lupac <petr.lupac(a)gmail.com> wrote: From: Petr Lupac <petr.lupac(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Air-L] Social Media and the UK Riots: “Twitter Mobs”, “Facebook Mobs”, “Blackberry Mobs” and the Structural Violence of Neoliberalism To: "Christian Fuchs" <christian.fuchs(a)im.uu.se> Cc: "List Aoir" <air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org> Received: Thursday, August 11, 2011, 8:37 AM Hello, thank you too for interesting and thoughts-provoking essay. I've just read that the British government and police plan to prevent such situations in the future by enhancing surveillance system (more cameras, better tracking of mobile and internet communication). It seems that the technological determinism serves as a powerfool tool to both enhance surveillance capacities of the national state and to bypass the public's awareness of the real source of troubles> socioeconomic inequalities and cultural contradictions. Does anyone know about any theoretical grounding of politics using technological technodeterminism to mask and avoid the structural sources of inequality embedded in the system of production and public goods distribution? Petr Lupac Department of Sociology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague 2011/8/10 Christian Fuchs <christian.fuchs(a)uti.at>: > Social Media and the UK Riots: “Twitter Mobs”, “Facebook Mobs”, “Blackberry > Mobs” and the Structural Violence of Neoliberalism > A blog post on the role of social media in the UK riots by Christian Fuchs > http://fuchs.uti.at/667/ > > “One formula [...] can be that of the mob: gullible, fickle, herdlike, low > in taste and habit. [...] If [...] our purpsoe is manipulation – the > persuasion of a large number of people to act, feel, think, known in certain > ways – the convenient formula will be that of the masses”. — Raymond > Williams > > “What is true of London, is true of Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, is true > of all great towns. Everywhere barbarous indifference, hard egotism on one > hand, and nameless misery on the other, everywhere social warfare, every > man’s house in a state of siege, everywhere reciprocal plundering under the > protection of the law, and all so shameless, so openly avowed that one > shrinks before the consequences of our social state as they manifest > themselves here undisguised, and can only wonder that the whole crazy fabric > still hangs together”. This passage could be a description of the social > conditions in the United Kingdom today. It is, however, a passage from > Friedrich Engels’ report about the “Working Class in England”, published in > 1845. > > In his book “Folk Devils and Moral Panics, first published in 1972, Stanley > Cohen shows how public discourse tends to blame media and popular culture > for triggering, causing or stimulating violence. “There is a long history of > moral panics about the alleged harmful effects of exposure to popular media > and cultural forms – comics and cartoons, popular theatre, cinema, rock > music, video nasties, computer games, internet porn” – and, one should add > today, social media. “For conservatives, the media glamorize crime, > trivialize public insecurities and undermine moral authority; for liberals > the media exaggerate the risks of crime and whip up moral panics to > vindicate an unjust and authoritarian crime control policy” (Cohen, Stanley. > 1972/2002. Folk devils and moral panics. Oxon: Routledge. Third edition. > page xvii). > > The shooting of Mark Duggan by the London police on August 4th 2011 in > Tottenham triggered riots in London areas such as Tottenham, Wood Green, > Enfield Town, Ponders End, Brixton, Walthamstow, Walthamstow Central, > Chingford Mount, Hackney, Croydon, Ealing and in other UK areas such as > Toxteth (Liverpool), Handsworth (Birmingham), St. Ann’s (Nottingham), West > Bromwich, Wolverhampton, Salford, or Central Manchester. > > Parts of the mass media started blaming social media for being the cause of > the violence. The Sun reported on August 8th: “Rioting thugs use Twitter to > boost their numbers in thieving store raids. [...] THUGS used social network > Twitter to orchestrate the Tottenham violence and incite others to join in > as they sent messages urging: ’Roll up and loot’“. The Telegraph wrote on > the same day: “How technology fuelled Britain’s first 21st century riot. The > Tottenham riots were orchestrated by teenage gang members, who used the > latest mobile phone technology to incite and film the looting and violence. > Gang members used Blackberry smart-phones designed as a communications tool > for high-flying executives to organise the mayhem”. The Daily Mail wrote on > August 7th that there are “fears that violence was fanned by Twitter as > picture of burning police car was re-tweeted more than 100 times”. > > Even the BBC took up the social media panic discourse on August 9th and > reported about the power of social media to bring together not only five, > but 200 people for forming a rioting “mob”. Media and politicians created > the impression that the riots were orchestrated by “Twitter mobs” and > “Blackberry mobs”. > > And also, as usual in moral panics, the call for policing technology could > be heard. The Daily Express (August 10th, 2011) wrote: ”Thugs and looters > are thought to have sent messages via the BlackBerry Messenger (BBM) service > to other troublemakers, alerting them to riot scenes and inciting further > violence. Technology writer Mike Butcher said it was unbelievable the > service had not already been shut down. He said: ’Mobile phones have become > weaponised. It’s like text messaging with steroids – you can send messages > to hundreds of people that cannot be traced back to you.’ Tottenham MP David > Lammy appealed for BlackBerry to suspend the service“. The police published > pictures of rioters recorded by CCTV and asked the public to identify the > people. The mass media published these pictures. The Sun called for “naming > and shaming a rioter” and for “shopping a moron”. The mass media also > reported about citizens, who self-organized over social media in order to > gather in affected neighbourhoods for cleaning the streets. > > Blaming technology or popular culture for violence – the Daily Mirror blamed > “the pernicious culture of hatred around rap music, which glorifies violence > and loathing of authority (especially the police but including parents), > exalts trashy materialism and raves about drugs“ for the riots – is an old > and typical ideology that avoids engaging with the real societal causes of > riots and unrest and promises easy solutions: policing, control of > technology, surveillance. It neglects the structural causes of riots and how > violence is built into contemporary societies. Focusing on technology (as > cause of or solution for riots) is the ideological search for control, > simplicity and predictability in a situation of high complexity, > unpredictability and uncertainty. It is also an expression of fear. It > projects society’s guilt and shame into objects. Explanations are not sought > in complex social relations, but in the fetishism of things. Social media > and technology-centrism, both in its optimistic form (“social media will > help our communities to overcome the riots”, “social media and mobile phones > should be surveilled by the police”, “Blackberrys should be forbidden”, > “more CCTV surveillance is needed”, “CCTV will help us find and imprison all > rioters”) and its pessimistic form (“social media triggered, caused, > stimulated, boosted, orchestrated, organized or fanned violence”), is a > techno-deterministic ideology that subsitutes thinking about society by the > focus on technology. Societal problems are reduced to the level of > technology. > > Let’s talk about the society, in which these riots have taken place. Is it > really a surprise that riots emerged in the UK, a country with high > socio-economic inequality and youth unemployment, in a situation of global > economic crisis? The United Kingdom has a high level of income inequality, > its Gini level was 32.4 in 2009 (0 means absolute equality, 100 absolute > inequality), a level that is only topped by a few countries in Europe and > that is comparable to the level of Greece (33.1) (data source: Eurostat). > 17.3% of the UK population had a risk of living in poverty in 2009 (data > source: Eurostat). In early 2011, the youth unemployment rate in the UK rose > to 20.3%, the highest level since these statistics started being recorded in > 1992. > > The UK is not only one of the most advanced developed countries today in > economic temrs, it is at the same time a developing country in social terms > with a lot of structurally deprived areas. Is it a surprise that riots > erupted especially in East London, the West Midlands and Greater Manchester? > The UK Department of Communities and Local Government reported in its > analysis “The English Indices of Deprivation 2010”: “Liverpool, > Middlesbrough, Manchester, Knowsley, the City of Kingston-upon Hull, Hackney > and Tower Hamlets are the local authorities with the highest proportion of > LSOAs amongst the most deprived in England. [...] The north east quarter of > London, particularly Newham, Hackney and Tower Hamlets continue to exhibit > very high levels of deprivation“ (pages 1, 3). Decades of UK capitalist > development shaped by deindustrialization and neoliberalism have had effects > on the creation, intensification and extension of precariousness and > deprivation. > > Calls for more police, surveillance, crowd control and the blames of popular > culture and social media are helpless. It is too late once riots erupt. One > should not blame social media or popular culture, but the violent conditions > of society for the UK riots. The mass media’s and politics’ focus on > surveillance, law and order politics and the condemnation of social media > will not solve the problems. A serious discussion about class, inequality > and racism is needed, which also requires a change of policy regimes. The UK > riots are not a “Blackberry mob”, not a “Facebook mob” and not a “Twitter > mob”; they are the effects of the structure violence of neoliberalism. > Capitalism, crisis and class are the main contexts of unrests, uproars and > social media today. > > > -- > Prof. Christian Fuchs > Chair in Media and Communication Studies > Department of Informatics and Media > Uppsala University > Kyrkogårdsgatan 10 > Box 513 > 751 20 Uppsala > Sweden > christian.fuchs(a)im.uu.se > Tel +46 (0) 18 471 1019 > http://fuchs.uti.at > http://www.im.uu.se > NetPolitics Blog: http://fuchs.uti.at/blog > Editor of tripleC: http://www.triple-c.se > Book "Foundations of Critical Media and Information Studies" (Routledge > 2011) > Book "Internet and Society" (Paperback, Routledge 2010) > > > _______________________________________________ > The Air-L(a)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/ -- Mgr. Petr Lupac tel> +420736163866 e-mail>petr.lupac(a)gmail.com _______________________________________________ The Air-L(a)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/

2 1

Research on Content Creators?
by Yosem Companys 11 Aug '11

11 Aug '11

Hi All, There's a lot of research that shows that only 1-10% of people in online communities and social networks create content. Is there any research that shows who these people are, what do they make, and so on? Thanks, Yosem

6 9

Re: [Air-L] online resources on international media systems
by Ryan Whalen 11 Aug '11

11 Aug '11

Hi Jan, You may find ITU's statistics/data page helpful: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/ -- Ryan Whalen PhD Student - Media, Technology & Society Northwestern University School of Communication JD Student - Northwestern Law ryanwhalen.com 773.800.0345 Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 09:29:32 +0200 > From: Jan Schmidt <j.schmidt(a)hans-bredow-institut.de> > To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org > Subject: [Air-L] online resources on internation media systems? > Message-ID: <4E42335C.5020706(a)hans-bredow-institut.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed > > Dear AIR-lies and -lers, > > I'm looking for online ressources focussing on international media > systems (including media law, media politics, media use, etc.) from a > comparative perspective. Ideally, it would be a database where one can > select certain countries and/or certain indicators to get an selective > overview, but hints on any other ressources (including books, > encyclopedias, etc.) are appreciated. > > It could be something similar to the [German] "Internationales Handbuch > Medien", which is edited by my colleagues at the Hans-Bredow-Institute > and published as a book > ( > http://www.hans-bredow-institut.de/de/internationales-handbuch-medien/inter… > ), > but should be in english and online. > > Thanks a lot in advance, > > Jan > > -- > ---- > Dr. Jan-Hinrik Schmidt > Wissenschaftlicher Referent f?r Digitale Interaktive Medien und > Politische Kommunikation > Hans-Bredow-Institut f?r Medienforschung > > Warburgstr. 8-10 > D-20354 Hamburg > Germany > > T: 040-450217-83 > F: 040-450217-99 > > j.schmidt(a)hans-bredow-institut.de > http://www.schmidtmitdete.de > http://www.hans-bredow-institut.de > > >

1 0

online resources on internation media systems?
by Jan Schmidt 10 Aug '11

10 Aug '11

Dear AIR-lies and -lers, I'm looking for online ressources focussing on international media systems (including media law, media politics, media use, etc.) from a comparative perspective. Ideally, it would be a database where one can select certain countries and/or certain indicators to get an selective overview, but hints on any other ressources (including books, encyclopedias, etc.) are appreciated. It could be something similar to the [German] "Internationales Handbuch Medien", which is edited by my colleagues at the Hans-Bredow-Institute and published as a book (http://www.hans-bredow-institut.de/de/internationales-handbuch-medien/inter…) but should be in english and online. Thanks a lot in advance, Jan -- ---- Dr. Jan-Hinrik Schmidt Wissenschaftlicher Referent für Digitale Interaktive Medien und Politische Kommunikation Hans-Bredow-Institut für Medienforschung Warburgstr. 8-10 D-20354 Hamburg Germany T: 040-450217-83 F: 040-450217-99 j.schmidt(a)hans-bredow-institut.de http://www.schmidtmitdete.de http://www.hans-bredow-institut.de

3 2