I think Foucault's discussion of the gaze is very important when it comes to the uses of the internet. The idea that there is someone watching is all that stops it from being a free zone for illegal acts. But the idea of the panopticon is especially important as well. When it comes to downloading music, there have been stories of downloaders being sued for great deals of money because they were being monitored. But how often does it really happen? Is that not more of a tactic to make an example, to open the window of the guard tower at least once to let the offenders know that somebody is watching, though they're not exactly sure when?
Shouldn't there be a gaze over the free space on the walls of the internet? Is there a way to stop every page with a comment box from becoming a bathroom wall, other than to do away with them? There are always stories on the news about people being caught for viewing child pornography on the internet. Though it's not exclusively for the purpose, don't these arrests serve as public humiliations for the offenders? Why shouldn't people be humiliated for covering a public space with hateful, racial slurs? It seems that a problem stems from the temptation of being able to do something without consequences. It breeds a taste for hostility that might not have been there in the first place. Is authority over commentary necessary?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment