New Media Reader pages 231-301

Thee texts in this segment discussed the debate over whether technology determines the course of history or if the social situation gives rise to technology. The authors were also debating whether new medias represented a potential mouthpiece for the masses or whether it was merely a tool of corporate control. I agree William's argument that the technologies discussed here, television, radio, etc, rose out of a very specific milieu of social change. These technologies were commissioned and developed in the service of those in power, and it shows. For me the purpose of most entertainment technology is distracting spectacle and the illusion of choice. While media like TV seems like a pro-democracy force that gives everyone regardless of gender, race, or class a common culture, it is also anti-democracy in that it gives consumers an illusion of choice and freedom because they can choose whether to watch American Idol or the Amazing Race. The internet is the receiving/transmitting tool that Enzensberger imagines, and it may challenge a lot of the arguments of these authors. I can see it as a tool of control and as a possible tool of revolution. As a tool of control it furthers the phenomenon that Baudrillard describes of the faits divers. On the internet, we are flooded with information and sensational stories, so that everything is important and nothing is important. There is so much information happening so fast, that nothing can retain enough attention long enough to become more than a symbol of revolt. Despite all the content sharing that happens on the internet, it is owned and controlled by a few corporations, and mostly we just consume their content. Also what Williams says about the TV as an in home device also goes for personal computers. People are isolated and turned inwards through these devices. Although people can talk on message boards or on websites about revolution, this will not scare anyone unless people are gathering in the street and perpetrating actions.
However on the other hand, maybe a revolution of the future will happen through technology, and will not be material. I read about how warfare of the future will target the enemy's communication system. Under this model it is conceivable that a small group could take control of a nation by hacking into its systems of communication. Secondly, if there is one thing the internet is good for, its creating imagined communities, and imagined community is the first step to an imagined future which is the first step towards revolution so who knows....