#selfpolicing

Hey David, good to hear from you. "Empowering Communities for Public Safety" is a potential trap. The reason the public isn't safe is because of the unjust distribution of resources; and any policing (& yes, ECPS is some police shit) under capitalism is all about supporting this Status Quo, which is unjust, racist, and unsustainable. So if we deputized a bunch of Black people for Public Safety they will quickly begin to behave just like Black Cops....and Black Cops act just like Cops.

The aim of this post is to show how digital media is in relation to political life be it from an individual’s perspective or from a society’s perspective. In achieving this objective the post will focus on digital surveillance. According to Lyon and Zureik (1996) surveillance refers to the collection and assessment of personal data. They state that this can be practiced by the government and other digital media corporations. In contemporary society the digital media corporations referred to by Lyon and Zureik include a variety of corporations such Twitter, Facebook and Whatsapp to mention a few. People knowing so much about how to create content that engages the audience and what does not work on social media, one might expect them to also know that their digital media activity is constantly under surveillance. However, the sad truth is that many people who use different forms of digital media on a daily basis have so little information regarding their online regulation. On the other hand, this could be as a result of digital media corporations not being transparent with their customers as it is argued by Keller (2016). 

Keller (2016) argues that in the past Facebook used to engage in the collection of data, based on the location of people’s smartphones without any restrictions whatsoever regarding what can be done with that information. However, due to Facebook being challenged on the basis of people’s information security, Facebook has become a bit transparent about the fact that people’s information will be used or sold to advertising companies. Hence when one is online, one would sometimes see adverts that are aligned with what is mentioned in their interests section or pages they liked on Facebook. As Keller further state that although people have  come to know what is being done with their information however not having any control on how it is used, this could be seen as another form of exploitation as they are not paid from the money Facebook makes from their information. On the other hand, with digital corporations having access to all of your information, this undermines the idea of online privacy since your information is just another commodity available to be sold to anyone who can afford the price. For instance, on a small scale, a person who just started a business and wants to promote it online can run a Facebook advert. When they check the analytics and insights they can see who liked and engaged with their post. By doing this they are given access to the information of the people in the catalogue of the interests wanted by the advertiser even if some of those people’s accounts have high privacy settings. Based on this understanding, the idea of privacy is highly contestable when it comes to digital media. 

Uldam (2016) holds that, any kind of surveillance is often used as a means of control. This is true given the algorithms used by social media sites particularly Facebook as mentioned by Keller (2016) that they are also used for social experiments. In one case Keller states that Facebook used a tactic during the elections in the USA which resulted in more than three hundred thousand or more people showing up at voting stations to vote. In this way Facebook had so much control in influencing how people thought about voting. Although people did not know that were subjects of an experiment, from the perspective of Keller’s argument, Facebook could be seen as a necessary evil. The reason for this is that it increased democratic participation in the American society since voting is central to a regime being considered to be democratic or authoritarian (Heywood, 2013).

With the newly found knowledge that all individuals are under the surveillance of digital corporations and that the government also has access to my online activity, it somehow makes me to be self-policing. For instance, due to there being instalments of CCTV cameras in Johannesburg CBD, crime rate has decreased significantly. This is fundamentally due to people being aware of the fact that they are being watched (Wakefield, 2014). There is more scepticism concerning what I post, how and when I comment. Not that there is anything illegal that I partake in online but the thought of being watched lingers in my head and now I can anticipate what kinds of adverts might appear on my timeline.

Surveillance being part and parcel of digital media as relating to politics, from a perspective of pure politics surveillance in digital media is practiced by government as mentioned above. Yuan-zhao and Zhong (2004) state that the internet in China is offered by the Chinese government and the corporation in charge of giving people access to the internet is called ChinaNet. This means that ChinaNet collects personal data of individuals on behalf of the government. The government is always up to date with the online activity of its citizens. Unlike in other parts of the world such as the United States of America where capitalism is rife, privately owned digital corporations like Facebook can be said to be collecting data for their own economic interests but obligated to give it to the government when necessary as argued by Keller (2016). However, in China the government is hands on when it comes to the surveillance of its citizens. This is to a certain extent problematic as Uldam (2016) states that social media is used for social mobilization. In countries like China whereby the government has full control of the internet, challenging power from above using social media can be difficult since the government can shut down the internet if it feels threatened. By virtue of this, as compared to South Africa whereby social media was central in the recent student uprisings (Bosch, 2016), with the understanding of how the internet works in China, it seems highly difficult for there to be a similar use of social media. This in conclusion, shows digital media can help in reordering structures of society in particular changing the status quo.

Bibliography

Bosch, T. 2016. ‘Twitter activism and youth in South Africa: the case of #RhodesMustFall. Information, Communication & Society, published online 16 March, pp. 1-12.

Heywood, A. 2013. Politics (4th edition). New York: Palgrave Foundations.

Lyon, D. and Zureik, E. eds., 1996. Computers, surveillance, and privacy. U of Minnesota Press.

Keller, A. 2016. ‘Is Facebook evil? The Technoskeptic, https://thetechnoskeptic.com/facebook-evil1/

Uldam, J. 2016. ‘Corporate management of visibility and the fantasy of the post-political: Social media and surveillance’. New Media & Society 18, pp. 201-219.

It is interesting to note how different sectors of the park evolve. For example, the Free Empathy station has been in place for a while. I wasn't sure what they were offering "tangibly" (but then again why can't empathy be considered a tangible thing). So, today, I see that their sign now positions the free empathizers as a mediation service, something the park definitely needs.

In response to growing concerns about space, self-policing, and resources, a few different factions in the park have responded. On the one hand, Camp Anonymous uses their strategies of harassing those who prey on the vulnerable. "We are always here," they say, "and we are always watching." On the web, they allegedly use botnets to take down sites that hurt the weak and/or protect the powerful. On the ground, I'm not sure what their methods of harassment might be.