How virtual space strengthen or weaken people's communication

The rise of Internet provides a great source of information available, yet it has obscured the differences between print and broadcast media. The early 2010s saw a new trend of mass media known as social networks that incorporate all of media platforms that brings about a huge influence in everyone’s life. However, the influence contains both the positive and negative side effect where ongoing debates still discuss about how social networks either strengthening or weakening people’s communication.

Social network has revolutionized itself and fostered three core social benefits. First and foremost, social networks enlarge the socialization sphere. By using social networks including Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn for example, users own broad opportunity to connect with their friends, family or loved ones and be able to broaden their network and embrace different cultures by accessing to the mass and multi-cultural people. Users can also use social network as an educational platform to upgrade their knowledge and understanding about current issues happening around them. It’s convenient, fast and inexpensive which students can easily get accessible and coordinate ideas exchange with their friends comprehensively. Second, social networks perform outstandingly in business sector. It offers a great space for affordable advertisements and able to reach to the right target customers. Aids to its benefit, social networks have intelligent tool to measure the feedback from the customers so that the company or firms are able to understand the market needs better. Lastly, social networks have also extended its power to link with politics. Through social network, citizen can exercise their freedom of expression. It has served as a public platform for people to embrace their civic engagement despite the fear oppressed by the government and continues to perform as a great mean to mobilize people to participate in mass movements. Arab Spring movement in the early 2011 showcases a great example of how successful of the power of social media was employed by youths in Arab countries to overthrow their tyranny government.

Although social networks provide significances to society, one should never forget about its impact on human communication too. One of the major disadvantages draw upon social network is when virtual life blends with everyday life. Most oftentimes, social networks attract users to spend most of their times to surf their sides. This, on the other hand, disconnects the relationship with off line world and losing productivity at their workplace and concentration at school; for example. Another drawback can be seen through losing personal privacy. Like other social networking sides, Facebook and Twitter are free to access. However, these sides target advertisement as a major source to earn their revenue. What they do is to collect information from user profiles, analyze those information and finally sell those data to the advertisers. In this case, if users are not cautious and keep revealing their personal information, they are at risk in facing identity crimes and stalking.

Image from: 

https://www.google.com/search?q=Social+network&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjHk6ndn5LYAhVHeSYKHST6BOMQ_AUICygC&biw=1424&bih=832&dpr=2#imgrc=4u64vvjm5s1FeM:

Gentrification and Resistance

We see gentrification happening all around us. I watched a Ted Talks by Winifred Curran, where she explains her personal experiences with gentrification, and what can be done to help the situation. How communities need to come together and become as active as possible. To form groups to work on the problems together. To try and hire as many people whom are against gentrification and for the the current residents like they are neighbors. In various communities, residents are being forced to move away because "urban pioneers" are swooping in to make changes. They claim they are doing good, and saving these cities from things such as drug activity and more violent crimes. When in fact they are also furthering monopolization by taking away small businesses, turning affordable apartment buildings into more luxurious condominiums; turning a working-class society into their ideal middle or upper class communities. Doing things like bringing in charter schools, which bring funding away from public education, can really effect many more lives than they are supplying for. You take away all of these opportunities away from so many children and force adults out of work and their homes, many of which happen to be minorities; how can you expect more good then bad to come from it? All white suburbia is doing is attempting to push the problems away, and ignore them. We have done it for decades upon decades with racist agenda and ideologies. Just like in the Young article where the street children had only the contents of the outside world; they were being forced to the outskirts and away by the rest of their society as if they weren't just apart of it as the rest. Gentrification is doing the exact same thing all over the United States, and so many wonder why problems such as poverty and racism are still extremely prominent today. Everyone needs to start caring more about the whole, not the individual.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj1H8Sdc8Sw&t=373s

The Internet as Public Space

Currently, the internet is being threatened by Net Neutrality. With the impending vote, and potential passing, on Net Neutrality, the internet as public space will be changed, possibly forever, or at least until another vote concerning Net Neutrality is brought back to Congress. Unfortunately, current FCC and Congressmen/women are leaning towards introducing NN as new policy. However, the internet was designed as public space as its main function. "As a general rule the internet is a public space in the same sense as the sidewalks or the hallways at the mall" (Is the Internet considered a public space?"). The internet, and everything that has happened and will happen, is completely free and public space, and it should remain that way. Although there are some countries, like China, who have openly regulated the internet, it should still remain public space. There may be some arguments for regulation on the internet, but in past experiences, we can see that regulation ultimately leads to government censorship, especially for those who cannot afford the high priced packages that internet service providers (ISPs) will 'dole out.'
The internet is especially important for freedom of speech. If ISPs are able to restrict who accesses the internet, our rights will also be restricted. The internet is also important for 'public space' as an idea for gathering spaces. I, personally, use the internet to converse and spend time with my various friends and family members across the country and world. Being able to communicate over long distances, and at a high speed, is important to many that live in the digital age. Restricting internet access will also hurt physical public space as well. Internet access in cafes, coffee shops, libraries, and other public spaces will be restricted, and those that rely on this access will be affected negatively. Many people who do not have regular access to the internet for jobs and other amenities will be hurt and unable to pursue jobs or education.


Further reading & sources: https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Internet-considered-a-public-space-with-the-rights-to-freedom-of-opinion-and-expression-still-applicable
http://www.publicspace.org/en/post/internet-is-a-very-particular-public-space

Women in the Public Space

Masculinity often received privilege by the social institution, cultural objects or entertainment products. This being said, men learn how to socialize their attitude and behavior that bring domination and control. In other words, men digest their superiority through a concept that men appear stronger, more efficiency and able to be in charge of important tasks than women.

This notion also influences the public space which commonly known to enhance social interaction, engagement through the voice of everyone to be heard. Basically, the current designing of public spaces for women and girls do not effectively provide a sense of security. The road, the lighting, the pedestrian walk, for instance, are not designed to support women to feel safe to travel when they need to. I remember my own experience walking from campus to University Common a few months ago. It was around 11pm on Sunday. I was taking the shortcut, so it could save me some time, but the street was so dark and quiet. I was not feeling good and safe at all. Fortunately, I felt quite relieve when I saw one girl was heading to the same direction like me. She was listening to her headphone and singing anyway. I though she’s quite brave. I was a few miles behind her and she seemed to know that I was behind her too. My insecure feeling told me that I need to run, so I ran. As I was running and was about to pass her, she was screaming out loud. That was funny. I scared the hell out of her. We both were quite scare, actually. We were in a good conversation later. My experience, in fact, also reflects the fact that gender inequality significantly affects women’s mobility. Also, women are often perceived vulnerable in the public through their absence in the society. A report by Plan International (2010), says that “girls are usually forbidden from going to the fields unless they are accompanied by an elder after 11pm.” This brings a sense that how the city designed created a stereotype where women are hardly become independent by their own.  

This also reminds me of a few articles I just read about how women are restricted to the public space. In many parts of Afghanistan, public spaces are mainly occupied by men. Although women have spaces for the gathering with their peers, their public environment is absolutely limited.  The male domination became strong through a legacy of the long years of war in the country. In a news piece about street harassment in Mumbai, I was surprise by the percentage of women becoming victim of this issue in the public space in India. Approximately 80 percent of them experience the harassment mainly in the crowd and public transportation. Majority of women only consider sexual violence as rape and overlook intimidating objectification form including “touching, groping and stalking, leering, catcalling and whistling.” With this article, it connects me to the selfie project from a Dutch girl who spent months to document Catchcallers on the street. I find her her project quite interesting since it helps increase awareness of the people about the objectification of women that happens in daily life.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/woman-selfies-street-harrassers-harrassment-catcalls-men-instagram-noa-jansma-a7983991.html

Limiting Public Space

This article focuses on protecting public spaces, the reactions of people in relation to protecting public space and, certain limits with the orders and laws given with protecting public space.  From homelessness to drinking alcohol in public, the rules vary from place to place.  Residents are back and forth between homelessness n public space.  For instance certain people believe that targeting vulnerable people such as the homeless is unfair and does not solve the problem along with the fact that is just pushes them away to a different area.  While others believe that homelessness in public space increases crime and decrease the value of the area.  Wales in particular has restricted many rules in the public spaces throughout the country, such as restricting anti-social behavior.  They enforce public space protection orders, other known as PSPOs, which basically deny the right to do specific things from happening in a public space that the government considers to be undesirable.  For example, restricting dogs, drink alcohol outside licensed areas, and even meeting in a group of three or more people in a public space.  Due to these odd restrictions, residents find it unfitting and unjust especially since everyone doesn’t follow these restrictions.  Also, many residents find it to be cruel to the homeless people because most of them have no place to go. On the other hand residents noticed that these restrictions bring a better sense of belonging due to the homeless and other hooligans no longer being in the area and prefer that these restrictions allow a better sense of safety.  Along with the fact that it has decreased the crime rate and allows communities to present a better image of itself which could potentially increase the economy.  Although these public space protection orders have their pros and cons, overall most residents find them to be a negative restriction on their freedoms. Below is a representation of residents reactions to these restrictions.

 

Feel free to access the complete article below:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-42224292

Defensive Design and the Obstruction of Public Space from the Homeless

    Who is public space for?

        
      The above video is from YouTube by Carlos Waters and Vox Media.  In it, Waters describes the urban planning concept known as "defensive design" and it's influence on New York City by analyzing objects in public space such as benches and how they are meant to deter certain groups of people from utilizing space.
      In the video, he showcases many examples of benches designed in NYC to be purposefully uncomfortable to discourage homeless from sleeping on them.  These benches are designed with hard metal arm rests or jagged edges to make resting or sleeping on them extremely uncomfortable or downright impossible.

      This brings us to the question of who belongs in public space.  The leaning bar in the subway is an example of how designing an object to limit misuse by one group of people can have spillover effects to other groups of people as well.  The leaning bars not only make naps by homeless people impossible, they make their use impossible by disabled people who don't have the ability to lean.  Even in perfectly healthy individuals who just need a rest from being on their feet all day, this makes taking a short rest impossible.  This leaning bar degrades and limits public space for all people.
      In Don Mitchell's article "The End of Public Space?", he asserts that public space is a place that encourages unmediated interaction and where the power of the state can be held at bay.  Evidenced by these benches and leaning bars, the power of the state is reflected by its ability to exclude entire groups of people from these public spaces.

Graffiti Cultural Appropriation

I have always liked graffiti; you can find it everywhere and it expresses the culture of the place and their particular struggle. When thinking about street art most of the time we only think of the final product (at least I usually did that), but to reach this point there are multiple things that we should think about. First is all the effort and time they invest in their art, but also that in most places is difficult to be a graffiti artist and live on that. Many graffiti artist see their urban work not only as a way of expression or but also as an investment. They invest money in all the materials they need, time and effort; and one of the limited ways they have to recover that investment is that someone that appreciates their art hires them to make private murals, illustrations or even designs for tattoos. 

In Ecuador it has been really recent that graffiti has become trendy and that some artists can actually make a living out of it, very few of them I must say. Apitatán was born in Quito and his art is inspired in Ecuadorian clichés, phrases that he overhears while walking in the city or the stories that people tell him. If you pay attention to his illustrations they are colorful, which reflects the Andean landscape. His characters have the physical characteristics of Ecuadorian mestizos and indigenous groups. Its narrative is the history of Latin American and now it can be appreciated many countries in US and Europe.

                   Image Retreived from "Diseño en Ecuador"

Apitatán says that the most important characteristic of urban art is that it can reach everybody, because it is on the streets you don’t need a ticket or to pay. It is not reserved for the elite and or for a certain public, and at the same time it allows him to break the routine and the “gray” in the city.  Painting in the street is completely different that working in the studio because the external factors have more influence and impact, from the usual noise of the city to the people that interact with the artists (sometimes giving them ideas or offering them food). Apitatán also mentions that one of the main differences between the studio and the street is that when you are painting in a public space the product becomes everyone’s property, not only of the artist.  

I think that one of the things that I enjoy about graffiti is how it links the global and the local. How people can use global technologies and elements to express local identities and culture. How it can join people from across the world. Specifically in the work of Apitatán find it amazing Latin America can be seen at a glance.

https://www.apitatan.com/

https://www.instagram.com/apitatan/?hl=es