Week 2 Discussion

At the risk of focusing on a current event that may be only tangentially related to the issues at hand, I could think of almost nothing but the WikiLeaks scandal while reading the Digital Zapatistas article. Julian Assange and EDT seem remarkably in line with each other as far as their political philosophy goes. Lane says, "The transparency of [Floodnet's] action, then, aims to reveal the "mask" that hides the workings of power and virtual capital." And Assange wrote in a blog post something startingly similar: "The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie." Both seem poised to expose the proverbial man behind the curtain in hope that greater transparency will result in fairer government processes.


So: how has our concept of cyberspace and its perception as a "public space" evolved since the EDT's demonstrations in the late 90s? (The article argues that no private boundaries were crossed, and the effects on the websites were perhaps no different from a large street demonstration as far as congestion, slowing of traffic are concerned, etc.) Is there a reason activists like Assange are using wildly different techniques than EDT to acheive perhaps similar political goals?




And a bit of musing on the role of risk to the tourists in Caminata Nocturna. Magelssen's account makes it seem that he was legitimately worried for his safety during the six-hour period: he worried about being separated from the group, being near precipitous ledges, etc. I was personally a bit horrified by the account of one of the managers of the park confirming that "twisted ankles" and "broken bones" have occurred during the simulation. That sort of real risk associated with the performance seems to have multiple purposes: providing a somewhat authentic experience, scaring the participants into not attempting the border crossing, and, perhaps, a sheer "adrenaline factor" associated with the danger. It doesn't seem that the simulation would be as widely discussed if it didn't have the "can you handle it?" factor. To bring another current event to the conversation, the current Broadway disaster (?) that is Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark seems to have a similar vein of interest going for it, in that audiences attend out of simultaneous fascination and horror that there might be an accident during the performance (which very well could include the audience, seeing as the performers are sometimes above their seats). Can these situations really be compared, or is it an entirely different kind of risk? How does the presence of possible bodily harm validate the arguments that Caminata Nocturna is trying to make to its participants?