Policy, Participation & Power on YouTube, Facebook, Blogger and Wikipedia
1. Policy, Participation & Power on YouTube, Facebook, Blogger and Wikipedia Laura Stein University of Texas at Austin Lstein@mail.utexas.edu
2. Significance Relevance of terms of service Often legally binding contracts that specify user power Part of the social arrangements influencing platform use Potential default position platform owners can evoke in case of conflict Informed choices by users Advocacy for betters terms of service
3. Alternative Media (Downing) Offers alternative to mainstream media Challenges existing power structures Represents/empowers marginalized groups Makes horizontal linkages between communities of interest Provides an alternative public forum
6. Participatory Culture Jenkins- digital media consumers actively participate in the creation and circulation of new content (though under unclear rules and conditions of differential power) Benkler- radically decentralized, collaborative and nonproprietary ways of organizing production (commons-based peer production) Participation fosters empowerment & democracy
7. Critical Questions: Do specific instances of participation challenge or reinforce existing power structures? Are opportunities to participate equitably distributed? What are the terms and conditions of participation? Do governments and markets support or suppress participation?
8.
9.
10. Group Exercise Pick a platform and examine its user policies [Facebook, YouTube, Blogger, Wikipedia, or Indymedia Portugal]. Where do these policies fall on the typology of participation/power? Why? Briefly report your findings back to the larger group
11.
12. Conclusion YouTube and Facebook policies mainly elaborate user prohibitions and company permissions Wikipedia gives users collective control of nearly all decision-making surrounding content & policy Users should question the terms & conditions of participation on these platforms Scholars should critically evaluate & oppose exploitative policies