Globalization
Respond to Stensons post min 100 words
The article, “App-Powered Protests Put Democracy in Peril” argues that political protests that are taking place by citizens connecting on aps like Twitter is not the most effective way for political change. There is so much that goes into political change happening and the best way for it to happen is not through protests in the streets, is what is being argued. Bessa Momami’s claim that, “These are inherently good intentions to improve democracy… But this critical discussion can’t and won’t take place in the streets…” is something I find to be very interesting and something I believe to be a fair point. I completely understand that train of thought and do not disagree with it, but I don’t think that we can devalue the importance of protests, especially with so many that have taken place in recent years. There have been several women’s marches and BLM protests that I think are what help move the needle for change, which is why I think that these protests also do have an impact. The article suggests that many of us believe technology fueled revolutions would work because, to a certain extent, we do not fully understand how much goes into improving democracy. Additionally, it argues that just because there are protests, it does not mean that is the “majoritarian will.” This is a very fair point, and something that is hard to measure but again, I understand where the author is coming from because there is a lot of perspective to take in.
The article, “Why did the Twitter Revolutions Fail,” by Ivan Krastev analyzes several different reasons as to why technology did not impact politics and change in the way many thought it might. One point that stood out to me is Krastev’s mentioning that “Our ideas and strategies for social change were shaped less by historical experience and more by the utopian possibilities of the world of technology.” This is a very interesting perspective, and one that he refers to in his article as the “Silicon Valley effect.” I agree with Krastev that people might have overestimated certain aspects of this and that is part of the reason not all protests were as successful as people might have thought, like he mentions.
When it comes to the thought of revolutionary success, technology plays a very interesting role and something that is fascinating to consider. It certainly can bring a lot of people together which we have seen, but on the other hand also has the ability to create an even stronger divide. That is what makes it so complex, which is why I do not necessarily believe that it fully enhances revolutionary success.
Part two discussion
Min 200 words
Read the following two articles and then provide an in depth answer to the question below Make sure that you cite BOTH resources in your initial response for the full 10 points and that you offer your classmate an in depth response to earn all 5 points. You can review the discussion rubric by clicking the three dots in the upper right hand corner of the discussion.
It’s a Flat World, After All
Why the World Isn’t Flat
Question:
In what ways does Pankaj Ghemawat critique Thomas Friedman’s argument about the world being “flat”? In what ways does Freidman suggest the world is flat, and to what extent (and why) does Ghemawat object? Whose perspective do you find most compelling and why? What are the implications if your preferred perspective is true?
