THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO DECIDE

If capitalism is ultimately based on (unequal) exchanges based on a money economy, in such a ‘free’ economy can we be said to have capitalism in its traditional sense, or are we beginning to see the emergence of the outlines of a new form of capitalism?

(Ritzer et al., 2010, 22)

This capitalism simply can and will not be controlled, as can the ‘prosumers’ (consumers and producers). Example of this getting out of hand is You Tube, who now has more than 6 Billion hours of video watched each month all over the World (You Tube, 2013). Every time Google’s algorithm finds something not allowed copying, the next 1000 forbidden videos have been uploaded.

I regret to think that since the prosumers accept and contributes to this development in such fast development of extreme leaks, the organisations trying to establish control and capitalism, as they know it, respond in the same or even more extreme ways.

An example of this situation is the case of Edward Snowden. He shared the scary fact of ALL people are being watched by the US. And this is not only in the US due to globalisation and the medias aces to personal information e.g. through social media.

I think it is extreme that governances (and companies as NSA) all over the world are spying on me! Well I know the American people are pretty paranoid in nature (This is a hypothesis made on the fact of them having huge guns everywhere) but to spy in such way on everyone?

If they did not cover it up as they did, and explained the importance and the reason of the surveillance, I am sure the American people would accept it through voting. It is the least they could do when breaking personal boundaries of their own citizens. Perhaps it is not made in the best interest for the people? I’m starting to think so.

So did Mr Snowden. He realised that he could not accept people being abused in their everyday lives. Since he was alone with these democratic views he needed to go public (Poitras, 2013, 01:09-02:06). Disturbingly the media focused only on him and what crime he had committed – NOT on the fact that people are not free, possible due to the influence of governance and other shareholders. Is this their idea of freedom of speech?

However I agree to the fact that Snowden has made a crime by breaking a silence policy. But he did it for the people’s rights, not for the increasing of national threat or in order to support a movement of terrorism. He even illuminates NSA’s possibility to be a threat to the nation, as they could choose the ‘victim’ personally (03:14-03:27).

According to Henrik Poulsen, Doc. in Phyciatry, 'when people think they are being watched, they attend not to do something wrong!'(DR, 2013, 28:38-28:39) The government actually tricked them selves!

I am convinced preventing accidents are both cheaper and much less dramatic as when the crime (or whatever they are looking for) is done.

Bib:

I simply MUST break this, as my last blog post discussed copyright and the willing to share knowledge: Praxis Film wrote this about sharing the interview on You Tube; ”We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.”

Poitras, L, 2013, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things' Praxis Films,

Ritzer, George and Jurgenson, Nathan 2010 ‘Production, Consumption, Prosumption: The nature of capitalism in the age of the digital ‘prosumer’, Journal of Consumer Culture, vol. 10 no. 1

DR, 2013, 'DU Lyver!', Doc, Danske Radio, Copenhagen (http://www.dr.dk/tv/se/du-lyver/du-lyver#!/22:27)

You Tube statistics, Aug 2013 (http://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html).