I think you could argue in favour of both of these standpoints really. Yes, it does enable people with a specific interest, or specific lifestyle for that matter, with a community where they can freely express themselves, something they wouldn't be able to otherwise. Empowering. However, on the other hand I would argue that at the same time it takes away the need for them to learn how to fit these ideologies and interests into society in general and could even affect their sense of what is and what isn't socially acceptable in general everyday life. Disempowering.
So basically it enables them to not always have to conform to "the norm" while at the same time it might cause them to lose touch of what this norm actually is.
Does the Net provide a ‘public sphere’ where citizens can engage with each other? If so, how, and are there any limitations?
Urm, yes. Everything that occurs and then gets discussed enters "the public sphere" I would think. Specific topics in specific online communities, unless it's things that affect almost every one of us which then end up being discussed everywhere, BUT from the community's own perspective. (E.G. Music forum PopJsutice's users are discussing the demise of physical music stores and if the credit crunch is affecting how likely they are to download illegally while on TVforum the effects of the credit crunch on the budgets of original television programming is discussed.)
Yes, it is still a very closed network of communities, but then again, the original concept of the "public sphere" took place in elitist "coffee houses". So yes, it is still a closed group discussing matters in the publ;ic sphere, but at least now it's all of us who have access to our own "public spheres" of our choice.
To what extent are ‘dangerous materials’ prominent on the Internet (or ‘junk and jerks’ as Kollock put it)? What do their existence mean in terms of the ‘freedoms’ the Net allows? Is freedom always positive?
Well, the question whether or not freedom is always positive may be a bit much to just ask onhere, but I guess it CAN be said that the negative aspects of freedom (the junks and jerks) are an unevitible side-effect of total freedom in any context. Yes, the internet allows freedom of speach more than any other place but thse niche points that re made on the net may indeed well be hateful, racist or frowned upon for any iother reason. The Junks and Jerks that like to "set the cat amongst the pigeons" by making exptreme statements in other, normally peaceful, communities is something that doesn't just happen online, but the internet and the way you can adapt your own cutom-made identity do make it much easier.
To what extent can ‘ordinary’ Net users become producers of culture, rather than people who ‘respond’ to culture supplied for them?
I think we all knows the stories about bands being pciked up by record labels after A&R bigwigs heard their music on Myspace. And yes, Myspace Music is a good example of a website where the suers become the producers of culture. The same goes for Youtube, where lots of people upload their own short films and other artistic projects.
It has now reached the point where internet services are even completely undermining the role of the big record and film publishing companies:
