La responsabilidad penal en el imperio romano

Social networking sites such as YouTube, Tumblr, Flickr and Pinterest that are based on image exchange are also becoming more main-stream and this development runs parallel with the public’s ability to take pictures from mobile devices, for example, telephone, personal computers. Much of my research is concerned with optimisation of methods for

communicating information to non-expert users. Similar to the Internet, mobile phones facilitate communication and rapid access to information. Compared to the Internet, however,

48

mobile phone diffusion has reached a larger proportion of the population in most countries, and thus the impact of this new medium is conceivably greater. While it is too early to

determine the political effects of mobile phone dissemination, the political events in different countries suggest that mobile technology may come to play an important role in political participation and democracy.

The existence of the visual culture is not solely dependent on the images themselves; it is also based on the human urge to picture and visualise experience in a compulsory way,

compulsory because pictures create and contest meanings, while at the same time they relate to other meanings in the public domain (Mirzoeff 1999). Since politics has become mediated, images play a vital role: people experience the political process through media visualisations whether that is through traditional means, for example, newspapers and broadcast news, or more contemporary methods such as media blogs (Bennett and Entman 2001; Louw 2005; Stanyer 2007). New technologies allow users to combine individual information and knowledge to make government processes more visible for the general public; graphics are often considered as some of the most valuable information (Bekkers and Moody 2011).

Two socio-technological developments are responsible for the rapid democratisation of the production and distribution of visual events. The first and most notable of these is the emergence of the internet (Web 2.0), while the second is the arrival of handheld devices capable of recording video and images. In comparison with the traditional media and large scale information systems that rely heavily on a costly infrastructure, the combination of the Web and handheld telecommunication devices have created a culture where pictures taken on these devices are uploaded immediately onto social, interactive networks, thereby making the dispersion of this information virtually instantaneous (Hermanns 2008). This means that it has become possible to have real time coverage of almost any event purely through user-

49

generated content. Not only does the web stress the value of users as co-producers of relevant content (e.g. information, contacts, experiences and knowledge), but it also shows that users can implement their visual and interactive potential to monitor government communications and services. Cases like the political engagements in Iran and China (2009) and later in Tunisia and Egypt (2011) where social media (Facebook and Twitter) serve as a medium for the development of a social movement is an apparent sign of the use of social media in a democracy. Furthermore, online communication surpasses geographical borders permitting the formation of transnational communities based on shared language, culture, or interests (Michaelsen 2011 p.14). The Internet becomes the valuable means of communication for social movements and groups challenging established power structures (van de Donk et al. 2004). In Western democracies, it was expected to reduce the democratic deficits of corporate-dominated media systems, influenced by consumer culture and linked with

powerful elites. As for authoritarian systems, the Internet promised not only to undermine the state’s control on information circulation but also to open up new communication channels for suppressed opposition groups and dissidents (Ferdinand 2000).

Mainstream media engage digital techniques particularly during election periods, with a range of strategies aimed at allowing users to interact with content and the data visualisation helps to explain the morass of election data (see Chapters 4 and 9 for a detailed consideration of this). The use of dynamic, real-time mapping and charting, for example, often facilitate the understanding of the state of play in modern coverage of elections.

With new applications of the mainstream media, elections become a time for innovation, and the Internet can lead to growing influence on online engagement (Foot and Schneider 2002; Wicks and Souley 2003; Souley and Wicks 2005; Verser and Wicks 2006; Super 2009). We have seen this with recent elections in both the United States and the UK. From Twitter to

50

Facebook, through the mobile phones applications and internet polling, technology gave political parties and mainstream media organisations powerful new ways to engage with both voters and viewers (Gibson, Margolis et al. 2003; Stanyer 2006; Gibson 2008; Gunter, Campbell et al. 2009; Gibson 2012). Newman (Newman 2010) argues that social and digital media increased political engagement and appear to have contributed to higher turnout – particularly amongst the 18–24 group (+7% on 20057). Social media and internet activity provided new routes to transparency during this election, contributing to a new and more open political climate.

An example of how the new technologies were engaged in the election campaigns was the Tweetminster website and set of services which helped to make sense of all of the political conversations that were happening on Twitter. In the realm of social media, Twitter is of indelible concern to democratization for two reasons: it is public and it is virtually

unstoppable. Twitter updates, or “tweets,” go out on two networks—the Internet and SMS, which is used for text messaging systems. Additionally, Twitter is a broadcast service, unlike Facebook, and can therefore allow for messages to be accessed by virtually anyone

(Grossman 2009).

During the campaign, it maintained the definitive lists of all of the MPs and parliamentary candidates, monitored the level and type of political activity and described trends through links and especially data visualisation (Figure 3.3).

7

MORI study showed 44% turnout amongst 18–24 year olds. Turnout increase was highest in this group, which is most active in social networks (www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=2613&view=wide).

51

Figure ‎3.3 Tweetminster8

The image above (Figure 3.3), which appeared on the front page of the website, visualises which parties are more active on Twitter in particular regions of the UK at any particular time. In this case, during the second week of the campaign, it showed Liberal Democrat activity in the South West and Scotland. During the third and last debate between the three party leaders of the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and the Labour parties 154,342 tweets appeared containing various terms from the debate, with a frequency of arrival at 26.77 tweets per second from 33,095 different people.

Election 2010 produced higher levels of participation and creativity online than happened at previous elections (Gibson 2012). This is not surprising given the rapid growth of new social media tools. YouTube and Facebook first appeared in 2005, while Twitter had not yet

appeared on the social scene. According to the Oxford Internet Survey (2009)9_{, participation}

in online social networks doubled in just two years to almost 50 per cent of UK internet users. Around 20 per cent of all time spent on the internet is now with these networks10_.

8 _{http://tweetminster.co.uk/}

9 _{Oxford Internet Survey: 49% of internet users had created or updated a social networking profile in previous} 12 months (www.oii.ox.ac.uk/microsites/oxis).

10 _{Nielsen figures from 2009 say one in every six minutes in the UK}

52

Half a million people participated in a Facebook poll11 _{on the eve of the campaign (Nick}

Clegg won) and 1.87 million people shared the fact that they had voted by the time the polls closed, using a real-time counter placed on every page of the UK site (see Figure 3.4).

Figure ‎3.4 Facebook polling day

The growing influence of new information and communication technologies, in particular mobile phone technology, on many aspects of life has been noted, but detailed analysis of possible effects on politics has begun only recently. While the possibilities of e-voting are still being explored (although electoral fraud and transparency of election counts remain concerns), the political influence of mobile phones can be noticed in the wider context of democracy, namely the building of networks, the provision of information and the

mobilisation of activists. They are also being increasingly used to spread information about the progress of election counts despite their usage apparently being illegal.