This keynote address is about the supply, maintenance and allocation of fungible, vulnerable human bodies—what American President Donald Trump would categorize as the shitholes of the world. Underlying our modern times is a large, unsolved problem about what is really going on in the world. I use the novel theoretical lens of Apartheid Studies to appreciate how we have neglected to read, recognize and call out the persistent circuits of apartheid that are at the heart of global capitalist modernity. Our contemporary age, built on interoperable digital networks, tends to reinforce global forms of apartheid. Apartheid Studies is a new field of studies that makes it possible to expose these circuits. Whereas human beings are human because we all possess a kind of strongly encrypted password which we reserve to give or not to give—so that we feel relatively protected and free to be what we want—this password protection has been eroded by institutions and powerful elites. Modernity itself, by its very nature, emerges when we start to share our passwords with strangers. Passing on the control of the passwords of our being to strangers causes global apartheid. Global capitalist modernity, expressed in invasive technology, generally undermines human beings’ sense of self, immunity, inviolability, indivisibility, and replaces it with social media and an internet of things which are predicated on sharing our privacy with strangers. I propose new emphases on restorative forensics and literacies that are appropriate to the task of generating a scholarship of the future that is ethical and opposed to systemic injustice, that exposes global exploitation, racism, deception, and corruption, and that promotes just worlds.

This text hast three parts: the first is concerned with the concept of form or structure of experience, the second part is devoted to the “electric form” of the experience, and the third part discusses the electric form of the experience generated by the mobile phone. Finally, the text explores the form of the political fostered by the mobile phone as smart phone.

In August 2018, several European consumer associations have launched a lawsuit against Facebook arguing that “My data is mine,” but chose not to boycott the social network in its publicity campaign. The DECO FAQ list reveals why associations did not call for a boycott: they chose instead to use Facebook to disseminate information and to answer questions consumers might have. The argument presented by the associations confronts us with intricate questions concerning the nature of civil society, mainly with respect to the linkage between the market and the public sphere. Generally, critical theorists think that the realms of necessity and freedom are found incompatible with one another. The public sphere is considered as the realm of pure freedom where citizens deliberate matters concerning the destiny of the polis. The civil society is concerned with profit and with providing for material needs. The present paper approaches these questions by considering the nature of institutional configurations of contemporary digital capitalism and, also, the kind of interactions among social agents that act inside it. Are corporate digital networks (Facebook, YouTube, etc.) permeable enough to communicative rationality to make us believe that they can host a culture of convergence and cooperative interaction among social agents such that can aspire to a rational public sphere? To answer those queries, this paper develops a) a literature review on the contradictions of modern contemporary cognitive capitalism; b) a critical analysis of activists’ statements against the use of digital networks; c) support for a critical literacy approach that identifies textual structures and contextual frameworks in digital public debate.

In this theoretical article, we identify a conceptual error in the notion of ‘global media literacy’ and present and discuss eight typologies of media literacy formed on the basis of the ideological, political and economic dimensions of media and media literacy. While the first four types (Types 1-4) are past-oriented, they differ in terms of their endorsement or criticism of the government and capitalism. The same holds for the remaining four types (Types 5-8) except with respect to their future orientations. The time orientation, attitudes towards the government and capitalism determine how media literacy is conceptualized and what type of media literacy is to be promoted. It is proposed that unlike the original sense of literacy which was cognitively based, media literacy is socially constructed, which means that the widespread literacy analogy drawn from reading and writing to media use and interpretation is problematic. Finally, after delineating the eight typologies of media literacy, we discuss whether they apply to the digital world. It is argued that Type 8 media which is future-oriented, anti-government, and anti-capitalist find opportunities in the digital world which they lack due to funding issues in the non-digital world. Another point of the discussion involves the less tribal nature of digital media use since digital media users have access to different views which is not always the case for users of non-digital media. It is hoped that the typology of media literacy presented in this article will be critically discussed and utilized in future studies in the field.

In the early days of the Internet, philosophers, consumers, engineers, and futurists wondered what Web 1.0, the initial stage of the world wide web, might look like. At the time, there was not even a space called the world wide web, let alone the moniker “Web 1.0.” As the Internet flourished, consumers were spun into its sticky, silky residue. More connections and devices heralded in Web 2.0, including changes in both the form and the content of digital media. Now, with Web 3.0 right around the corner as we head into the thirtieth year of widespread web use, we explore the digital attitude adopted towards digital media in contemporary society. The idea of an attitude suggests the typical way we are feeling about a certain thing at the time. How do users and consumers and human beings in general assess their digital media use and understanding? Lines blur between where contents and forms begin and end. The digital media “content” needs a device and the “device” needs content to engage the consumer/user. Form comes through technological, electronic, digital, and device driven ways. Content proliferates through media through a variety of user generated programming, visuals, sound, apps, games, TV shows, billboards, and software. The combination of these elements provides digital media with its spreadable and participatory nature. This reflection considers the digital attitude as it relates to the human-technology experience approaching the Web 3.0 era. Does the web+digital+media’s ubiquity highlight or in some way name a new or different kind of in-between and taken-for granted attitude? Ideas from of Don Ihde, Alfred Schutz and Thomas Luckman, Marshall McLuhan, and Peter-Paul Verbeek are considered.

This article explores the ethical dimension of digital voice assistants from the angle of postphenomenology and the technological mediation approach, whereby technology plays a mediating role in the human-world relations. Digital voice assistants, such as Amazon Echo’s Alexa or Google’s Home, increasingly form an integral part of everyday life for many people. Powered by Artificial Intelligence and based on voice interaction, voice assistants promise constant accompaniment by answering any questions people might have and even managing the physical space of their homes. However, while accompanying daily lives of people, voice assistants also seamlessly redefine the way people talk, interact and perceive each other. In view of their intentionalities, such as interaction by voice, command-based model of communication and development of attachment, digital voice assistant mediate the norms of interaction beyond their immediate use, the way people perceive themselves, those around and form consequent normative expectations. The article argues that understanding how technologies, such as digital voice assistants, mediate our moral landscape forms an essential part of media literacy in the digital age.

As an uncritical theoretical presupposition, the notion of literacy has led to formalistic, bookish philosophy. The constipated philosophical discourse adjudged worthwhile by literati and digirati falls historically into a line of dogmatic argument and counterargument within academic tradition submerged in subjective-idealist solipsism, petit-bourgeois political apologetics, and economic escapism. Careerist generalization of literacy from the ability to read print to include metaphoric uses of the term “literacy” to all media, while comfortably foggy to irrationalists, adds little to our understanding of print or other media except by increasing the gloom that prevails among privileged, neo-liberal pettifoggers.

This paper is a review of WikiLeaks—a prominent name in digital dissent. It was founded by Julian Assange in 2006. Since its inception, the organization has been exposing classified state and corporate documents on its website to common users of the Internet. Anonymous whistleblowers provide WikiLeaks with content. It creates a new methodology of uniting digital media and journalism. It uses information in an unprecedented way to reveal state and corporate transgressions. This paper analyses how WikiLeaks contributes to information-based capitalism. While the site is a commendable venture to reveal state and corporate secrets, WikiLeaks is not free from its flaws. This paper critiques the way Assange robs whistleblowers of their identities and voices and presents himself as a surrogate hero.

Expecting that media and/or digital technologies “do” things (Verbeek), we are called upon to take a stance on them, theoretically as well as practically. Media literacy represents one such stance—we are prodded to be literate about media—but there are others. To this extent media literacy is a lens through which we look at issues and that shapes what we see. This becomes particularly clear when we consider another lens, namely, that of media health. While media literacy suggests a rather pragmatic way of doing, making do with what is on offer, the image of media health dramatically alters the starting point: media are seen here as affecting us, even to the extent that we become sick and need to be cured. This image or model of media as somehow related to disease and health is developed in varying degrees of explicitness in the work of Bernard Stiegler and Marshall McLuhan among others. In this paper, we investigate the differences between the media literacy and media health models from a meta vantage point and ask how the lens determines how we view and understand certain problems in relation to media/technologies. We do this by deploying a metaphor ourselves, namely that of mold. Our models are molds. They are understood as a “frame or model around or on which something is formed or shaped,” but the connotations of fungal growth helping organic decay and of soil and earth are also at stake. Depending on which meaning we prefer, it might turn out that we do not need to choose between our molds/models: they are interconnected, like mold. On a more theoretical level, we link up the media literacy and media health approaches to two major strands in philosophy of technology, namely to the pragmatist/postphenomenological and transcendentalist/critical streams respectively.