Media ecology and practices of digital pollution

Journal title SOCIOLOGIA DELLA COMUNICAZIONE
Author/s Giovanni Boccia Artieri
Publishing Year 2023 Issue 2022/64 Language Italian
Pages 16 P. 43-58 File size 299 KB
DOI 10.3280/SC2022-064003
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

The paper addresses the issue of digital pollution from the perspective of media-ecological theory. Such an approach is useful in addressing the ideas of "pollution£ and "toxicity" (two words that are indeed part of the ecological semantics) in relation to communication in the public sphere, which today is seen as a crucial site of challenges for democracies. First, the paper traces the theoretical framework of media ecology and how the environmental metaphor helps to frame the problem of maintaining a moral balance in communication. Then, it delves into the issue of media pollution by expanding the environmental perspective through the discussion of social systemic and socio-anthropological approaches. The focus on the system/environment distinction, typical of the social systemic approach, can complement the ecological paradigm in defining the 2ecological threats" attributed to digital space and technologies. The socio-anthropological approach allows a better understanding of how digital pollution relates to the maintenance of social order and the socio-cultural tensions generated along the boundaries of digital practices.

Keywords: media ecology; digital pollution; systemic theory; general ecology.

  1. Esposito E. (2017), Artificial communication? The production of contingency by algorithms, in «Zeitschrift für Soziologie», 46(4), pp.249-265.
  2. Giglietto F., Iannelli L., Valeriani A., Rossi L. (2019), ‘Fake news’ is the invention of a liar: How false information circulates within the hybrid news system, in «Current sociology», 67(4), pp. 625-642.
  3. Goody J. (ed.) (1975), Literacy in traditional societies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  4. Gruppo di lavoro odio online (2021), Rapporto finale, testo disponibile in: https://assets.innovazione.gov.it/1613027971-odio-report-6.pdf (consultato il 20/12/2022).
  5. Haider‐Markel D.P., Joslyn M.R. (2001), Gun policy, opinion, tragedy, and blame attribution: The conditional influence of issue frames, in «Journal of Politics», 63(2), pp. 520-543.
  6. Havelock E.A. (1986), The muse learns to write, Yale University Press, New Haven (CT).
  7. Hepp A. (2020), Deep Mediatization, Routledge, London.
  8. Huesmann L. R. (2007), The impact of electronic media violence: Scientific theory and research, in «Journal of Adolescent health», 41(6), pp. 6-13.
  9. Innis H. A. (1950), Empire and communication, Oxford University Press, New York.
  10. – (1951), The bias of communication, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
  11. Jenkins H. (1999), Congressional testimony on media violence, MIT Communications Forum, testo disponibile in: http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/legacy/papers/jenkins_ct.html (consultato il 20/12/2022).
  12. Kowalski R.M., Limber S.P., Agatston P.W. (2012), Cyberbullying: Bullying in the digital age, John Wiley & Sons, London.
  13. Luhmann, N. (1986), Ökologische Kommunikation: Kann die moderne Gesellschaft sich auf ökologische Gefährdungen einstellen?, Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen; ed. cit. Comunicazione ecologica: può la società moderna adattarsi alle minacce ecologiche?, Franco Angeli, Milano, 1989.
  14. Lum C.M.K. (2000), Introduction: The intellectual roots of media ecology, in «The New Jersey Journal of Communication», 8, pp.1-7.
  15. Marjanovic O., Cecez-Kecmanovic D., Vidgen, R. (2021), Algorithmic pollution: Making the invisible visible, in «Journal of Information Technology», 36(4), pp. 391-408.
  16. McLuhan M. (1962), The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man, University of Toronto Press, Toronto; ed. cit. La galassia Gutenberg. Nascita dell’uomo tipografico, Armando, Roma, 1976.
  17. – (1964), Understanding Media, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York; ed. cit. Gli strumenti del comunicare, Il Saggiatore-Garzanti, Milano, 1974.
  18. Mejias U.A., Couldry N. (2019), Datafication, in «Internet Policy Review», 8(4).
  19. Meyrowitz J. (1985), No Sense of Place, Oxford University Press, New York.
  20. Morin E. (1977), La méthode. Tome I: La nature de la nature, Seuil, Paris.
  21. Mumford L. (1934), Technics and civilization, Harcourt Brace, New York.
  22. – (1938), The culture of cities, Harcourt Brace, New York.
  23. Nagle J.C. (2009), The idea of pollution, in «UC Davis Law Review», 43(1), pp. 1-78.
  24. Nakamura L., Stiverson H., Lindsey K. (2021), Racist zoombombing, Routledge, London.
  25. Obama B. (2017), President Obama’s Farewell Address: Full Video and Text, in «The New York Times», January 10, testo disponibile in: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/politics/obama-farewell-address-speech.html (consultato il 20/12/2022).
  26. Ong W.J. (1982), Orality and literacy, Methuen, London.
  27. Paz M.A., Montero-Díaz J., Moreno-Delgado A. (2020), Hate speech: A systematized review, in «Sage Open», 10(4), pp. 1-12.
  28. Phillips W. (2018), The oxygen of amplification, in «Data & Society», testo disponibile in: https://datasociety.net/wpcontent/uploads/2018/05/FULLREPORT_Oxygen_of_Amplification_DS.pdf (consultato il 20/12/2022).
  29. Postman N. (2000), The Humanism of Media Ecology, in «Proceedings of the Media Ecology Association», 1, pp. 10-16.
  30. Sarine L. E. (2012), Regulating the social pollution of systemic discrimination caused by implicit bias, in «California Law Review», 100, pp. 1359-1399.
  31. Sapir E. (1921), Language, Harcourt Brace, New York.
  32. Schlüter C., Kraag G., Schmidt J. (2021), Body Shaming: an Exploratory Study on its Definition and Classification, in «International Journal of Bullying Prevention», pp.1-12.
  33. Eisenstein E. (1979), The printing press as an agent of change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  34. Douglas M., Wildavsky A. (1983), Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers, University of California Press, Berkeley.
  35. Douglas M. (1966), Purity and Danger, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
  36. Clinton H. (2010), Remarks on Internet Freedom, January 21, testo disponibile in: https://2009-2017.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2010/01/135519.htm (consultato il 20/12/2022).
  37. Carter C. (2003), Violence and the Media, McGraw-Hill Education, London.
  38. Bucher T. (2018), If... then: Algorithmic power and politics, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  39. Boccia Artieri G., Gemini L., Pasquali F., Carlo S., Farci M., Pedroni M. (2017), Fenomenologia dei social network. Presenza, relazioni e consumi mediali degli italiani online, Guerini, Milano.
  40. Bentivegna S., Boccia Artieri G. (2021), Voci della democrazia. Il futuro del dibattito pubblico, il Mulino, Bologna.
  41. Bentivegna S., Boccia Artieri G. (2020), Rethinking public agenda in a time of high-choice media environment, in «Media and Communication», 8(4), pp. 6-15.
  42. Agrawal S.R. (2021), Digital pollution and its impact on the family and social interactions, in «Journal of Family Issues», 42(11), pp. 2648-2678.
  43. Segerberg A., Bennet, W. L. (2011), Social media and the organization of collective action: Using Twitter to explore the ecologies of two climate change protests, in «The Communication Review», 14(3), pp. 197-215.
  44. Shannon C.E., Weaver W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication, University of Illinois Press, Champaign.
  45. Sorice M. (2020), La piattaformizzazione della sfera pubblica, in «Comunicazione Politica», 3, pp. 371-388.
  46. Strate L. (1999), Understanding MEA, «In Media Res», 7(1), pp. 1-2.
  47. Sunstein C.R. (2009), Republic.com 2.0, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
  48. Tucker J. A., Guess A., Barberá P., Vaccari C., Siegel A., Sanovich S., Stukal D., Nyhan B. (2018), Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation: A review of the scientific literature, Report for William + Flora Hewlett Foundation, testo disponibile in: https://www.hewlett.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Social-Media-Political-Polarization-and-Political-Disinformation-Literature-Review.pdf (consultato il 20/12/2022).
  49. Valigia Blu (2017), Hate speech, etica e responsabilità giornalistica, in «Valigia Blu», 29 giugno, -- testo disponibile in: https://www.valigiablu.it/hate-speech-giornalismo/(consultato il 20/12/2022).
  50. van Dijck J., de Waal M., Poell, T. (2018), The Platform Society: Public Values in a Connective World, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  51. Wiener N. (1948), Cybernetics, or control and communication in the animal and the machine, The MIT Press, Cambridge (MA).
  52. Whorf B.L. (1956), Language, thought and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, The MIT Press, Cambridge (MA).
  53. Zuboff S. (2015), Big other: surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization, in «Journal of information technology», 30(1), pp.75-89.

Giovanni Boccia Artieri, Ecologia dei media e pratiche di digital pollution in "SOCIOLOGIA DELLA COMUNICAZIONE " 64/2022, pp 43-58, DOI: 10.3280/SC2022-064003